P. 1
The charges filed against Jordan-Elbridge Assistant Superintendent William Hamilton

The charges filed against Jordan-Elbridge Assistant Superintendent William Hamilton

|Views: 2,705|Likes:
Published by The Post-Standard
The Jordan-Elbridge School District on July 9 suspended Jordan-Elbridge. The district has refused to release its charges against Hamilon, saying education law prohibits the release.

The Post-Standard this week has obtained the charges from Hamilton’s lawyer. You can read them below. You can also read Hamilton’s response to the charges here.
The Jordan-Elbridge School District on July 9 suspended Jordan-Elbridge. The district has refused to release its charges against Hamilon, saying education law prohibits the release.

The Post-Standard this week has obtained the charges from Hamilton’s lawyer. You can read them below. You can also read Hamilton’s response to the charges here.

More info:

Published by: The Post-Standard on Nov 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/06/2013

pdf

text

original

JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Office: 9 North Chappell Street· P.O. Box 902, Jordan, NY 13080 Tel: (315) 689-8500' Fax: (315) 689·0084' www.jecsd.org

Marilyn J. Dominick Superintendent of Schools (315) 689-8500 x5001 mdominick@jecsd.org

August 23,2010

Mr. William E. Hamilton 2396 Benson Road Skaneateles, NY 13152

Re: Section 3020-a charges

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

Enclosed please find charges under the New York State Education Law.

In addition, please be advised that pursuant to the Education Law, you are suspended with pay.

Yours very truly,

JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

~~J

Manlyn J. Dominick, Superintendent

MJD/jb

Form 3020-a-l

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department Teacher Tenure Unit Education Building Annex, Room 981 Albany, New York 12234

Notice of Determination of Probable Cause on Charges Brought Against Tenured School District Employee Section 3020-a.~ Education Law

To:

WILLIAM E. HAMILTON, a Tenured Administrator

Address:

2396 Benson Road, Skaneateles, NY 13152

Please be advised that the Board of Education of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District

with offices located at 902 North Chappell Street, Jordan, NY 13080, meeting in executive session on

August 18,2010, has found that there is probable cause for the following charges preferred against you

by Mary Alley, President of the Board of Education for the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

Charges are attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Form 3020-a-l

Within ten (10) days of receipt of these charges, you must elect to request a hearing before an impartial hearing officer; or waive your right to such a hearing. If you have been advised that the charges involve pedagogical misconduct or issue of pedagogical judgment, you may elect to request a hearing before a three member panel. Should you fail to so request or to waive within the specific ten days, the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education will notify both you and the Commissioner of Education that a waiver has been deemed to have occurred and that the Board of Education will meet to determine the case and fix the penalty or punishment, if one is to be imposed.

(Date of Notice)

Copy must be sent to:

Commissioner of Education State Education Department Maryann Fairman, Supervisor Teacher Tenure Unit

Education Building Addition, Room 981 Albany, NY 12234

Attached is a copy of the Rights of Tenured Employees under Section 3020-a of the Education Law. A copy of these charges is being forwarded to the New York State Commissioner of Education, as required by law.

STATE OF NEW YORK

STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Charges Brought by the

JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, and the BOARD OF EDUCATION Thereof,

Employer

CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO EDUCATION LAW §3020(a)

SED File No.

VS.

WILLIAM E. HAMILTON,

Respondent

TO: 'WILLIAM E. HAMILTON 2396 BENSON ROAD SKANEATELES, NY 13152

August 18, 2010

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that in accordance with §3012 and 3020(a) of the Education Law, the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District ("District") and the Board of Education of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District CBoard") (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Employer") hereby charges William E. Hamilton C'Respondent"), with the following charges:

1. Conduct demonstrating immoral conduct,

2. Insubordination,

3. Conduct unbecoming an administrator,

4. Incompetency, and

5. Other just causes for dismissal that establish that the Respondent has engaged in incompetence and insubordination.

CHARGE NO. 1

THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING IMMORAL CONDUCT

1.1.1 That William E. Hamilton, the Respondent is employed by the JordanElbridge Central School District as a tenured administrator serving in the position of Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance.

1.1.2 That the Respondent is certified as a School District Administrator and School Business Administrator. In addition, Respondent is permanently certified Teacher (Math 7-12).

1.1.3 That as an Assistant Superintendent for Business and F inance with certifications in School District Administration, School Business Administration and teacher, the Respondent is expected to know and indeed is required to know OT have a general familiarity with the laws regarding public contracting, purchasing, personnel, procurement and finance.

1. J .4 That as a Certified School District Administrator and School Business Administrator, the Respondent is expected to know and indeed required to know or to have a general familiarity with the laws regarding public bidding and procurement.

1.1.5 That in June of2009 the Respondent requested bids for the removal of brush and shrubs in the District (hereinafter "Brush Removal").

1.1.6 That in June of2009 the Respondent received the following bids for Brush Removal from the following vendors:

a. b. c. d.

Cayuga Tree Service, bidTreelanders, bid-

Bartlett Tree Experts, bid - Griffin Tree Services, bid;-

$13,000.00 $10,000.00 $21,200.00 $16,000.00

1.1.7 That although a Purchase Order (p.O. No. 20091214) was prepared for Treelander's Tree Service on June 30, 2009 for the Brush Removal, Respondent never awarded the contract.

1.1.8 That in April of2010 the Respondent again requested bids for the Brush Removal.

1.1.9 That in April of2010 the Respondent received the following bids for the Brush Removal from the following vendors:

a.

b.

Cayuga Tree Service, bidTreelanders, bid

Bartlett Tree Experts, bid-

$14,790.00 $10.000.00 $21,200.00

c.

2

1.1.10

1.1.11

1.1.12

1.1.13

1.1.14

1.1.15

1.1.16

1.1.17

1.1.18

1.1.19

1.1.20

1.1.21

1.1.22

That on or about April 19, 2010 the Respondent held a meeting at his office with a representative from Cayuga Tree Service and the District's Facility Manager to discuss the bid for the Brush Removal.

That during the April 19,2010 meeting the Respondent verbally negotiated a new bid with Cayuga Tree Service for an amount of $11,500.00 and stated to the representative from Cayuga Tree Service that he was awarded the bid.

That even with the preferential treatment given to Cayuga Tree Service by the Respondent, Cayuga Tree Service was still not the lowest bidder.

That on May 26, 2010 the Respondent directed the District's Director of Operations to award the bid to Cayuga Tree Service.

That the Director of Operations refused to award the bid to Cayuga Tree Service stating III thought we were taking this back to the Board for approval". The Respondent then stated "Never mind - I'll have Fred do it" .

That after the Director of Operations refused to award the bid,

Respondent, in retaliation, refused to speak to her, stopped including her in meetings, and would not inform her on matters that she was working on for the District.

That on or about June 1, 2010 the: Respondent had a meeting with the District's Superintendent of Schools, Board President and Board VicePresident concerning the Brush Removal bid process.

That at the June 1, 2010 meeting.Respondent was evasive and then became belligerent when questioned about his conduct concerning the Brush Removal bid process.

That at June 1,2010 meeting, Respondent ultimately admitted that he: a) negotiated with Cayuga Tree Service a new bid for the Brush Removal; and b) then verbally awarded the bid to Cayuga Tree Service.

That upon information and belief; Cayuga Tree Service was also performing work at Respondent's home in Skaneateles.

That the actions of the Respondent on this occasion also demonstrate consciousness of guilt in that the Respondent acknowledged that he was attempting to circumvent the legal and District process for bidding.

That the actions of the Respondent demonstrate that the Respondent is guilty of conduct demonstrating immoral character.

That in his capacity as Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance and Purchasing Agent the Respondent is not authorized nor permitted to

3

engage in such conduct in violation of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District policy and in violation of the procurement laws.

1.1.23

That the Respondent has engaged in conduct that warrants termination of the Respondent from the services of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

CHARGE NO.2

THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY qF INCOMPETENCY

2.1.1 The employer repeats and realleges all of the foregoing as if fully set forth

herein. .

Respondent's Violation ofProcuriement Policies and Laws

i

2.1.2 That as the Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance, Respondent

should and is required to have knowledge of the public contract, bidding and procurement requirements arid should have known how to properly procure services from a vendor. .

2.1.3 That the Respondent knew or should have known the type of bids that were required for the Brush Removal and that it was improper to conspire with a bidder during the bid process to provide one vendor with special treatment.

2.1.4 That Respondent knew or should!have known that it was improper to meet with one vendor and provide that vendor with information from other providers and then allow the one vendor the opportunity to verbally lower his bid for the Brush RemovaL

2.1.5 That Respondent knew or should.have known that it was not proper or prudent use of taxpayer funds and that bids are to be awarded to the lowest

responsible bidder. '

2.1.6 That if, in fact, the Respondent did not know the proper rules, Laws and/or procedures regarding public bidding and procurements then the Respondent is incompetent in the performance of his duties and as such

should be dismissed. .

2.1.7 That an awareness as to the relevant bidding and procurement laws and regulations, as well as an awareness of the proper procurement policies and practices, is so fundamental to the appropriate operation of a school business office, that the Respondent is guilty of incompetence if he is not aware of those rules and regulations.

2.1.8 That Respondent has engaged in conduct that warrants termination from the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

4

Respondents Breach Of Worker's Compensation Insurance Contract

2.2.1

That as the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance, the

I

Respondent should and is required to have a general knowledge of

contracts and the ability to read and understand the language contained therein and understand the serious' ramifications associated with breaching a contract.

2.2.2

That on or about July 1, 1994, the !District entered into a contract with New York State Public Trust for Worker's Compensation Insurance ("Worker'S Compensation Insurance Contract").

That the Worker's Compensation Insurance Contract contains a termination provision requiring that 120 days' notice be provided prior to cancellation.

2.2.4

That on May 25, 2010 Respondent canceUed the Worker's Compensation Insurance Contract with New York State Public Trust without giving New York Public Trust the required 120 days' notice thus breaching of the

Contract. !

That Respondent was not authorized by the Board or the Superintendent to cancel the Worker' s Compensation Insurance Contract.

That Respondent disregarded District policies and procedures and failed to report this cancellation to the proper authorities in the District.

2.2.5

2.2.6

2.2.7

That Respondent knew or should have known that his unilateral cancellation of the District's Worker's Compensation Insurance was improper under the Contract

That if, in fact, the Respondent did not know the proper procedures for cancelling a contract, then the Respondent is incompetent in his duties and

as such should be dismissed. .

2.2.8

2.2.9

That Respondent has engaged in conduct that warrants termination from the services of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

I

I

Respondent's Breach OfThlrd PartY Administrator Contract

I

2.3.1 On or about January 1,2009 the District entered into a contract with PenServ Plan Services, Inc. as a Third Party Administrator ("Third Party

Administrator's Contract"). '

i

2.3.2 That the Third Party Administrator's Contract contains a termination

provision requiring at a minimumiou days' notice be provided prior to

cancellation. .

5

2.3.3 That on April 29, 2010 Respondent cancelled the Third Party Administrator's contract without providing PenServ Plan Services, Inc. the required termination notice thus breaching the Contract.

2.3.4 That on May 25,201 0 Respondent' sent an e-mail to District staff stating that PenSenr was not meeting the District's expectations and that the "District will be switching to Omni 11 •

2.3.5 That Respondent was not authorized by the Board or the Superintendent to cancel the Third party Administrator's Contract.

2.3.6 That Respondent disregarded District policies and procedures and failed to report tbis cancellation to the proper authorities in the District.

2.3.7 That Respondent knew or should have known that his unilateral cancellation of the District's Thirdll'arty Administrator's Contract was improper under the Contract.

2.3.8 That if, in fact, Respondent did not know the proper procedures for cancelling a contract, then the Respondent is incompetent in his duties and should be dismissed.

2.3.9 That Respondent has engaged in conduct that warrants termination from of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

2.4.1

Respondent's Failure To Follow Civil Service Law

That the Respondent in his capacity as Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance is also responsible for the personnel functions in the

I)istrict. i

That Respondent as the Assistant Superintendent should have known and is required to know the basic requirements associated with the hiring, retention and termination of public employees and the Civil Service Laws.

That the Respondent maintained temporary employees on a full time basis during 2008-2009 that resulted in the District paying $47,430.59 to Kelly Services.

That the Respondent maintained temporary employees on a full time basis during 2007-2008 that resulted in the District paying $50,296.78 to Kelly Services,

That the Respondent maintained temporary employees on a full time basis during 2006-2007 that resulted in the District paying $29,595.14 to Ke1ly

Services. .

That Respondent's actions were in violation of the Civil Service Laws and rules and was not a prudent use ofttaxpayer money.

That Respondent knew of or should have lmown that employing temporary employees for extended periods of time and hours rather than Civil Service employees was improper,

6

2.4.2

2.4.3

2.4.4

') 4. -

_ ... J

2.4.6

2.4.7

2.4.8 That, if in fact, Respondent did not know the proper procedures for hiring and retaining Civil Service employees, then the Respondent is incompetent in his duties and should be dismissed.

2.4.9 That Respondent has engaged in conduct that warrants termination from the services of the Jordan-Elbridge: Central School District.

Respondent's Failure To Obtain Board Approval For Clerical Position

2.5.1

That the Respondent in his capacity as Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance is also responsible for the personnel functions in the District.

That Respondent as the Assistant Superintendent should have known and is required to know the basic requirements associated with the hiring of public employees and the Civil Service Laws.

That the District hired a part-time sub clerical position filled as a consultant in 2004 at a rate of $131hr.

That the Respondent never presented the Board with a contract for the

part-time clerical position. .

That this sub-clerical position was then moved to an hourly employee in 2005 by Respondent.

That currently this sub clerical part-time position is out of compliance with the Civil Service Law as the working hours have been over 20 hours per week on several occasions that Respondent as Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance should have known.

That the awareness as to the relevant Civil Service Law and regulations is so fundamental to the appropriate operation of a school business office, that the Respondent is guilty of incompetence if he is not aware of those

rules and regulations. '

That Respondent has engaged in conduct that warrants termination from

I

the services ofthe Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

Respondent's Misrepresentations To The Board Concerning Grants On October 1, 2009, the Respondent requested a leave of absence to perform work on the regional feasibility grant, of which the Board granted.

That Respondent's duties were transferred to the Director of Operations and documentation of such are stated in the Board minutes, with a $700.00 Board approved stipend to the Director of Operations for taking on Respondent's additional duties. '

Respondent did not take any leavettime (days) for this, resulting in double payment (he continued to draw a salary and accumulate days).

That Respondent represented to the Board on numerous occasions during 2009-2010 that once BOCES receives the grant funds, BOCES would reimburse the District for his salary and expenses.

2.5.2

2.5.4

2.5.5

2.5.7

2.5.8

2.6.1

2.6.2

2.6.3

2.6.4

7

That the stipulations of the grant funding application clearly provide that salaries are not considered expenditure, and therefore the Respondent's

saiary would not be reimbursable by the grant funds.

That the grant stipulations clearly state a consultant should be hired through a Request For Proposal, which was not performed.

That every meeting Respondent held was during a meal time (breakfast, lunch and/or dinner), resulting in the majority of the expenses charged to

the grant being all food related and were charged by the Respondent to the District through the District's credit card.

That Respondent's conduct has resulted in the jeopardy of reimbursement of District expenditures with grant funding.

That the awareness as to the grant ,provisions is so fundamental that the Respondent should have known the contents and that the Respondent is

guilty of incompetence if he was not aware of the provisions and restrictions in the grant.

That the Respondent has engaged in conduct that warrants the termination from his service with the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

ResDondent's Inadequate Security Of Personnel Files

2.7.] The Respondent as the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance is in charge of the District's Personnel Department.

2.6.5

2.6.6

2.6.7

2.6.8

2.6.9

2.6.10

2.7.2 That Respondent knew or should nave known the laws, regulations and policies regarding the privacy, maintenance and security of personnel files.

2.7.3 Despite this knowledge by the Respondent, not all personnel files contain required documents including, but not limited to, documents that are New York State required, and must be collected and reviewed prior to hiring.

2.7.4 That Respondent allowed non-active employee personnel files are maintained in boxes in an unsecured location.

2.7.5 That the awareness as to the employee confidentiality, employee record keeping and State requirements on same is so fundamental that the Respondent should have known that his actions were improper and if not, then Respondent is guilty of incompetency.

2.7.6 That Respondent has engaged in a series and individual acts of incompetency that warrants the termination from his service with the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

CHARGE NO. 3

3.1.1

THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN ADMINISTAATOR

That the employer repeats and realleges all of the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.

8

3.1.2 That Respondent knew or should have known that as an Administrator he has a responsibility to act in a professional manner.

3.1.3 That Respondent as an Administrator should know of the laws, regulations and policies protecting the rights 01 others including those pertaining to discrimination, whistleblower, defamation and equal rights.

3.1.4 That on numerous occasions during 2009-2010 Respondent did complain to other staff members about the Board referring to the Board collectively as "those damn eight women ".

3.1.5 That in June/July of2010 Respondent in a meeting with District personnel stated that there is a "leak. in the Distri ct Office n concerning the Board's knowledge of Respondent's actions concerning the Brush Removal bid process.

3.1.6

That on several occasions including, but not limited to June 3, 2010 and June 10, 2010 Respondent told a staff member to keep her options open, to get out while she can and that "no one is safe" from the Board.

3.1.7

That during 2009-2010 the Respondent on several occasions made negative comments concerning the Superintendent of Schools, the Superintendent's lack of leadership skills and Respondent would blame the Superintendent for problems in the District.

That Respondent in a conversation with a District employee compared two employees and stated that one male employee is like a "fine wine that he can take all day" and that the female employee is like a "hard whiskey that he can only handle in small amounts".

That Respondent in September 2009 told a female employee that she "was overreacting" when she complained to him that a male employee had stated that she needed to share a room with another male employee during

a conference trip for the District. ' .

That on June 1,2010 Respondent walked into his office in the morning, threw his car keys on a female staff member's desk and directed her to get his belongings out of his car.

That Respondent knew or should have known that his repeated derogatory comments made in work meetings toward women, the Board and the Superintendent of Schools were unbecoming of a school district Administrator and that Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

ResDondent Made Payment Via The District Credit Card For Vehicle And Traffic Violations

That the Respondent was allegedly on a District conference in New York City in 2008.

That Respondent received a Vehicle and Traffic ticket for illegally parking in New York City.

3.1.8

3.1.9

3.1.10

3.1.11

3.2.1

3.2.2

9

3.2.3 That the fine for the violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law by Respondent was $72.00.

3.2.4 That Respondent's Traffic Violation was paid for by the District and ultimately the taxpayers of the District.

3.2.5 That the Respondent should have known that payment for personal traffic violations is not a proper District expense or use of taxpayer money and that the Respondent should be dismissed for his employment in the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

3.2.6 That Respondent has engaged in a.series and individual acts of conduct unbecoming an administrator that warrants his termination from service in the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

CHARGENO.4

THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OFINSUBORINDATION

4.1.1 That the employer repeats and realleges all of the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.

Respondent's Refusal To Comply With The New York State Comptroller and Internal Auditor's Reports

4.1.2 That the Respondent was assigned. administrative rights to the computerized accounting systems..which allows him to have "super user" (full access) rights to all phases of the computerized accounting system.

4.1.3 That this super user access allowed Respondent to add, remove and update users and access rights, and perform other administrative functions including management overrides of system controls he used the system to record journal entries,complete bank reconciliations, create purchase orders, and enter new employees into the payroll system and change existing employees' pay rates.

4.1.4 That ill ~008 the New York State Comptroller's Office conducted an audit of the District and noted that the Respondent should not have "super user" status.

4.1.5 In 2008 the District's Internal Auditor met with the Respondent concerning the New York State Comptroller audit in 2008 and also advised Respondent that he should not have super use status.

4.1.6 That the District's response to the New York State Comptroller regarding the "super user" full access was that the rights were transferred and the Respondent no longer had full access rights.

4.1.7 That later in April 2008, the District's Internal Auditor performed a security check and discovered that Respondent's super user status was restored.

10

4.1.8 That despite statements from the New York State Comptroller and the Internal Auditor advising against Respondent having super user status, Respondent continued to maintain.such status, and otherwise engaged in conduct that amounts to insubordination for which the Respondent should be removed from the employment 'of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

Respondent Engaged In Excessjve and/or Abusive Use Of Meal Reimbursements

4.2.1 That Respondent as the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance supervises the Accounts Payable and Treasury Department as well as being the Purchasing Agent for the District.

4.2.2 That Respondent knew or should have known of the excessive use and/or abuse of meal reimbursements as a repeated comment from April 2009 and August 2009 Internal Audit Reports.

4.2.3 That several claim forms were submitted for meals by the Respondent including dinners for himself and other staff members with a reason of "working late at the office",

4.2.4 That several breakfast and lunch meal claim forms were also submitted and approved by the Respondent for various "official meetings", one being a senior Citizen Christmas luncheon of which both mileage and the meal was reimbursed with taxpayer dollars.

4.2.5 That several same day travels resulted in claim fOIDl reimbursements for breakfast, lunch, snacks, and/or dinner.

4.2.6 That meals/snacks have been purchased through Advanced Meals, the District's food service vendor by various district staff for various meetings/functions. As of July 20'10 these additional meals/snacks amounted to approximately $9,966.67.

4.2.7 That on August 31,2009, M & T credit card statement (of which was automatically paid through a 5 day bank withdrawal), contained a charge by the Respondent of $40.00 for a meal charge with a copy of the receipt attached to the statement for support documentation. Then on September 8, 2009 an Accounts Payable Claim Form was submitted by the Respondent requesting reimbursement for this same meal charge, with the original receipt attached in the amount of $40.00. This reimbursement was processed and the Respondent was reimbursed twice.

4.2.8 That despite such awareness, the Respondent nevertheless violated the findings 9f the Internal Auclitor and otherwise engaged in conduct that amounts to insubordination for which Respondent should be removed from the services of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

ResDondent's Unilateral Allowance for District EXDenditures

4.3.1 The Board adopted and the Respondent should be aware of a resolution regarding fingerprinting reimbursement stating "all per diem and per hour

11

substitute positions, as well as all regularly appointed employees who earn less than the beginning step (currently 6B) on the teachers' salary schedule" are entitled to the reimbursement.

4.3.2 The Treasurer in the District earnsmore than the beginning step and therefore does not qualify for reimbursement and Respondent should be aware of this fact.

4.3.3 The Respondent approved District Treasurer reimbursement for fingerprinting in 2009-2010

4.3.4 That despite such awareness, the Respondent nonetheless violated the Board's directive and authorized payment from taxpayer money for the fingerprinting and otherwise engaged in conduct that amounts be insubordination for which the Respondent should be removed from employment with the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

Respondent's Deletion Of Records From The District's Computer SYstem

4.4.1 That Respondent, as Superintendent of Business and Finance had full access to the District computer system.

4.4.2 Thatthe Respondent maintained District files and information on the District's computer.

4.4.3 That the Respondent knows that the computers and information contained thereon are property of the Employer.

4.4.4 That upon information and belief, after Respondent knew his actions were being investigated, in May, June and July 2010 and prior to Respondent's computer rights being terminated, Respondent deleted his e-mails and calendaring from the District's computer system.

4.4.5 That Respondent's actions have hindered the District's investigation of matters involving the Respondent.

4.4.6 That Respondent knew that the computer documents and information were property of the District and that his deletion of said documents is clear insubordination and warrants Respondent's dismissal from employment with the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District.

4.4.7 That Respondent has engaged in a series and individual acts of insubordination that warrant his termination from service in the JordanElbridge Central School District.

CHARGE NO. 5

THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF OTHER JUST CAUSES FOR DISMISSAL THAT ESTABLISH THAT RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN INCOMPETENCE AND INSUBORDINATION

5.1.1 The employer repeats and realleges all of the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.

12

5.12 That the Respondent has repeatedly engaged in acts of unauthorized purchasing contracting, procurement, payroll, finances, budgeting, deletion of computer files and admission of improper bidding procedures.

5.13 That Respondent is guilty of other just causes for dismissal that establish the Respondent is both incompetent and insubordinate and which conduct justifies the termination from employment of the Respondent forthwith.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that in the event that the Respondent is found guilty of the charges in the above statement, or any portion thereof, or does not request a hearing, the maximum penalty that would be sought would be the penalty of dismissal from the service of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District and in addition; for such other and further relief as to the Hearing Officer may seem just and proper.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the District requests that the Respondent serve upon the District a statement of:

a) An Answer outlining his response to the charges and specifications herein and asserting any alibi or affirmative defenses thereto ifhe has any such alibi or affirmative defenses, and

b) A listing of all names of alibi witnesses or other witnesses that the Respondent intends to call at the hearing of this matter. Such names .are requested to be provided at least seven (7) days in advance of the pre-hearing conference in this proceeding.

Dated: August 18, 2010

Danny Louis Mevec, Esq. Mevec & Cognetti

Attorneys for Jordan-Elbridge Central School District

206 North Townsend Street Syracuse, NY 13203

13

Form 3020-1-i-B

Attach to Form 3020-1-1 (charge')

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department

School District Employer-Employee Relations Unit Education Building Annex, Room 980 Albany, New York 12234

To:

The Commissioner of Education:

CD

I /

d . . ) ..

I :; m \ j -5.L- is sought by the

Supplemental Notification of Board Vote Determination of Probable Cause Section 3020-a, Education Law

As to the charge numbered ONE, affirmed by the Board; the penalty of o rd members, constituting a majority:

A~~~L-~~~ __ (names)

(names)

The following board members, constituting a minority, voted against a penalty of as to charge

numbered, _

1. _

2. _

(names)

4. ~--~-------_

(names)

T~e fOll[:Lb:rs were absent:

~ 3 _

2. 4. ~--~-----------

0ames) 0ame~

1.

TIE BROCK, District Clerk of the Jor an-Elbridge Central School District

II ~

Form 3020-1-i-B

Attach to Form 302G-l-l (charge)

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department

School District Employer-Employee Relations Unit Education Building Annex, Room 980 Albany, New York 12234

Supplemental Notification of Board Vote Determination of Probable Cause Section 3020-a, Education Law

The following board members, constituting a minority, voted against a penalty of as to charge

numbered. _

1. __

3. _

2. ~--------

(names)

4. ~--------------

(names)

Form 3020-1-i-B

Attach to Form 3020-1-1 (charge)

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department

School District Employer-Employee Relations Unit Education Building Annex, Room 980 Albany, New York 12234

The following board members, constituting a minority, voted against a penalty of as to charge

numbered '

1. __

3. ___

2. ~-~-------

(names)

4. ~ __ --~ __ -------

(names)

:f:~~a: members were absent:

f/I~wry/ 3 _

2. 4. ~-~----------

(names) (names)

1.

Form 3020-1-i-B

Attach to Form 3020-1-1 (charge)

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department

School District Employer-Employee Relations Unit Education Building Annex, Room 980 Albany, New York 12234

3,

Supplemental Notification of Board Vote Determination of Probable Cause Section 3020-a, Edhcation Law

Th, Commissioner of Education; @

To:

1.

~,t==<=-""'-"-;_;_- I sought by the

f{{d/2fJ~

:~

I

2.

(names)

The following board members, constituting a minority, voted against a penalty of as to charge

nurnbered j _

1. _

3. _

2. _

(names)

4. __ ~-~------

(names)

(' ~he follotngb~~d members were absent:

)11~~!@J'/ 3. __ --,-- __

2. __ ~--~------- 4. ~-~----------

0ame~ 0ame~

I.

J

Form 3020-1-i-B

Attach to Form 3026-1-1 (charge)

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department

School District Employer-Employee Relations Unit Education Building Annex, Room 980 Albany, New York 12234

The following board members, constituting a minority, voted against a penalty of as to charge

numbered. _

L _

3. _

2. _

(names)

4. ~---------

(names)

3. _

(names)

4. __ ~---------------

(names)

.a(NYSED~:J.

Office of Teaching Initiatives

Educator Resources

Rights of Tenured Employees

Section 3020-a of the Education Law r as amended by Chapter 691 of the Laws of 1994, provides that a tenured school district employee who has been charged with incompetence or misconduct may elect to have a hearing officer review the charges and make findings of fact and recommendations as to penalty or punishment, if warranted, which the board of education must implement within 15 days of their receipt of the recommendations. In cases that involve charges of pedagogical misconduct or issues of pedagogical judgment, the employee may elect to have a three member panel perform this function.

The board of education must first meet to consider the charges. If by a vote of the majority of the board they find probable cause for the charges, the tenured employee must be served with a written copy of the charges by certified mail. The board must also furnish the charged employee with a copy of this document outlining the employee's rights. The board may suspend the employee pending disposition of the charges with pay. The employee may be suspended without pay if the employee has entered a guilty plea to or has been convicted of a felony crime conceming the criminal sale or possession of a controlled substance, a precursor of a controlled substance, or drug paraphernalta as defined in article 220 or 221 of the penal law; or a felony crime involving the physical or sexual abuse of a minor or student. In addition, if the charges are based on failure to maintain certification, the employee must be suspended without pay.

Within ten days of receipt of charges, the employee must notify the school district clerk or the secretary of the board of education whether he desires a hearing on the charges. If the employee desires to waive his right to a hearing, he should file a notice of intent to waive his right to a hearing with the school district clerk or with the secretary of the

board of education and the Commissioner of Education. If the employee fails to waive his right and takes no action within ten days of the receipt of charges, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing. If the employee waives or is deemed to have waived his right to a hearing, the board of education shall then meet and determine the case within 15 days of the receipt of the waiver or within 15 days of the date when the waiver shall .have been deemed to have occurred.

The employee who chooses a hearing should carefully follow each step in the timetable supplied by the Education Department to assure compliance with the law.

If the employee chooses to exercise his right to a hearing, he must so notify the board within ten days of receipt of the charges. This notification should advise the board of the employee's choice of a single hearing officer or a three member panel, if applicable.

The employee will then receive from the school district clerk or the secretary of the board

of education by certified mail, a copy of the Notice of Need for a Hearing. In this notice of need, the employee will find the information regarding the site to be provided for the hearing, the name and address of the attorney who will represent the complainant at the hearing, whether the employee is suspended, with or without pav, an estimate of the number of days required to hear the case, and the name of the panel member, if required.

The Commissioner of Education will then notify the American Arbitration Association (AM) that a hearing will be held, obtain a list of potential hearing officers, and send a copy of such list to the employing board and the employee, or their attorneys, Not later than ten days from the mailing of the list, the board and employee! or their representatives, shall select, by agreement, a hearing officer and notify the Commissioner thereof.

The Commissioner shall notify the hearing officer and confirm by appointment letter his or her acceptance of such selection, Within ten to fifteen days of receipt of this notice from the Commissioner, the hearing officer shall contact the parties and hold a prehearing conference. If the parties fail to notlfy the Commissioner of an agreed upon hearing officer within ten days, the Commissioner shall request AAA to select a hearing officer.

Where a three member panel is to hear the proceeding, the employee shall, within five days after receiving the copy of the notification to the Commissioner of the need for a panel hearing! in writing by certified mail, notify the board and the Commissioner of the name of his or her selection for the hearing panel. If the employee fails to notify the Commissioner and the board as required, the Commissioner shall select the employee panel member.

The hearing will be conducted by the hearing officer who will have been selected from the list supplied by the American Arbitration Association. Each party may subpoena and cross -examine witnesses. (Copies of any subpoenas served on prospective witnesses must be presented to the chairman of the panel at the start of the' hearing.) The employee must have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and an opportunity to testttv on his own behalf. All testimony must be under oath administered by the chairman of the panel.

If the employee or his attorney desires a public hearing, a written demand for such a public hearing must be served upon the hearing officer at least twenty-four hours before the date set for the hearing. The prehearing conference shall be private.

Photographs and recordings may not be made at private hearings. They may be permitted by the hearing officer at public hearings. Representatives of the news media may be present at all public hearings.

At the prenearinq conference, the hearing Officer decides all motions and objections, He may dismiss any or all of the charges, without prejudice to the filing of more specific charges upon motion of the charged party or his representative, if he determines that the charges as filed are lacking in specificity; he may not, however! dismiss the charges for any other reason without the consent of the complainant or his attorney. The hearing

2

officer shall have the power to consolidate with the pending charges amended or additional charges against an employee as to which the board has found that probable cause exists no later than five days before the hearing, provided that the employee may file a waiver of hearing conceming such amended or additional charges with the hearing officer and provided further that charges involving pedagqgical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgement may not be consolidated with pending charges unless the employee has previously exercised his or her right to choose between a single hearing officer and a hearing panel in the request for a hearing.

If a hearing panel member is absent and the hearing officer determines the absence will unduly delay the hearing, he must order a replacement. The party who selected the absent panel member then has two days to select a replacement, or the Commissioner will name a replacement. If the hearing officer needs to be replaced and the parties cannot agree on a substitute, the Commissioner shall request the association to select a replacement. In no event shall a panel hearing proceed except in the presence of two panel members and the hearing officer.

At a hearing, no questions may be addressed to the employee unless he has been sworn as a witness with his own consent. The employee is entitled to receive a copy of the hearing transcript upon request without charge. Memoranda of law may be submitted by the employee or the board of education at the conclusion 'of testimony.

The hearing officer or panel shall make findings of fact on.each charge and recommendations as to disciplinary action, or punishment, if any, against the employee on such charge, which findings of fact and recommendations are then to be submitted by the hearing officer to the Commissioner, no Jater than thirty days after the last hearing. The findings of the panel on each charge and the recommendations of the panel as to disciplinary action, if any, shall be based solely upon the record of the proceedings before the hearing panel and shall set forth the reasons and the factual basts for the determination. Upon forwarding the findings and recommendations to the Commissioner, the hearing Officer declares the hearing concluded,

The Commissioner will immediately forward said findings of fact and the recommendations as to penalty, if any is warranted, to the employee and to the dlstrict clerk or the secretary of the employing board. Within 15 days of the receipt of the hearing officer's decision, the employing board shall implement the recommendations of the panel. If the employee is acquitted of the charges, he, or she must be restored to his or her position with full pay for any period of suspension without pay and the charges expunged from the employment record.

If an employee who was convicted of a felony crime as specified in paragraph (b) of subdivision two of this section has said convtction reversed, the employee, upon application, shall be entitled to have his pay and other emoluments restored, for the period of time extending from the date of suspension to the date of the decision.

Either the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York State Supreme Court to vacate or modify the hearing officer's decision under Section

]

7511 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules. The filing of the pendency of an appeal shall not delay the implementation of the hearing officer's decision.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->