Breaking Annnoucement

ANNOUNCEMENT :

             As of January 19, 2013 Mr. Fran Hoefer has assumed total ownership, management and editorial responsibilities for the Inside Middletown Schools Blog. 

City of Middletown Wins Article 78 Appeal Against Middletown School District

Court Decision On Article 78 Appeal

Decided on June 13, 2012 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
MARK C. DILLON, J.P. 
THOMAS A. DICKERSON 
L. PRISCILLA HALL 
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ. 
2011-03532
(Index No. 7804/10) 

[*1]In the Matter of Enlarged City School District of Middletown, respondent, 

v

City of Middletown, et al., appellants.

Richard Guertin, Corporation Counsel, Middletown, N.Y. (Alex 
Smith and Robert N. Isseks of counsel), for appellants. 
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Rochester, N.Y. (Edward P. 
Hourihan, Jr., and Joseph S. Nacca of 
counsel), for respondent. 
John A. Mancini, Albany, N.Y., for amicus curiae New York
State Conference of Mayors and 
Municipal Officials and Michael E. 
Kenneally, Albany, N.Y., for amicus curiae 
Association of Towns of the State of 
New York (one brief filed). 
Jay Worona and Kimberly A. Fanniff, Latham, N.Y., for amicus 
curiae New York State School Boards 
Association, Inc. (one brief filed). 


DECISION & ORDER

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Middletown dated March 26, 2010, purportedly declining to review the petitioner/plaintiff's application for approval to connect a building to the sewer system of the City of Middletown unless and until the petitioner/plaintiff paid for the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a certain existing sewer line owned and operated by the City of Middletown, and action for a judgment declaring, among other things, that a city may not require a city school district to pay for the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of an existing city sewer line as a precondition to the consideration and review of any application by the school district for a permit connecting a school district's new building to that sewer line, the respondents/defendants appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Lubell, J.), dated January 26, 2011, which, in effect, granted the petition, annulled the determination, granted the petitioner/plaintiff's motion for summary judgment declaring, inter alia, that a city may not require a school district to pay for the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of an existing city sewer line as a precondition to the consideration and review of any application by a city school district for a permit to connect its new building to that sewer line, and, in effect, denied the respondents/defendants' application to dismiss the complaint as premature.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, the petitioner/plaintiff's motion is denied, the respondents/defendants' application is granted, and the complaint is dismissed as premature. [*2]

The Supreme Court "may render a declaratory judgment having the effect of a final judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy whether or not further relief is or could be claimed" (CPLR 3001). However, New York courts do not issue advisory opinions (see e.g. Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 NY2d 349, 354). Thus, a declaratory judgment should only be granted when it will have a direct and immediate effect upon the rights of the parties (see Koehler v Town of Smithtown,305 AD2d 550, 551; Matter of United Water New Rochelle v City of New York, 275 AD2d 464, 466; cf. Hussein v State of New York, 81 AD3d 132, 135; Rockland County Multiple Listing Sys. v State of New York, 72 AD2d 742). "The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to actions for declaratory judgments," although there are exceptions available where, inter alia, "resort to administrative remedies would be futile or would cause irreparable injury" (Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812, 815, lv granted 17 NY3d 716; see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57; Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1, 3-4). In order to be amenable to declaratory relief, "[t]he dispute must be real, definite, substantial, and sufficiently matured so as to be ripe for judicial determination" (Waterways Dev. Corp. v Lavalle, 28 AD3d 539, 540; see Ashley Bldrs. Corp. v Town of Brookhaven, 39 AD3d 442;Bauer v Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, 91 AD2d 730). Consequently, the request for a declaratory judgment is premature "if the future event is beyond the control of the parties and may never occur" (New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey, 42 NY2d 527, 531; see American Ins. Assn. v Chu, 64 NY2d 379, 385, cert denied 474 US 803; Capital Dist. Enters., LLC v Windsor Dev. of Albany, Inc., 53 AD3d 767; Tucci v Talon Seafood S., Inc., 27 AD3d 642, 644; Kings Park Indus., Inc. v Affiliated Agency, Inc., 22 AD3d 466, 467). The threat of a hypothetical, contingent, or remote prejudice to a party does not represent a justiciable controversy (see Ashley Bldrs. Corp. v Town of Brookhaven,39 AD3d 442; Waterways Dev. Corp. v Lavalle, 28 AD3d at 540; Fragoso v Romano, 268 AD2d 457).

Here, the record reveals that the petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter the petitioner) commenced the instant hybrid proceeding and action in the midst of discussions with the respondents/defendants (hereinafter the appellants) regarding the petitioner's application for a water and sewer permit to service the new building it planned to construct. However, there is no evidence that the appellants ever refused to review the petitioner's permit application or asserted a formal set of conditions that the petitioner had to meet before the permit application would be reviewed. Moreover, there was no denial of the permit application, and the permit was not issued subject to any set of conditions. Rather, the evidence showed that the Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Middletown, who was responsible for reviewing the application and issuing the permit (see Code of the City of Middletown § 389-1[A]), did not receive the properly stamped plans from the petitioner, which were necessary to review the permit application, until the same day that the instant proceeding/action was commenced. Thus, the underlying dispute concerning the extent of the City's authority is not ripe for judicial review, and there is no justiciable controversy upon which the court may properly render a declaratory judgment (see Matter of Town of Riverhead v Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commn., 71 AD3d 679, 680-681; Ashley Bldrs. Corp. v Town of Brookhaven, 39 AD3d 442; Waterways Dev. Corp. v Lavalle, 28 AD3d at 540; Fragoso v Romano, 268 AD2d 457).

Since there is no evidence that the appellants refused to review the petitioner's permit application, the petition seeking relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 must be denied.

In light of our determination, the appellants' remaining contentions have been rendered academic. 
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*3]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Gangs in Middletown High School

According to Mr. Gonzalez, Middletown High School's former executive principal ,  90% of the behavioral problems in the High School are associated with  organized gangs. These gangs are local branches of National organizations.  Neither the seriousness nor the existences of this problem has ever been reported by Dr Eastwood to the public. The board was aware that the building decreased its security and no longer has SRO's. 


This situation is more disturbing given Mr. Estrada's announcement  that the High School administration has moved away from its security model.  Why would the district move away from its priority on security in light of its problem with gangs?  Dr. Eastwood  appears to have ignored this fact in his development of the his reorganization plan.  He previously admitted that he was aware that  Mr. Gonzalezr and other house principals were looking for other positions.  

The degree to which this information was taken into consideration by Dr. Eastwood in his reorganization of  the High School  administration can not be ascertained.  One would hope that his desire to change the High School's administration did not take priority over school security.                    

Legal Update

After the arrest of Mr. Fran Hoefer approximately two years ago, a Federal lawsuit was filed against Dr. Eastwood, Mr Geiger, and the Middletown board of Education for not allowing Mr. Hoefer to speak at a public board meeting, and for his later arrest by Middletown Police. The discovery phase for this case has been completed, and the school district has or will soon file for a summary judgement in this case. The district claims that they were not responsible for the arrest of Mr. Hoefer. However, according to Officer Marcado's police narrative, Mr. Haverlan of school security informed the Middletown police that Dr. Eastwood wanted Mr. Hoefer arrested. In addition, since Dr. Eastwood was the highest ranking administrator in the building at the time, it is difficult to see how and why school security would have contacted the police without his authorization.

Following this incident, a blog was was posted on "inside middletown schools" offering the comments that Mr. Hoefer had planned to give at the board meeting. Subsequently, Dr. Eastwood filed a libel suit against Mr. Hoefer and Dr. Mauro in State Court. In response to this lawsuit, Mr. Hoefer and Dr. Mauro filed a counter suit claiming Dr, Eastwood's lawsuit was without merit and a S.L.A.P.P. lawsuit. As defined by Wikapedia : "A strategic lawsuit against public participation (S.L.A.P.P.) is a lawsuit intended to censor or intimadate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal cost...". Currently, discovery has been completed for these cases. Unless a summary judgement is granted, these cases will go to trial by the end of the year, or the beginning of next year.

To refresh your memory, here's the video clip of Fran Hoefer being removed from the high school: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzjpk1naemI

Middletown High School Administration Shake Up

Buried within the Middletown School District's 20012-2013 budget is a restructuring of the Middletown High School administration. Mr. Gonzalez, executive principal, and all house principal positions have been eliminated. It is common knowledge that the high school has been plagued by student discipline and behavior problems. Televised student award ceremonies, athletic events, student recognition ceremonies, and student performances have helped hide these student behavior and control problems from the public. Student behavior problems at the high school are not new, and have been exacerbated by the elimination of the SRO positions and the down sizing of our security personnel. Last year, some board of education members warned that the loss of SROs and reduced security would have an adverse effect on the ability of personnel to control the behavior of students within the building. These concerns were ignored.

At the same time, the personnel morale at the high school is low, and employee dissatisfaction with the central administration growing. Many of the high school administrators have responded to these problems by looking for new positions outside the district. As reported in the Record, Dr. Eastwood was aware that some school administrators were looking for new positions. One question comes up: Was Dr. Eastwood's new administration reorganization plan for the high school coincidental with its administrators looking for new positions, or a preemptive action to rid the school of administrators who were attempting to leave the problem ridden school ? A administration reorganization would be the only way to get rid of these tenured employees.

We do know that Dr Eastwood's new plan for the high school administration came as surprise, and the board had not been consulted during its development. We also know that the administration's portion of next years budget increased. Therefore, where are the net cost savings, and what was Dr. Eastwood's true motivation for making these changes?

Last year, Inside Middletown Schools reported that a maintenance worker was dismissed from at Chorley after he complained about a mold problem in the building. His dismissal was despite the fact the several teachers in the building wrote letters testifying to the quality of his work ( please read earlier blog). Recently, a substitute teacher was fired personally by Dr. Eastwood after he used a district computer during school time to make an on line correction of a misstatement in the Record concerning the district. Did these people deserve to lose their positions ? Neither the dismissal of these employees, nor the loss of these high school administrators by a new administrative reorganization plan appears to us to be warranted or justified.

The 20012-2013 Middletown School District Budget

If the Middletown School District budget is approved by the voters this May, some district taxpayers will be saddled with a total school taxes increase of approximately 30% for a three year period. In the past, Dr. Eastwood appears to have promoted large school tax increases. Reported in a March, 2005 newspaper article in Oswego's "Palladian Times", Mr. Fisher, Dr. Eastwood's replacement as superintendent stated, "... taxes were increased by 60% in the previous four years..." In Middletown. for the past three years, Dr. Eastwood and his supporters on the board of education have refused to make the necessary cuts in staff and program to avoid raising our taxes. Rather, they complain about the Governor's cuts in state aid, the legislature's refusal to get rid of mandates, and how unfair is the need to have a 60% plus 1 vote on the budget to override the tax cap.

Neither Dr. Eastwood nor his board have given little more than lip service to the financial problems of district taxpayers. Even the fact that approximately 450 house in Middletown are in danger of foreclosure for non payment of taxes has had any effect on them from increasing your taxes again this year. After playing the blame game, Dr. Eastwood and his supporters refuse to accept the fact that our local tax payers can no longer afford to make up for cuts in state aid. They appear to be out of touch with tax payers, and to be living in an ivory tower or dream world. For example, they appear to believe that paying over a half a million dollars more for "better bricks" or more expensive granite rather than concrete curbing constitute a prudent use of limited public funds. The fact that we are even building a new school in these hard times brings into question Dr. Eastwood's and the board's ability to understand the needs and problems of local taxpayers.

Given the fact that Dr. Eastwood has a salary with benefits between $250,000-$300,000, might make his lack of understanding of the financial problems of district tax payers more understandable. The board's attitude and support for higher taxes is more difficult to explain. As the elect representatives of the public, they should be aware of the financial problems of tax payers as well as the financial needs of the school district. While cutting teaching positions, they even saw fit this year to set aside $13,000 for Dr. Eastwood's raise. Where are their priorities ?

The public needs to come out to vote and oppose increased taxes. Unlike previous years, if this budget is turned down twice by the voters, the contingency budget forced upon the district will have a 0% tax increase. The decision to raise your taxes is in your hands. VOTE NO TO INCREASED SCHOOL TAXES !!!

Eastwood deposition about physical contact with student

page 37 Eastwood Deposition

4 Q. Now, is it your testimony that you had no physical contact with the student?

6 A. No, it's not my testimony.

7 Q. So to your knowledge you did have physical contact with the student; is that correct?

10 A. Correct

11 Q. Was it a female student you had contact with?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Was it in a hallway?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you initiate the physical contact?

17 A. Yes.

Eastwood Deposition page 221

line 21 Q. Was your daughter's chemistry grade

line 22 changed?

line 23 A. Yes

Breaking News: Dr. Kenneth Eastwood's Depositions To Be Released!

Inside Middletown Schools contributer Francis Hoefer from Oswego, NY will soon be releasing excerpts of Dr. Kenneth Eastwood's deposition in his state case in which Dr. Eastwood sued him for libel over allegations made by Hoefer which first appeared on "Inside Middletown Schools."

(See: http://bit.ly/tTQTBq, http://bit.ly/tjvOyG, http://bit.ly/rYjMPU)

In these documents, you will be able to read Dr. Eastwood's own words -- no editorializing, no editing -- the whole truth and nothing but the truth -- straight from Dr. Eastwood himself.

Did Dr. Eastwood really "attack" a female student? Did Dr. Eastwood openly support a male staffer who was busted for drugs for a position in the Oswego school district? Up until now, Eastwood has denied - and has gone as far as refutting these allegations. But was he telling the truth? You be the judge! Stay tuned and check "Inside Middletown Schools" often for these explosive releases!

WARNING TAXPAYERS: HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLETS!!!!

We at Inside Middletown Schools predict that the Middletown School District will attempt to override the tax cap, and significantly raise taxes for the third year in a row. In the past two school years, in some parts of the district, the school district has raised taxes by over 20%. This may be the year in which school taxes may increase by over 30% in three years. Can you afford to pay this increase?

For the past two years, Dr. Eastwood has asked the tax payers to compensate for the State's cuts in our district's school aid, and blamed Governor Como. The district tax payers have picked up the tab for the State's reduction in school aid for the past two years in a row. At the same time, even though the school district's budget has not increased, it has never fully decreased its spending enough to adapt to its reduction in State aid. In order to prevent a yearly request of taxpayers for more money, much larger cuts in the district's budget need to be made. Dr. Eastwood should stop blaming Governor Como for the district's current financial situation, and make the necessary spending cuts to prevent this reoccurring problem. Regardless of the value of its programs, the district must keep within the ability of its taxpayers to pay more taxes. It appears that the Governor's tax cap was designed just for districts like Middletown.

As we enter the board's development of next year's school budget, this scenario is how Inside Middletown Schools predicts the district will request an override of the tax cap and a large increase in school taxes. Initially, Dr. Eastwood will present a budget within the governor's tax cap, and complain about the Governor's cut in State aid. This budget will have cuts to programs such as ROTC. Dr. Eastwood already knows that these programs are highly supported by the public. He also will claim that the progress made by the district in addressing its identified status will be jeopardized. Subsequently, his supporters on the board will do the dirty work and ask to override the tax cap and approve a higher tax levy.

What is the basis for our prediction? First of all, this scenario is exactly what has happened for the previous two years. Secondly, regardless of the fact the the district's reserves are higher than allowed by State Law, and are one the highest of any district within the State, the district has stubbornly refused to use any of these funds to decrease the tax rate. One should remember that these funds accumulate as the result of monies unused in a given year's budget; thus, may be considered over taxation. Thirdly, the resent comments by Dr. Eastwood, and many board members predicting the academic consequences for not increasing the budget, and their comments about the tax cap. They have all disregarded the fact that by overriding the tax cap they are really saying that YOU can afford to pay more taxes.

There is one addition point that the voter need to consider about the new developing budget. Namely, that the administration and many board members are counting on the fact that only those with a vested interest in overriding a tax cap and approving a large tax increase will vote. If you do not approve of higher school taxes, you must oppose and vote against any budget that attempts to override the tax cap.

UPDATE : Special Treatment For Athletes In Summer School?

In response to our earlier posting of Dr. Mauro's email to Mr. Estrada (see copy of email below), Inside Middletown Schools was contacted by a school employee and given an update about this matter. According to the employee, the district did attempt to offer a special math course to four graduated student athletes. The district only suspended these efforts after being informed that the NCAA would not accept this special course. At the same time, our posting of Dr. Mauro's email has kicked up a firestorm and an investigation by the district's labor attorneys about special treatment for athletes in summer school. To our knowledge, both district employees and board members have been questioned. Inside Middletown Schools questions the need for this investigation. One would think Dr.Eastwood should be aware of all the facts surrounding this matter. Could the true purpose of this investigation be to uncover the source(s) for these information leaks and/or to intimidate employees about releasing future information ? To date, the administration has neither commented nor clarified this matter. We await their response.

Did Dr. Eastwood Give Special Treatment to Student Athletes in Summer School?

The following is a transcript of an email sent to Mr. Estrada on September 26, 2011 at 11:09. The Board of Education, Teacher Union President, Ms. Esposito, and High School Principal, Mr. Gonzalez were copied.

Subject: Summer Hiring

From this email and Ken's earlier email, I gather that there may be some dissension in the ranks. What is this all about? I did hear an unconfirmed rumor that Ken hired a teacher for summer school to teach a non remedial math course to only four athletes. This type of course offering would be contrary to past practices. I gather that these graduated students needed this course in order to accept their athletic scholarships, and the students were given credit for this course even without completing the required weeks for summer school. Special treatment? Visions of Newburgh? Please confirm or deny this rumor.

To date, no reply has been given, and none is anticipated. As a point of fact, summer school is suppose to be only for remedial work,and class size is usually about 25 students. The public has the right to have the substance of this rumor confirmed or denied, and the right to know if special treatment was arranged for some students.

Dr. Nicholas A. Mauro

Is Validation Study of the District's Academic Achievements Just Another Con?

At the September 1 meeting of the Middletown Board of Education, Dr. Eastwood had a paid consultant present his Validation Study on the district's academic accomplishments. According to the presenter, his study was based primarily on data and information derived from State testing. This article by Susan Edelman in The New York Post brings into question the value, credibility, and reliability of State educational testing, and the derived information about education provided to the public by the State. Since any study can only be as sound as the data and information from which it is derived, both the conclusions of the current Validation Study and academic accomplishments of Dr. Eastwood's administration become questionable. Please read the article and draw your own conclusions.

Fund Balance Reserve vs Employees and Taxpayers

For the past few years, the Middletown School District has only appeared to to use its fund balance reserve to offset higher taxes. Although it has applied from about 4.8-5.2 million dollars for each budget year, these funds were immediately replenished by monies collected by a tax levy surplus and/or from the state aid package. State Education Law section 1318 limits the size of the tax levy surplus to 4% of the upcoming school year budget. Currently, in the Middletown school district, this amount is approximately 3.7 million dollars.

Let's illustrate how this process works. According to the district's June 30,2010 auditor report, for the 2010-2011 school year, the district had approximately 16.8 million dollars in its unreserved fund balance. Approximately 4.8 million form the reserve fund was applied to the 2010-2011 school year budget. This left about 12 million dollars in fund balance. As of March 2011, according to Sate Comptroller, this reserve fund had been replenished by 4 million dollars, and contained about 16 million dollars. This amount is sixth largest fund balance in the state.

During the same time period, using the excuse of a $400,000 shortfall in state aid, the district eliminated 26 position, and raised taxes by about 12% in some parts of the district. Clearly, the first priority of the district is the preservation of its fund balance and not employee retention nor lower taxes.

Currently, in the proposed 2011-2012 year budget, the district has proposed to apply approximately 5.0 million dollars from the reserve fund balance, cut 97 positions, and have a 7.99% tax levy increase. If the same priorities hold, we can expect a replenishment of reserve funds at the expense of both employees and taxpayers.

The administration has justified its position for maintaining a large fund balance in order to keep its high bond rating, and as a reserve for paying tax certiorari. According to their records, although they claim that the district has 25 million dollars in potential tax certiorai, they paid out only about 1.27 million dollars in the 09/10 school year, and a similar proportional amount this year to date. We must ask: If the district is so concerned about its 25 million dollars in potential tax certiorari, why did they start construction on a new 67 million dollar elementary school? The administration can not have it both ways.

In the May vote, the voter needs to decide whether or not they will support a large increase in taxes, and massive employee cuts. The district needs to do more than make a show of its use of its fund balance, and should use part of its reserves to maintain its workforce and lower taxes.

Vote No On The Proposed Budget!

Will Middletown's Voters Say No to Higher School Taxes?

After voter approval and the application of tax equalization, the Middletown school tax rate will be increase by over 25% in two years for some areas within the district. Recently, in response to Governor Cuomo's comments that the State's financial contribution to public school will not increase significantly next year, Dr. Eastwood predicted a further large increase in school taxes for next year. These facts paint a grim picture for Middletown School District's taxpayers. Based on assessed valuation, the taxpayers within the Middleton school district already pay more proportionally in real estate taxes than people in New York City or more prosperous areas.

During Dr. Eastwood superintendency, the district has improved with the addition of many new programs and improved facilities. The question becomes - Can the tax payers within our district afford all these new programs, the added expenses of a new elementary school, and maintain the school district in its current expanded form? I must answer NO! It is like a person who owns a big expensive car when he can only afford a used car. Something must be done. Admittedly, some of the current programs are financed by grants. However, grants run out, and previously funded programs eventually are financed often by the district budget.

For two years in a row, Dr. Eastwood and the board have refused to develop a long term plan to fully deal with the problem of decreased State funding. Although cuts in spending and personnel have been made, no long term plan to scale back and retrench the district to an affordable level have been developed. Dr. Eastwood and the board majority have merely complained about the Governor's cuts, taken a band-aid approach to the budget, refused to use any of its sixth largest reserve fund in the state to lower taxes, fought to maintain the district in its current form, and asked the taxpayer to pay through the nose to maintain the status quo. This approach is unacceptable.

In the upcoming school elections, the voters will have the opportunity to stop the current madness and say no to a proposed school budget tax increase. They also should refuses to elect board members who support higher school taxes. If you do not come out now to vote to oppose paying more tax money than you can afford, when will you come out to vote. The choice is yours. Vote No!

Is There Still a Mold Problem in Chorley?

At the February 17 meeting of the Board of Education, Dr. Eastwood informed the public that black mold spores were not detected in Chorley elementary school. However, his announcement glossed over the fact that mold spores from many different species can induce allergic reactions in susceptible individuals. Some of the symptoms of mold spore allergies are running nose, nasal congestion, and irritation to the nose, throat, or lungs. More information about mold spore allergies may be obtained from your physician or the Department of Public Health.

Historical, the persistent and periodic water leaks in this building are well known. It is the moisture from these leaks that creates the perfect environment for mold growth. Since mold spores are always found upon examination, according to the State Health Department, the existence of persistent water leaks in a building may be sufficient grounds for initiating legal action for mold spore exposure. Recently, after an employee in Chorley reported that both he and his daughter were suffering from allergies that they attributed to mold spores in Chorley, he was dismissed. Please refer to an earlier blog. We also have received unconfirmed reports that other Chorley employees may be suffering from allergies that they attribute to mold spore exposure. These individuals are afraid to come forward out of fear of administrative reprisals. We will inform the public of further developments.

Employee Dismissed After Making Complaint of Mold in Chorley

By a one vote margin of five to four, The Middletown Board of Education upheld Dr. Eastwood's recommendation to dismiss a non instructional employee who had complained of an adverse reaction to mold spores in Chorley. After complaining that both he and his daughter suffered from respiratory problems they associated with exposure to mold spores in Chorley's air, he was informed by his superior in the school administration that, " He was not a team player ", and would be dismissed.

As is typical in these situations, his dismissal was attributed to his work performance, and signed letters attesting to the quality of his work were ignored. Despite claims by the administration that there is no mold problem in Chorley, and that all water leaks in the roof have been corrected, we at Inside Midddletown Schools have been informed that Chorley's roof still periodically leaks. According to the State Health department, the existence of a leaking roof is sufficient grounds for potential litigation for mold. At this time, it is uncertain whether or not this former employee will sue on behalf of his daughter and himself for alleged exposure to mold spores and/or will sue the district over his dismissal claiming he was a "whistle blower".

Eastwood threatens to back out of Channel 20 at a detriment to our students

According to Mayor DeStefano, in response to the formation of the Community Access Committee, Dr. Eastwood has indicated that the school district may end its participation in Ch 20. This position was presented to the Mayor without consulting the board. Although Mayor DeStefano has informed Dr. Eastwood that the committee will have no or little effect on the school district's current programing, Dr Eastwood has rejected all attempts by the Mayor to work together in the operation of the TV station. It would appear that Dr. Eastwood is incapable working with other individuals unless he is totally in charge, and in total control.

Unfortunately, with his unquestioning support from the board majority, the district may be pulling the plug on their use of Ch 20 in the near future. It is regrettable that the students may lose their ability to participate in Ch 20 because Dr. Eastwood is incapable of working with this new committee, and the Mayor.

Will Dr. Eastwood Allow the Building of the New Elementary School ?

Although a decision on the Article 78 case is expected soon, many people in the district are still confused about the nature of this legal action, and its implications for the building of a new elementary school. The issue being decided by the court is whether or not the school district may legally contribute funds for capital improvements which are not on school property.

In this matter, the city is requesting funds for the improvement of the sewer line which will service the new school. The district asserts that the State Education Department prohibits this type of off site expenditure. The city contends that the Middletown school district and other school districts in the state have contributed to off site projects in the past. It needs to be pointed out that the public will pay regardless of which side wins in court. Since the district comprises more than the city of Middletown, either only the people of Middletown will pay in their city taxes, or all the people in the school district will pay in their school taxes. After deciding this issue on principle, any actual cost to the district will be determined.

In order to facilitate the building of the school, the city has already made a generous settlement offer to the district. If the school district will abide by the court's decision, the city immediately will grant a building permit. Dr. Eastwood has refused to accept this offer, has refused negotiations with the city, and has threatened not to build the new school. As in other matters, even when the needs of our students are at stake, Dr Eastwood appears to be inflexible. Rather, he has chosen to insult the Mayor and city government, and accused them of holding to district hostage. Our concern here at inside Middletown schools is the extent to which Dr. Eastwood will go in order to get his way, and whether or not the needs of our students will be be more important to him than his ego.

Currently, the construction bid have been extended until the end of January. With Dr. Eastwood's support from the majority of the board, the fear is whether or not he will abide by, or appeal the court's decision. His decision to appeal could put the building of the new school in jeopardy. By his refusal not to accept the city's settlement offer, it appears that Dr. Eastwood has already decided to appeal. There are also rumors that Dr Eastwood's fight with the city is a smoke screen for not building the school and for blaming the Mayor and the city. This rumor is based on the suspicion that the district may not have the funds necessary to build the new school. We hope these rumors are false.

Application of the Term Fascist to the Middletown School District

At the November 4th meeting of the Board of Education, the behavior of Mr. Geiger and and Dr. Eastwood was shocking, disturbing, and indicative of a general pattern of behavior. On several occasions he prohibited Mrs. Isseks and Mr. Paul from asking questions. In the process, he both insulted and denigrated them for the nature, and appropriateness of their questions. His response to their asking of probing questions is nothing new, and has been the subject of previous blogs. Mr. Geiger, Dr.Eastwood, and the board majority react aggressively, reflexively, and with hostility to all individuals who question or challenge the image and propaganda promulgated by the district.

The public may remember when Mr. Geiger prevented the Mayor from speaking at a board meeting, and he prohibited a board member from another district form speaking. At that time, Mr. Geiger and Dr. Eastwood had this individual arrested for trespassing, and they both currently are being sued in Federal Court over this incident On several occasions, in the name of maintaining order, Mr. Geiger has prohibited Mrs. Isseks, Dr. Mauro, and Mr. Paul from asking pertinent and relevant questions. At the same time, he does not inhibit his fellow members of the board majority from interjecting statements and asking questions. In sum, all these observations brings us to only one conclusion i.e. Mr. Geiger, Dr. Eastwood, and the board majority are suppressing dissent, and unwanted probing questions.

As part of its definition of Fascism, Webster includes these statements in its definition -

... a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control...
... social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition...

Using this description of fascism, and from the information the public already has about the district, we will leave it to our readers to determine whether or not the term fascist is appropriately applied to the district.