Documents show Truman Moon will close, despite Eastwood remarks to the contrary
In recent remarks, Dr. Eastwood has spoken out against those who say that Truman Moon will be closing. He called the attacks unwarranted and unfounded. Then he called on the "attackers" to produce the documents supporting their accusations. Dr. Eastwood will soon learn that when you call on "Inside Middletown Schools" to produce evidence, that's exactly what you'll get.
In documents exclusively obtained by "Inside Middletown Schools," we are prepared to show you papers that were submitted to the state education department, which clarified in great detail, the reasoning for why the new elementary school needed to be built.
It states, "The new elementary school will be approximately 170,000 square feet and will hold approximately 1,200 students and appropriate faculty. The school will combine the population at the Truman Moon and Chorley Elementary Schools".
There's nothing ambiguous about that, folks!
Now if Dr. Eastwood is claiming that Truman Moon will not be closing, is he also willing to state that Truman Moon will remain an elementary school?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Truth About The Current Sewer Situation
Once again, at the Sept 2nd board of education meeting, Dr Eastwood attempted to portray himself as the defender of the district's children, and the protector of the district from potential legal action. This self serving characterization of himself is ridiculous and a gross exaggeration of the situation. Currently, this issue is before the courts in an article 78, and they will decided the legal aspects of this dispute. Dr. Eastwood's meeting comments appear to be nothing more than a desperate attempt to bolster and defend his image in the eyes of the public. Let's look at the facts.
The cost for the improved sewer will be less than 2% of the total cost of the building, and will come from the same source. Namely, the local taxpayers. The cost will come from either Middletown's city taxes or district school taxes. This point has already been made by the press, and at September 2nd board meeting. If the district loses the case, the legal question of whether or not the district may pay for the sewer improvements will be answered. The district can be pay its fair share for these improvements, and the school can be built. Conversely, if the city loses , the cost can be paid from city taxes. There is no requirement that this issue be appealed by either side. Regardless, local taxpayer will pay for these improvements.
In Dr. Eastwood's resent tirades, the only thing he appears to be defending is his past evaluation of the sewer situation, and his past comments and behavior towards the Mayor. For him to use the construction of this new school as a pawn in this depute, is inappropriate.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Response to Eastwoods Behavior at Board Meeting
To the Middletown community,
I was outraged at Dr. Eastwood's unwarranted and vicious attacks upon the Mayor and myself during the September 2nd meeting of the Board of Education. After the Record's editorial, one would have thought that he would have tempered his remarks. Although he seemed to be able to control his temper earlier in the evening, his final remarks were an unwarranted angry attack upon the Mayor and myself. It appears to me that Ken has a problem with anyone who offers a difference of opinion, or introduces issues not on his personal agenda. Lets not forget, after the initiation of the article 78, it was Dr. Eastwood who started the verbal battle with the Mayor. He accused him of being opposed to the needs of our children. I would like to thank Ken for associating me with the Mayor rather than with himself. Unlike him, we are both life long residents of the city, and our families go back for generations in this area. Since Ken is a very new resident in Middletown, I find it perplexing and presumptuous that he would assume a greater commitment to the needs of our children than us. Moreover, unlike him, we both have been elected to represent the citizens of Middletown.
In Dr Eastwood's tirades, two issues need to be clarified. First, his accusation that I stated a rumor about mold in Chorley. My first email on the subject was a request for an examination of the building. I had heard conflicting comments, and wanted the issue investigated. A copy of this email was also sent to the mayor. Upon this request, I was immediately attack by Dr. Eastwood, and even threatened with legal action. Rather than dealing immediately with this issue, he only had an examination done for mold after the State Health Department was notified about the water leak problem, and information about this problem was placed on the blog. Questions about the potential for future water leaks in this building remain.
Another issue that needs to clarified is concerning the topic of the IEP diploma. I first brought this issue up as part of my discussion of a routine IEP motion; I was prohibited from discussing this issue, and ruled out of order. My response was to vote no on the motion. I will not vote yes on any motion which I am unable to discuss. It would not be correct for me to approve a motion without the necessary information or input. This information was only provided at the next meeting.
Overall I find Dr. Eastwood's behavior disturbing. He often verbally attacks board members at meetings, but hides behind his contract when board members do likewise. First of all, as an employee of the board, he is not in a position to verbally attack any board member, and he often forgets that he is not our boss. He has even gone so far as to use the district web site to attack board members. I am sure that he would not tolerate this behavior from any of his subordinates. I wish he would act accordingly.
Dr. Nicholas A. Mauro
I was outraged at Dr. Eastwood's unwarranted and vicious attacks upon the Mayor and myself during the September 2nd meeting of the Board of Education. After the Record's editorial, one would have thought that he would have tempered his remarks. Although he seemed to be able to control his temper earlier in the evening, his final remarks were an unwarranted angry attack upon the Mayor and myself. It appears to me that Ken has a problem with anyone who offers a difference of opinion, or introduces issues not on his personal agenda. Lets not forget, after the initiation of the article 78, it was Dr. Eastwood who started the verbal battle with the Mayor. He accused him of being opposed to the needs of our children. I would like to thank Ken for associating me with the Mayor rather than with himself. Unlike him, we are both life long residents of the city, and our families go back for generations in this area. Since Ken is a very new resident in Middletown, I find it perplexing and presumptuous that he would assume a greater commitment to the needs of our children than us. Moreover, unlike him, we both have been elected to represent the citizens of Middletown.
In Dr Eastwood's tirades, two issues need to be clarified. First, his accusation that I stated a rumor about mold in Chorley. My first email on the subject was a request for an examination of the building. I had heard conflicting comments, and wanted the issue investigated. A copy of this email was also sent to the mayor. Upon this request, I was immediately attack by Dr. Eastwood, and even threatened with legal action. Rather than dealing immediately with this issue, he only had an examination done for mold after the State Health Department was notified about the water leak problem, and information about this problem was placed on the blog. Questions about the potential for future water leaks in this building remain.
Another issue that needs to clarified is concerning the topic of the IEP diploma. I first brought this issue up as part of my discussion of a routine IEP motion; I was prohibited from discussing this issue, and ruled out of order. My response was to vote no on the motion. I will not vote yes on any motion which I am unable to discuss. It would not be correct for me to approve a motion without the necessary information or input. This information was only provided at the next meeting.
Overall I find Dr. Eastwood's behavior disturbing. He often verbally attacks board members at meetings, but hides behind his contract when board members do likewise. First of all, as an employee of the board, he is not in a position to verbally attack any board member, and he often forgets that he is not our boss. He has even gone so far as to use the district web site to attack board members. I am sure that he would not tolerate this behavior from any of his subordinates. I wish he would act accordingly.
Dr. Nicholas A. Mauro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)