Removal Of BCS Board Members Raised

by Thaddeus Flint
It was a dark and stormy night, outside and inside the aging Berlin Elementary School Tuesday night. But the storm over the Berlin School Board appeared even darker and stormier than the one blowing outside with the revelation that the Board might look into the removal of three of its own members.
[private]The instigator of this storm is the Berlin Elementary School building itself. It slowly crumbles awaiting its fate. While a capital project has been drafted to more or less prop the building up, the $6.8 million phase one of renovations is still missing $5 million due to a continued impasse of the Board to authorize a needed bond flotation to fund it. Three Board members, John Nash, Bev Stewart and Alan Webster Jr., continue to vote No to the Bond authorization for various reasons including the way the project was put together, belief that the public was never presented with any other options and disbelief that spending so many millions will actually be able to save the building in the long term.
A group of residents in the District, apparently tired of reading each month since March that the Board failed once again to achieve the 2/3rds super-majority needed to get the bond rolling, has decided to become a bit more pro-active. A petition was drafted. It begins, “On December 13th, 2011, 481 taxpayers of The Berlin Central School District voted on the Capital Improvement Project. The project was approved with 64% of the votes in favor of the project.” The petition then notes how the needed five votes has proved unattainable. “To date, eight months later, 3 of the 7 board members have refused to vote yes, against the wishes of their constituents who elected them to office.” The petition ends by saying, “We, the taxpayers of The Berlin Central School District request that the bond authorization be passed without further delay and move forward to ensure a safe and healthy learning environment for our children.”
Upon reading this, at least 274 residents put their names to the petition in agreement. Resident JoAnne Kellar, who spoke on behalf of the petitioners to the Board Tuesday night, said that there are even more names but not all the petitions were returned in time.
All this was certainly not unexpected. The will of the majority is being contravened by a minority. What was unexpected however was a cover letter that was added to the petition presented to the Board. The letter asks for the removal of the three Board members.
“The cover letter was not attached to the petition people signed,” stated Stewart. “Their names are being used in a fraudulent way.” Stewart said some residents had contacted her when they found out that the petition they signed was now advocating her removal. “Some are talking with their attorneys,” she added. Stewart also noted that from the names on the petition it was obvious to her that it was circulated at the schools during school time. “People are using taxpayers money to circulate petitions,” she said. ”This should not be disturbing the educational time of the students.”
Board member John Nash said he had examined the petitions and found “many of the signatures to be invalid.” He, too, noted that it appeared that the petitions had been circulated on District property which would be against District policy.
“Not if they did it after school,” put in District Superintendant Dr. Stephen Young.
Nash glanced at the Superintendant with a quizzical look of dubious skepticism. “I can bring witnesses in,” he cautioned.
A school district trying to remove three of seven board members might be seen as rather atypical. “This District is dysfunctional,” was how the District’s previous Interim Superintendant Dr. Brian Howard saw it back in June of 2011. It would appear that by September of 2012, little has changed. “It’s pretty serious,” admitted Board President Jim Willis.
So serious was it that the District’s lawyer, Beth Bourassa, of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna was asked to make an appearance Tuesday so as to explain the legal ramifications of Board member removal.
“A petition, while a strong sentiment of voter expression,” said Bourassa, “is not a prerequisite for removal of a Board member.” Anyone can try to have a Board member removed, she explained, petition or no petition. One just has to file a complaint with the Commissioner of Education. This will not get anyone anywhere though. The Education Commissioner seems to act on complaints only about the time when everyone has completely forgotten there was a complaint to begin with. For example, noted Bourassa, 15 months ago a complaint was filed with the Commissioner and nothing has happened yet. This complaint would be Andrew Zlotnick and Rebekah Hartman vs. the Berlin Central School District Board of Education. Zlotnick and Hartman filed a complaint with the New York State Education Department regarding suspected violations in the May 2011 elections for School Board members. Zlotnick lost that election to Rachel Finney. Since then Finney has already served her one year term and been replaced by Board Member Katie Fiske.  Zlotnick, in the meantime, still sits in the back of the room at Board meetings while he waits for Commissioner John King to make a decision on way or the other. The only party successful in that complaint was probably Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, as they handled that complaint and billed the District for it accordingly.
Bourassa recommended that citizens wait until the next election if they want to get rid of a Board member. “The election in May will occur before you get a resolution [from the NYS Department of Education],” she said. There is, however, another option. The Board can remove its own members. “There is a mechanism,” she said. What this mechanism is, though, she would not reveal to the public, citing client attorney privilege.
“What would most likely happen?” asked Willis.
“It is better addressed privately,” answered Bourassa.
“Are we doing something illegal?” asked Stewart. “If so, somebody should tell us.”
And this is where a school board turns into the Lord of the Flies.
Somebody probably should tell them, but Bourassa was not going to be that somebody. Bourassa works for the Board of Education. And if the Board turns on three of its own, those three are no longer part of the Board of Education when it comes to knowing what is going on with the Board member removal, even though they still sit on the Board of Education.
“I would advise the three seek their own legal advice on this,” advised Bourassa.
“At the expense of the School Board?” asked Nash.
The Board would not be responsible for legal fees Board members incur in defending themselves from the Board, was the opinion of Bourassa.
“Well, I would like you to do some more research on that,” suggested Nash. “If I incur costs, we will see who is going to pay for it.”
Whatever happens, the District is already paying legal fees, and the vote is still not achieving a super-majority. The Board tried again Tuesday, but, as always, Nash, Stewart and Webster Jr. voted against. The three were not to be dissuaded from what they view to be the correct stance, even when resident and parent Jennifer Goodermote provided Board members with copies of parents’ letters asking for the Elementary School repairs to go forward. “I think it’s just selfish,” she said. Goodermote had recommended that the meeting be held upstairs in the former library where “you can’t even breathe” on the hottest days. “It should be considered child abuse,” scolded Goodermote.
A slimmed down project to address the most pressing of problems is still in the works. Young informed the Board that a meeting with the architects will take place Thursday and that the schematics of the project are largely completed.
Stewart stated that she had done some more research into similar projects undertaken on Works Progress Administration (WPA) buildings. What she found further convinced her that rebuilding Berlin Elementary was futile. “Everything I’m reading,” said Stewart, “shows we could build a new building for a lot less than we have to put into this building.” Stewart felt that the District could spend close to $10 million and still not get the building back to new. “It’s always going to need more,” she said.
Board Member Gina Goodermote was unconvinced. “No way you can build a school for that [$10 million] in today’s economy!” she said.
The Town of Grafton might agree with Stewart when it comes to Grafton Elementary. That school is in much better shape, but the costs to update it and turn it into a municipal center were too much for the town to take on. They have officially turned down the offer to receive the property for $1. A motion was made and passed with all in favor that Grafton Elementary be re-listed for sale. According to Nash, a former school in Brunswick of a similar size is currently listed at $675,000. The Town of Stephentown has still not made a decision on their taking Stephentown Elementary. “They still have time,” said Willis. “
In other-better-news, at the suggestion of Willis, the creation of an after school enrichment program will be further investigated. With increases in single parent families and families where both parents work, the ability of one parent to be home at the end of the school day has proved to be more and more difficult. Willis would like some facility to exist to allow students to stay later, in a safe environment where homework could be done, until a parent could make it home. He questioned whether it might be possible to someday keep something open until as late as 6 pm. All the other Board members were in agreement, and Young and the Administrators will look into it more. Gina Goodermote was the most enthusiastic. “I’ve always had this dream,” she said. “The homework is done, and you can go home and be a family. There’s got to be a way to make this happen.”[/private]