Upload
neighbors-west
View
126
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STATE OF NEW YORKSUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF ONONDAGA=======================================
WILLIAM E. HAMILTON
Plaintiff,v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARY L.ALLEY, DIANA M. FOOTE, JEANNE E. PIEKLIK,PENNY L. FEENEY and CONSTANCE E. DRAKE (the"Board Defendants"), SUSAN A. GORTON, PAULA L.VANMINOS, LAWRENCE J. ZACHER and JAMES R.FROIO (the "Employee Defendants") and DANNY L.MEVEC and ALICIA A. MATTIE (the "ConsultantDefendants") and MARY MADONNA,
Defendants.=======================================
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S):
SUMMONS
Index No.: _
RJI No.: _
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer on the Plaintiffs attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of thissummons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is completeifthis summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case ofyour failure to appear or answer, judgment will he- n against you by default for the reliefdemanded herein.
Dated: October 11,2013
Dennis G. O'Hara, Esq.O'HARA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLIAttorneys for Plaintiffs7207 East Genesee StreetFayetteville, New York 13066(315) 451-3810
SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NEW YORK
WILLIAM E. HAMILTON
- against-
ONONDAGA COUNTY
Plaintiff,
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARY L.ALLEY, DIANA M. FOOTE, JEANNE E. PIEKLIK,PENNY L. FEENEY and CONSTANCE E. DRAKE (the"Board Defendants"), SUSAN A. GORTON, PAULA L.VANMINOS, LAWRENCE J. ZACHER and JAMES R.FROIO (the "Employee Defendants") and DANNY L.MEVEC and ALICIA A. MATTIE (the "ConsultantDefendants") and MARY MADONNA,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Index No.: _
Plaintiff, WILLIAM E. HAMILTON, by and through his attorneys, O'HARA,
O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI, for his verified complaint against the defendants, states and alleges
as follows:
I
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, William E. Hamilton ("Hamilton"), is a resident of the Town of
Skaneateles, County of Onondaga, and State of New York. He was the Assistant Superintendent
of Business and Finance of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District (the "District") from
June 2003 until that position was abolished as hereinafter described effective June 30, 2013.
Hamilton earned tenure in that position as of June 18, 2006.
{W0236466.1}
2. The District is a municipal corporation organized under and existing pursuant to
Article 37 ofthe New York Education Law, with administrative offices located in the Village of
Jordan, New York. The defendant Board of Education (the "Board") is the governing body of
the District.
3. The defendant Mary Madonna ("Madonna") is named as a party because of the
relief sought in the Second and Third Causes of Action against the Board. These causes of
action assert that the Board was legally required to discontinue Madonna's employment when it
abolished the position of Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance but, instead, illegally
discontinued Hamilton's employment.
4. With the exception of Madonna, the individual defendants fall into one of three
categories (i.e., the "Board Defendants," the "Employee Defendants" or the "Consultant
Defendants") as hereinafter described.
The Board Defendants
5. The first category of defendants are those individuals who were previously
members of the Board and who, on several occasions over a considerable period of time,
individually and collectively violated their oaths of office, ignored their statutory obligations and
abused and exceeded their authority by committing a series of acts against Hamilton and others,
with malice and in bad faith, to promote their own personal interests. These individuals are
Mary L. Alley ("Alley"), Jeanne E. Pieklik ("Pieklik"), Diana M. Foote ("Foote"), Penny L.
Feeney ("Feeney") and Constance E. Drake ("Drake") (collectively, the "Board Defendants").
6. Alley was a member of the Board from July 2004 through June 2011, and
President of the Board for the 2008-09 through 2010-11 school years. She was a member of the
{W0236466.1} 2
Board at the time that several of the events hereinafter alleged occurred and was the prime actor
in planning and carrying out said acts.
7. Pieklik was a member of the Board from July 2001 through June 2011, and was
an influential participant in several of the events and actions against Hamilton as hereinafter
alleged.
8. Foote was employed by the District as the District's Treasurer until the fall of
2005. As Treasurer, she reported to Hamilton and she abruptly quit her employment, with no
notice, when Hamilton constructively criticized her job performance. Foote thereafter became a
member of the Board from July 2008 until June 30, 2011. She was vice-president of the Board
during the 2010-11 school year. Foote was a member of the Board at the time that several of the
events hereinafter alleged occurred and, acting in concert with other Board Defendants,
committed a series ofmalicious, retaliatory and unwarranted acts against Hamilton.
9. Feeney was a member of the Board from July 2003 through June 30, 2012. She
was vice-president of the Board for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years. Feeney was a
member of the Board at the time that several of the events hereinafter alleged occurred and,
acting in concert with other Board Defendants, was responsible for conceiving and carrying out
several ofthe acts against Hamilton as hereinafter alleged.
10. Drake was a member of the Board from July 2009 through June 30, 2012 and was
vice-president of the Board for the 2011-12 school year. She was a member of the Board at the
time that several of the events hereinafter alleged occurred and, acting in concert with other
Board Defendants, was a prime actor in planning and carrying out several malicious actions
against Hamilton.
{W0236466.1} 3
The Employee Defendants
11. The second category of individual defendants are those District employees who,
personally and/or collectively, sought to ingratiate themselves with the Board Defendants and/or
the Board by committing tortious, unethical and malicious acts toward Hamilton and others in
bad faith to assist the Board Defendants in their efforts to terminate the employment of said
individuals. In exchange for such collaboration, these District employees were rewarded with
taxpayer supported employment, and/or promotions, and/or increased compensation and benefits.
These rewards were bestowed by the Board without concern for equity or any rational
compensation plan. These employees are Susan A. Gorton ("Gorton"), Paula L. VanMinos
("VanMinos"), Lawrence J. Zacher ("Zacher") and James R. Froio ("Froio") (collectively, the
"Employee Defendants").
12. Gorton was the District's Assistant Superintendent ofInstruction until she retired
from the District on September 7, 2012. As hereinafter discussed, Gorton was a "friend" of the
Board Defendants and she connived with those defendants to replace Marilyn Dominick
("Dominick") as the District's Superintendent of Schools so that she could be appointed to that
position. In her efforts to ingratiate herself with the Board Defendants and the Board, Gorton
wrongfully contrived grounds to terminate the employment of Hamilton and others.
13. VanMinos was the District's Director of Operations from October 6, 2008 until
she was fired by the Board in disgrace on May 16, 2011. Prior to her fall from grace, however,
the Board Defendants and VanMinos schemed to have VanMinos replace Hamilton. After the
Board suspended Hamilton in July 2010, it put VanMinos in charge of the District's Business
Office and gave her significant salary increases and other benefits, including an unconscionable,
unprecedented and illegal employment agreement. As hereinafter described, VanMinos sought
{W0236466.1} 4
the favor of the Board Defendants by committing several malicious and devious acts to assist
them in their efforts to terminate Hamilton's employment.
14. Zacher was the District's Interim Superintendent of Schools from November 5,
2010 until he was fired by the Board in disgrace on May 16, 2011. During the period of his
employment by the District, Zacher had an illicit affair with VanMinos and, upon information
and belief, allowed his judgment and actions to be unduly influenced by that relationship. In an
apparent effort to impress VanMinos and/or the Board Defendants, Zacher took several
malicious, unwarranted and illegal acts against Hamilton and others.
15. Froio has been the District's Superintendent of Schools since July 1, 2011. Upon
information and belief, he was appointed as Superintendent despite the fact that he had no prior
experience in that position, mediocre academic credentials and limited professional
accomplishments. Upon further information and belief, he obtained that appointment in
exchange for promising the Board Defendants that he would assist them in their efforts to
terminate the employment of Hamilton and other employees irrespective of the merits of doing
so. Since his appointment, Froio has been responsible for a series of malicious acts against
Hamilton and has committed extensive District resources to pursue several charges against
Hamilton and others in multiple forums despite actual or constructive knowledge that said
charges are completely unfounded.
The Consultant Defendants
16. The third category of individual defendants are those consultants hired by the
Board who abandoned professional standards and committed a continuing series of unethical and
tortious acts to assist the Board Defendants and Employee Defendants in their efforts to
terminate the employment of Hamilton and others. In the process, these individuals were paid
{W023 6466.1} 5
enonnous and unwarranted fees by the District. These individuals are Danny Louis Mevec
("Mevec") and Alicia Mattie ("Mattie") (collectively, the "Consultant Defendants").
17. Mevec is an attorney admitted to practice in New York. He was the fonner
attorney for the Board at all times relevant hereto until he was fired by the Board in disgrace on
October 6,2010. Mevec is a resident ofMadison County, New York.
18. Mattie is the Internal Auditor for the District appointed by the Board in July 2008
pursuant to New York Education Law 2116-b. The Board has re-appointed her to this position
since then. Mattie is a resident of the Cayuga County, New York.
Hamilton's Status
19. Hamilton holds three pennanent New York State certifications: Mathematics
Teaching 7-12, School District Administrator ("SDA") and School Business Administrator
("SBA"). He also completed the SUNY Oswego Superintendent Development Program.
Hamilton is certified to hold any administrative position in the District, including the position of
Superintendent of Schools.
20. Hamilton was initially appointed by the Board on June 18, 2003 to a probationary
appointment as a School District Administrator assigned to the position of Assistant
Superintendent of Business and Finance. On April 5, 2006, the Board voted unanimously to
grant him tenure in the Administrative Tenure area, effective June 18,2006.
21. The Board suspended Hamilton on July 7,2010 pursuant to Section 3020- a of the
Education Law. However, it did not serve disciplinary charges on him until seven weeks later on
August 25, 2010. On February 15, 2012, the Board approved a second set of charges filed by
Froio. After a Hearing Officer was finally appointed, the Board withdrew 75 of the 129 charge
specifications (58%) of the first set of charges and one complete charge of the 12 charges alleged
{W0236466.1} 6
in the second set of charges. The remaining charges are the subject of an on-going hearing being
conducted pursuant to Education Law 3020-a.
II
NATURE OF THIS ACTION
22. In this action, Hamilton asserts the following causes of action and seeks the
following relief:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
{W0236466.1}
As requested in the First Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant toCPLR 3001 and Article 78 declaring that the purported abolishment of theposition as Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance is null and void asbeing conceived and implemented in bad faith for the sole purpose ofcircumventing Hamilton's statutory tenure rights, and ordering Hamilton'sreinstatement with back pay and benefits.
As requested in the Second Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant toCPLR 3001 declaring that the agreement between Madonna and the Board(Exhibit "G") that purports to retroactively change her tenure area at the end ofher probationary period so as to deprive Hamilton of his statutory rights underEducation Law 2510(2) is null and void.
As requested in the Third Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment of this Courtpursuant to CPLR 3001 and 2510(2) declaring Hamilton's rights underEducation Law 2510(2) and annulling the Board's determination to terminatehis employment while continuing to employ Madonna, together with anappropriate award ofback pay and benefits.
As requested in the Fourth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant toCPLR 3001 and 2510(1) declaring Hamilton's rights under Education Law 2510(1) and requiring the Board to appoint Hamilton to any position created toperfonn the duties of his fonner position of Assistant Superintendent for Businessand Finance, together with an appropriate award ofback pay and benefits.
As requested in the Fifth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant toCPLR Article 78 and Public Officers Law 107(1) voiding the so-called"reorganization" plan that was illegally discussed and approved by the Board inexecutive session(s) in violation of the Open Meetings Law, voiding all
7
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
{W0236466.1}
subsequent actions taken by the Board pursuant to that plan including theabolition of Hamilton's former position, and ordering the Board is to refrain fromany further violations of the requirements of the Open Meetings Law, togetherwith an appropriate award of back pay and benefits and attorneys' fees toHamilton pursuant to Public Officers Law 107(2).
As requested in the Sixth cause of Action, an Order and Judgment granting apreliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR Article 63 enjoining defendants fromcontinuing the abolition of Hamilton's position and termination of hisemployment on the ground that he has demanded and is entitled to a judgmentrescinding the abolition of his position and termination of his employment, which,if continued during the pendency of this action, would produce injury toHamilton.
As requested in the Seventh Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant toEducation Law 3028-d rescinding defendants' abolition of Hamilton's positionand termination of his employment in retaliation for his reporting inappropriateand illegal acts, together with an award of compensatory damages sufficient tocompensate him for all harms and injuries suffered as a result of the defendantsretaliatory actions.
As requested in the Eighth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages for the several adverse employment actionscommitted by the defendants in retaliation for Hamilton's exercise of his right ofFree Speech under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions.
As requested in the Ninth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages for the unconstitutional restraint uponHamilton's right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment to the UnitedStates Constitution and Article I, 8 of the New York State Constitution bythreatening him with further disciplinary charges if he did not cease and desistfrom making public comments on the proposed budget.
As requested in the Tenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages against all defendants for the intentionalabuse of the Education Law 3020-a process by filing and continuing toprosecute charges that they knew to be false and without any factual basis.
As requested in the Eleventh Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages against the Board and Froio for theintentional abuse of the 8 NYCRR Part 83 process by filing charges that Froio
8
knew or should have known to be false and by failing to notify the StateEducation Department as information came to his attention that the Part 83charges he had filed seeking to revoke Hamilton's certifications were notsupported by the facts.
(1) As requested in the Twelfth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages from the relevant defendants in theirindividual capacities for the defamatory comments made by said defendants,individually and collectively.
(m) As requested in Thirteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages for the intentional concerted infliction ofemotional distress and psychological harm that Hamilton has suffered as aconsequence of defendants' actions.
(n) As requested in the Fourteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages to Hamilton for the tortious actionscommitted by defendants against Hamilton, without legal justification, and withthe intent to cause him pecuniary harm.
(0) As requested in the Fifteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages to Hamilton for the malicious and tortiousinterference with prospective contract rights.
(p) As requested in the Sixteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages to Hamilton for defendants' malicious andtortious interference with Hamilton's present and future economic relations.
III
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23. Hamilton has complied with all applicable notice of claim requirements under
New York law, including the General Municipal Law, by serving the Board with a timely and
adequately detailed statement of his claims as they were known to exist on or about August 12,
2011.
{W0236466.1} 9
24. Hamilton submitted to an oral examination regarding his Notice of Claim
pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law 50-h on September 23,2011.
25. More than 30 days have elapsed since the Notice of Claim was served and no
adjustment or payment thereof has been effectuated by the District.
26. This action has been commenced within all applicable time limits in light of the
continuing, ongoing nature of the tortious actions and schemes alleged herein.
27. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR 503(a) and 504(2).
IV
THE BACKGROUND FACTS
28. For an extensive period of time, the Board Defendants controlled the Board and
governed the District as if it was a private enterprise, rewarding "friends" and punishing
"enemies" and squandering taxpayer money and resources in the process. District employees
were hired, promoted and fired on the basis of their personal standing with the Board
Defendants, rather than on the basis of merit and fitness. During this period, the Board
Defendants bestowed unwarranted financial benefits on "friends" and indiscriminately wasted
District funds in efforts to manufacture and, if necessary, prosecute charges against employees
who they considered to be "enemies," including Hamilton.
Hamilton 's Perceived Association with Schue.
29. One of the more contentious conflicts within the District in recent years was the
highly public campaign by the Board Defendants to terminate the employment of Janice Schue
("Schue"), the former Principal of the District's Elbridge Elementary School. Upon information
and belief, some Elbridge Elementary School teachers who were unhappy with Schue's efforts to
{W0236466.1} 10
change the culture of that school began a campaign to have her removed as Principal of the
school. Pieklik and Feeney ran for election to the Board on the promise that, if elected, they
would terminate Schue's employment. Schue was dogged by these people for nearly a decade.
30. Pieklik, Feeney and others were active participants in a concerted campaign of
rumors, anonymous charges and innuendo designed to undermine Schue's authority with her
staff and to discredit her among the school community with the goal of terminating her
employment. This campaign was well known throughout the District, and was carried out over
an extended period oftime, including the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years. Upon information
and belief, Mevec was instrumental in planning and implementing this effort to terminate
Schue's employment.
31. In a highly publicized act near the end of the 2008-09 school year, the Board
removed Schue from her position as the Principal of the Elbridge Elementary school and
transferred her to a make-work position in the District's central office. At that time, the Board
publicly announced that Schue was "under investigation," intentionally creating the inference
that she was guilty of unspecified misconduct. The Board announced that this investigation
would be conducted by Mevec.
32. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants knew that there was no
legitimate basis for charges against Schue and, upon further infonnation and belief, the then
Superintendent of Schools, Marilyn Dominick ("Dominick"), advised the Board against taking
such action. The so-called "investigation" conducted by Mevec was perfunctory and a pretext to
remove Schue from her position as Principal of the Elbridge Elementary school. In fact, almost
two years later (in the 2011-12 school year), the Board returned Schue to a building Principal's
position without having filed a single charge against her.
{W0236466.1} 11
33. In January 2010, Hamilton informed Dominick that he believed it was a waste of
District money and Schue's talents to assign her to the make-work position and he suggested that
she be transferred to work with him in the Business Office. In several conversations with
Dominick and others, Hamilton also expressed his opinion that the treatment of Schue by the
Board and Mevec was a senseless waste of her talents and District money and likely to embroil
the District in litigation.
34. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants were paranoid about the
possibility that any District employee might be a supporter of Schue. Upon further information
and belief, they were aware of Hamilton's opinions regarding the situation with Schue and
interpreted this to mean that he was her "friend" and supporter. For that reason, they considered
him to be a persona non grata.
Hamilton's Perceived Association with Dominick.
35. The Board Defendants meddled in every aspect of the District's business
operations and educational program, making critical educational and personnel decisions based
on who was in their good graces and who was not. In the process, they ignored
recommendations of the Superintendent and other individuals who, by virtue of their educations
and professional experiences, had knowledge and expertise in educational matters. The resulting
dysfunctional relationship between the Board Defendants and the District's administration was
contentious to a degree unprecedented in most public school districts in New York State.
36. Dominick became the District's Superintendent of Schools on January 24, 2000,
and was employed under a contract with the Board that extended until June 30, 2012. Upon
information and belief, she intended to serve out the full term of her employment.
{W0236466.1} 12
37. However, the Board Defendants sought to terminate Dominick's employment
prior to June 30, 2012. Upon further information and belief, Dominick had informed them that
she did not believe that there was a legitimate basis for any disciplinary action against Schue and
other District employees who had been targeted by those individuals.
38. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants resented Dominick's
ongoing efforts to educate them as to their proper role in relation to the administration, staff and
school community. They wanted Gorton to be Superintendent of Schools because she would do
their bidding without question, and they did not want a superintendent who exercised
independent judgment.
39. The Board Defendants effectively controlled the Board and Dominick was unable
to prevent their rogue and reckless conduct. Dissatisfied with Dominick's reluctance to do their
bidding no matter how improper or unwarranted it may have been, the Board Defendants began
an intensive and mean-spirited campaign to undermine Dominick's authority, usurp her
responsibilities and force her to resign. Their overt actions to sabotage Dominick included
micromanaging the District, circumventing the established chain of authority to exclude her from
the exchange of information, publicly attacking her competency, and ultimately threatening her
with disciplinary proceedings if she did not agree to an early termination of her employment
contract.
40. Mevec and Mattie assisted the Board Defendants in their campaign to force
Dominick to retire, and were both paid handsomely for their efforts. Gorton also committed
several malicious and devious acts to ingratiate herself with the Board Defendants and to assist
them in their efforts to terminate Dominick's employment. Gorton was to report directly to
Dominick under the established chain of command. However, she intentionally bypassed
{W0236466.1} 13
Dominick and secretly communicated directly with Alley and other Board Defendants on
significant issues and, in the process, often distorted and misrepresented the facts to feed the
Board Defendants' obsession with terminating Dominick's employment. The Board Defendants
also unsuccessfully attempted to recruit Hamilton to assist them in their campaign against
Dominick but he refused to join this cabal.
41. During the time period that the Board Defendants and others were abusing
Dominick in an effort to force the early termination of her employment, she kept a written
timeline of some of the actions committed in the course of this malicious campaign. Ms.
Dominick was subpoenaed to testify in the 3020-a proceeding that the Board Defendants
commenced against the District's High School Principal David Zehner ("Zehner") and, under
compulsion of the subpoena, was required to produce a copy of her timeline. A copy of that
timeline is annexed as Exhibit "A."
42. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants, Mevec and Mattie had
previously used threats to cause other employees who were not in their good graces to resign
their employment. Their standard tactic was for Mattie to attempt to find some basis for a
potential charge against an employee, no matter how tenuous, and for Mevec to then threaten the
employee with disciplinary charges unless they resigned their position. Mevec would also claim
that the Attorney General's office was ready to criminally prosecute the employee unless he or
she resigned. To make the situation seem even more serious to the employee involved, Alley
and sometimes another Board Defendant would attend the meeting at which Mevec delivered the
ultimatum to resign or face disciplinary charges and/or prosecution by the Attorney General's
office. It did not matter to Mevec, Mattie or the Board Defendants that there was absolutely no
merit to any such charges.
{W0236466.1} 14
43. Upon further information and belief, Mevec and Alley used these same tactics
against Dominick. With the Board Defendants' knowledge and approval, Mevec and Alley
threatened to file disciplinary charges against her and to cause the Attorney General's office to
prosecute alleged improper expense reimbursement claims if she did not resign before June 30,
2012. Upon information and belief, Mevec, Alley and the Board Defendants knew at the time
that there was absolutely no validity to any assertion of improper expense reimbursement by
Dominick.
44. In the face of persistent demeaning and threatening conduct, Dominick eventually
agreed to terminate her employment early. She and the Board entered into a severance
agreement, dated May 5, 2010, in which she committed to retire twenty (20) months early on
November 1, 2010. A copy of the settlement agreement between Dominick and the Board is
annexed as Exhibit "B."
45. The Board Defendants' plan was to replace Dominick with Gorton as the
District's Superintendent of Schools, and they appointed Gorton as Interim Superintendent as
soon as Dominick agreed to retire early. The Board Defendants' plan to appoint Gorton, like so
much of their scheming, had been illegally presented to and rubber-stamped by the rest of the
Board in a secret executive session behind closed doors.
46. Gorton would have become the District's permanent Superintendent of Schools
but for the fact that Zehner successfully sued to set aside the action of the Board appointing her
as Interim Superintendent on the ground that it violated the Open Meetings Law. A copy of the
decision of Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood that rescinded Gorton's appointment is
annexed as Exhibit "C."
{W0236466.1} 15
47. Hamilton was critical of the fact that the Board Defendants regularly usurped the
authority of the Superintendent of Schools, as well as the cruel manner in which Dominick was
treated by the Board, Gorton, Mattie and Mevec. The Board Defendants perceived that Hamilton
was a supporter of Dominick and, consequently, viewed him as someone who was not a "friend."
Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants believed that anyone who questioned their
conduct, including Hamilton, was an "enemy," who should be replaced.
Hamilton's Escalating Concerns Regarding Mevec 's Performance and Billing
48. Hamilton's standing with the Board Defendants was further harmed by the fact
that he simply did his job. As the District's Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance,
he oversaw the District's financial operations. His responsibilities included the obligation to
inform the Superintendent and the Board in the event a service provider was not perfornling
competently and/or the District was not receiving value for the cost of such services.
49. In late 2009 and early 2010, Hamilton became increasingly concerned with
Mevec's lack of competence and his questionable billing practices. Throughout May and June
2010, Hamilton informed Dominick of his concerns regarding Mevec. He also recommended, in
writing, that the District consider terminating its relationship with Mevec and retaining new
counsel. One of Hamilton's recommendations to Dominick regarding Mevec is annexed as
Exhibit "D."
50. Unbeknown to Hamilton, at that time, Mevec and Pieklik were involved in an
illicit romantic relationship and, for this reason, Hamilton's well-intended criticisms of Mevec's
performance and billing practices brought about the wrath of Pieklik and eventually other Board
Defendants. Upon information and belief, Mevec and Pieklik decided that they had to get rid of
Hamilton in order to protect Mevec's position as the Board's attorney. To that end, they began a
{W0236466.1} 16
senes of actions III conceli with other Board Defendants III an effort to end Hamilton's
employment.
51. These actions were primarily carried out by VanMinos, Mevec and Mattie.
VanMinos' motivation was the promise by the Board Defendants that she would replace
Hamilton once his employment was tenninated. Mevec had an obvious personal and retaliatory
motivation as discussed above, and he was also paid significant fees for the time he allegedly
spent in efforts to terminate Hamilton's employment. 1 Mattie also greatly profited monetarily
by doing the bidding of the Board Defendants. In the process, she abandoned all concern for
professional ethics and disregarded the obligations imposed on an Internal Auditor by applicable
auditing standards.
The Board Defendants Determine to Replace Hamilton with VanMinos
52. Upon infonnation and belief, in retaliation for Hamilton's perceived association
with Schue and Dominick and his criticisms of Mevec's poor perfonnance and questionable
billing practices, the Board Defendants decided to end Hamilton's employment and replace him
with VanMinos. VanMinos was a willing participant in this plan and aggressively attempted to
thereafter find some basis to force Hamilton to resign.
53. As the District's Director of Operations, VanMinos was to report directly to and
be supervised by Hamilton. However, after she became an active participant in the Board
Defendants' attempts to find or manufacture some evidence of misconduct against him, she
During this same time period, Alley demanded that bills for Mevec's services be paidimmediately, ahead of the nonnal payment cycle, and without proper audit. In fact, after bothDominick and Hamilton continued to question Mevec's bills, Alley began to personallyauthorize payment of those bills without proper audit.
{W0236466.1} 17
frequently ignored Hamilton (and Dominick) and circumvented the established chain of
command by dealing directly with the Board Defendants, Gorton, Mattie and/or Mevec.
54. In June 2010, Alley informed VanMinos that Hamilton was "going out the door
whether he wants to or whether he goes nicely or hard," and that she and the Board Defendants
(i.e., a "little committee") wanted to "write a contract/or [VanMinos] to be the business official
at Jordan-Elbridge." Upon information and belief, VanMinos coveted Hamilton's position and,
for that reason, fabricated allegations and misrepresented his actions in an effort to portray him
as being incompetent, immoral and/or insubordinate. A transcript of Alley's voicemail message
to VanMinos is annexed as Exhibit "E."
The Board Defendants Begin Overt Action against Hamilton
55. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants, Mattie and Mevec planned to
use the same threatening tactic against Hamilton that they had successfully used with other
perceived "enemies." Toward that end, they set out to find some basis they could use for such
threats.
56. For example, Mattie and VanMinos demanded that staff members at the Cayuga-
Onondaga BOCES Central Business Office ("CBO") in Auburn, New York spend countless
hours, at the expense of the other school districts that participated in the CBO, to pour through
payroll and accounting records in an attempt to find something they could use against Hamilton.
Upon information and belief, neither Mattie nor VanMinos had been granted the authority by
Dominick or by the BOCES administration to use CBO staff members to conduct such an
extensive investigation.
57. Foote assisted in this effort by calling a CBO staff member after hours to ask that
she help "dig up dirt" on Hamilton. Apparently, Foote assumed that this CBO staff member,
{W0236466.1} 18
who was a resident of the District, would assist her because she, like Foote, had previously been
the School District Treasurer and reported directly to Hamilton.
58. The District's Audit Committee was comprised solely of Board members,
including Alley, Foote and Drake. Under the guise of the Audit Committee, these defendants
went on a "witch-hunt" looking for financial irregularities. Toward this end, they directed the
District's external auditors to examine irrelevant and immaterial matters in an attempt to find
some misconduct by Hamilton.
59. Prior to June 2010, Hamilton had not received a single negative evaluation of his
work for the District. In fact, throughout his employment, he had received praise for his
innovative strategies and efficiency in developing and implementing the District's fiscal budget.
As a reflection of the high quality of his work, the external auditors gave the District unqualified
audit reports every year that Hamilton was in charge of the District's finances. In addition, the
examiner who conducted a nearly year-long audit for the State Comptroller's Office said at the
exit interview in December 2008 that the result of the District's audit was one of the best he had
seen.
60. Despite these positive facts, immediately after Hamilton recommended that the
Board consider replacing Mevec, the Board Defendants caused several adverse employment
actions to be taken against him.
61. For example, Hamilton received three written reprimands regarding his job
performance over an eight-day period in June 2010. Upon information and belief, Dominick did
not author these reprimands. Rather, Mevec wrote these reprimands with the knowledge,
concurrence, and at the insistence of the Board Defendants.
{W0236466.1} 19
62. On June 2,2010, Hamilton was ordered to attend an "ambush" meeting at which
Alley confronted him regarding alleged improprieties with respect to discussions that he and
another District employee had recently had with an arborist regarding possible tree removal work
at a school site. Upon information and belief, VanMinos had previously informed Alley that
there was some impropriety in that interaction, although none existed.
63. As hereinafter described, the Board Defendants, with the active assistance of
Mevec, Mattie and VanMinos, thereafter undertook a series of actions with the intent and
purpose of creating bogus charges against Hamilton. In the process, they cajoled and at times
threatened District employees and service providers to provide false and slanted information
against Hamilton and/or to withhold exculpatory information relative to Hamilton.
Mattie Abuses her Position as Internal Auditor to Assist the Board Defendants
64. As of July 1, 2006, New York Education Law 2116-b required that the District
establish an internal audit function to (a) review and develop a risk assessment of the District's
financial policies, procedures and internal controls, and (b) recommend changes for
strengthening financial controls and reducing identified risks.
65. The statute permits the District to retain an independent contractor to fulfill the
internal audit function. In this regard, the Board has reappointed Mattie as the District's Internal
Auditor since July 2008 despite the fact that, upon information and belief, she lacks the
substantive knowledge and skills required to properly perfonn the duties of the position and is
not qualified by training, experience or ethical foundation to properly perform the internal audit
function for a public school district in the State ofNew York.
66. Mattie professes that she conducts her audits III compliance with Generally
Accepted Government Auditing Standards ("GAGAS"), which would require that she be
{W0236466.1} 20
independent and objective in perfonning an audit. GAGAS also requires that Mattie be unbiased
so that no quality compromises are made and/or she does not subordinate her judgment to others
in making findings and recommendations. Upon infonnation and belief, however, Mattie
abandoned any pretense of independence and violated all professional auditing standards by
becoming a partisan tool of Alley and other Board Defendants in their efforts to tenninate the
employment of any individual who had fallen into disfavor with them, including Hamilton.
67. Upon further infonnation and belief, Mattie acting out of economic self-interest,
has grossly abused the authority of the position of Internal Auditor and violated applicable
GAGAS provisions in her on-going partisan attempts to "dig up dirt" that the Board Defendants
could possibly use against Hamilton and others. The apparent motivations for such
unprofessional conduct were to increase her fees, ingratiate herself with the Board to ensure that
she would be annually reappointed as the District's Internal Auditor, and acquire a reputation
that would catapult her career.
68. Upon infonnation and belief, Mattie has conducted "investigations" of Hamilton
and others on a helter-skelter basis without first developing and obtaining Board approval of a
proper audit plan, with no concern for the cost to the District, and with no interest in achieving
the Legislative objectives that underpin Education Law 2116-b. To the contrary, Mattie has
spent countless hours at District expense chasing and promoting unfounded, baseless rumors as
they arose. She has acted as an instrument of the Board Defendants with their pennission to do
whatever she can to "get" Hamilton and others. The Board essentially gave Mattie a blank check
and allowed her to charge the District unbudgeted fees for conducting unrestricted and
unsupervised witch-hunts.
{W0236466.1} 21
69. Moreover, in April 2012 Froio rejected a Board member's suggestion that the
District consider issuing an RFP for internal audit services on the ground that Mattie was
"paramount" to the District's litigation efforts against Hamilton and others. Apparently, Froio is
willing to perpetuate the questionable arrangement with Mattie because he believes that she
would testify one way if she were being paid by the District and another way if she were not.
70. In fact, Mattie has been such a key player in the campaign to get Hamilton and
others that, on or about May 2, 2012, Froio and the Board agreed to pay her an additional stipend
for "time spent on legal/litigation assistance," and to do so at a premium rate of $65 an hour
although her contract rate was then $50 an hour. Also, the Board gave Mattie this 30% rate
increase and committed to pay her an additional $9,750 for her help with "litigation" without
having issued an RFP for such services.
71. As hereinafter alleged, Mattie also made malicious and unsupported allegations to
law enforcement authorities that Hamilton and others had committed criminal or other actionable
misconduct. These allegations were either known to Mattie to be false at the time they were
made, or were maliciously or recklessly made with utter disregard for the truth thereof. In
summary, Mattie's entire body of work for the District makes it clear that she has operated as a
partisan advocate for the Board Defendants and not as an independent, unbiased and competent
auditor.
72. Shortly after Hamilton was suspended on July 7,2010, the District requested that
the local Comptroller's office perform another audit of internal controls over the Treasury
function. This followed the Comptroller's audit on "Internal Controls Over Selected Financial
Operations" that covered the period from July 1, 2006 to December 31,2007. Upon information
and belief, Mattie and the Board Defendants convinced the Comptroller to conduct this highly
{W0236466.1} 22
unusual audit immediately following a prior audit by informing their office that Hamilton had
ignored the recommendations 2006-2007 audit report. These allegations were false and known
to be false when made.
73. In September 2010, Mattie informed Brent Kremeneck ("Kremeneck"), an auditor
with the Comptroller's office that Hamilton had "gone in and set up raj super user account for
himselfin BudgetSense" after he had met with her and the Treasurer in February 2009 and agreed
upon guidelines for access to the District's BudgetSense accounting system. This statement was
false and known to be false when made.
74. Since Mattie was initially appointed in July 2008, the Board has issued only one
RFP for internal audit services (on August 2, 2012). Upon information and belief, Mattie's was
the only proposal submitted in response to this RFP because it was drafted and published so as to
guarantee that she would be reappointed.
75. In almost every other school district in New York State, the appointment of an
internal auditor is made annually for a one-year term. However, the Board rewarded Mattie for
her efforts to create charges against Hamilton and other District employees by appointing her to
a three-year term beginning July 1, 2012. At the same time, the Board gave her a 30% increase
in the hourly rate she is paid for her services.
76. Moreover, as of July 1, 2013, the Legislature amended Education Law 2116-b
to provide that school districts with a student enrollment of less than 1,500 pupils are no longer
required to have an internal auditor and to exempt these small school districts from the
requirements of that statute. Upon information and belief, this amendment was in recognition of
the fact that the value derived from such service did not generally justify the cost. That was most
certainly the case with respect to Mattie's employment by the District.
{W0236466.1} 23
77. In light of this amendment, the Board had the option to eliminate the cost of, and
problems associated with, Mattie's services. However, upon Froio's recommendation, the Board
decided to continue to employ Mattie. Upon information and belief, this decision was based on
Froio's belief that she was ''paramount'' to the District's efforts to terminate the employment of
Hamilton and others.
78. From a cost/benefit perspective, Mattie's sell out to the Board Defendants has
mired the District in incredibly costly and distracting disputes with CUlTent and former
employees. Moreover, from a comparative cost basis, her fees far exceed the fees for internal
audit services typically paid by other school districts. Upon information and belief, the Board
has also paid Mattie more than the budgeted amount for internal audit services approved by the
voters.
79. Upon information and belief, the bestowal of such largesse upon Mattie is a "pay
off' for her partisan and biased efforts to help the Board Defendants and Froio find some way to
terminate the employment of Hamilton and other employees.
Mevec and Alley Threaten Hamilton with Prosecution
80. On June 29, 2010, Hamilton was ordered to attend a meeting with Mevec and
Alley. Dominick was also present but did not make any comments during the meeting. The
ostensible purpose of that meeting was for Hamilton to respond to the recent and concentrated
flulTy of reprimands allegedly authored by Dominick but actually written by Mevec.
81. Upon information and belief, however, Mevec and the Board Defendants planned
to use their standard threat tactic to intimidate Hamilton into resigning. For example, when told
that there was no validity to any of the reprimands, Mevec's reply was: "That's not what the
{W0236466.1} 24
2Attorney General says" and, further, that the Attorney General was prepared to prosecute
Hamilton.
82. At this confrontation on June 29, 2010, Hamilton denied any wrongdoing and
made it clear to Alley and Mevec that he had no intention of resigning.
The Board Suspends Hamilton without Filing Charges
83. On July 7, 2010, the Board suspended Hamilton pending the outcome of
disciplinary charges. However, no charges were filed against him before or within a reasonable
period after he was suspended as required by Education Law 3020-a. In fact, it took the Board
another 49 days to conjure up charges against Hamilton.
84. It is apparent that Hamilton's refusal to succumb to threats caught the Board
Defendants flat-footed without any legitimate basis for charges. As a consequence, they
floundered for several weeks without filing any charges against Hamilton. In fact, the charges
were not filed until after Hamilton commenced an Article 78 proceeding to compel the Board to
either end his suspension or file 3020-a charges against him as required by law. Disciplinary
charges signed by Alley were finally served on Hamilton on August 25, 2010, the day before the
parties were scheduled to appear before the Court on the Article 78 Petition.
85. Upon information and belief, Alley and Mevec tried to compel Dominick to sign
the charges that Mevec had cobbled together against Hamilton. However, she refused to do so
because she believed that any such charges would be completely unfounded and she did not want
to be a part of any such attack on Hamilton. 2 At the direction of the Board Defendants, Mevec
In fact, Dominick completed a Summative Administrative PerformanceEvaluation for Hamilton on July 19, 2010. This evaluation recited his multiple positivecontributions to the District and praised him for his performance as Assistant Superintendent ofBusiness and Finance. A copy ofthe evaluation is annexed as Exhibit "F".
{W0236466.1} 25
then issued a memorandum to Dominick admonishing her for refusing to bring charges against
Hamilton.
86. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants and Mevec prepared the
charges with actual malice in retaliation for Hamilton's support of Schue and Dominick and his
criticisms of Mevec's performance and billing practices. Moreover, they were recklessly
prepared without an adequate preliminary investigation to confirm whether there was a factual
basis for such charges.
87. Upon further information and belief, the defendants never had any intention of
prosecuting the charges before a neutral hearing officer as required by Education Law 3020-a.
Rather, these charges were cobbled together solely so that the Board could continue Hamilton's
suspension. The defendants were also aware that, even if there was some factual basis for the
allegations, the substance of the charges was not sufficient to justify terminating Hamilton's
employment.
Defendants Set Out on an Intentional Course of Conduct Using Public Funds to SearchfOr Some Basis fOr Additional Charges and/or to Force Hamilton to Resign
88. As soon as it became apparent that Hamilton intended to defend the charges, the
defendants began a series of actions intended to stall the prosecution of those charges and to find
some basis for additional charges. In the process, the defendants blatantly violated statutory and
administrative provisions governing 3020-a proceedings.
89. For example, in December 2010, the attorneys for Hamilton and the District
notified the State Education Department ("SED") that they had mutually selected a Hearing
Officer and an alternate Hearing Officer, Robert Rabin, in the event the initial choice was unable
to serve. After SED notified the parties that the initial choice could not serve, Hamilton's
{W0236466.1} 26
attorney asked SED to notify Mr. Rabin of his selection. However, the Board's attorney then
reneged on the agreement to appoint Mr. Rabin and advised SED that "1 am writing to inform
you 1 cannot go along with the alternative selection of Mr. Rabin as Hearing Officer any
longer. "
90. Thereafter, the Board did virtually nothing to move along the appointment of a
Hearing Officer. In fact, every subsequent contact with SED was initiated by Hamilton's
counsel. As a consequence of the defendants delay, a 3020-a Hearing Officer was not
appointed until almost twenty-nine (29) months after the initial charges had been filed against
Hamilton.
91. The defendants also systematically withheld material and relevant documents that
Hamilton was entitled to receive under Education Law 3020-a and ignored requests for
relevant documents that had been made by or on behalf of Hamilton pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Law ("FOIL"). This conduct not only delayed the proceeding but also cost
Hamilton money for legal fees to respond to the Board's delaying tactics. Upon information and
belief, the defendants recklessly spent taxpayer funds on unnecessary litigation to cause
Hamilton to incur additional legal costs with the transparent goal of beating him into economic
submission.
92. Rather than timely prosecute the initial charges against Hamilton in compliance
with Education Law 3020-a, the Board spent hundreds of thousands oftaxpayer dollars on fees
for lawyers, Mattie, private investigators, external auditors, interim employees and District staff
in a massive effort to find some microscopic basis for charges related to Hamilton's job
performance. Upon information and belief, the Board also devoted substantial District assets in
an unsuccessful effort to find some substantive reason for charges against the High School
{W0236466.1} 27
Principal, David Zehner, who similarly decided to defend himself rather than resign in the face
of defendants' threats.
93. The defendants' malicious efforts to end Hamilton's employment also included
making false allegations of criminal conduct to law enforcement authorities with the hope of
convincing them to commence criminal proceedings against him, making patently false claims of
misconduct to SED in an effort to have his professional certifications revoked, and filing
additional 3020-a charges against him. None of these law enforcement agencies have
commenced any type of proceeding against Hamilton.
94. The net effect of the defendants' actions toward Hamilton has been to make it
impossible for him to obtain another position in public education. As of the date of this
complaint, he has submitted over thirty-five (35) applications for equivalent positions in other
school districts. The universal response has been that these school districts will not touch him
unless and until he is exonerated of all charges that have been levied against him by the
defendants.
95. Upon information and belief, defendants' initial plan was to force Hamilton to
resign out of economic necessity with the belief that he could not afford to match public funds to
defend the charges and respond to other actions of the defendants. Some of the other more
egregious actions of the defendants intended to beat Hamilton into economic submission are as
follows:
(aJ The Board Hires Kessler After Hamilton is Charged
96. Some two months after the charges were finally filed against Hamilton, the Board
retained a private investigator, Kessler International, Inc. ("Kessler"), to investigate those
charges. Upon information and belief, Kessler was actually retained to try and find some basis to
{W0236466.1} 28
support the charges already filed against Hamilton and/or to bring additional charges against
him. At that time, Alley misinformed the public that the cost of Kessler's services would be
$2,500. That statement was false when it was made, and Alley knew or should have known that
the contract the Board had before it for approval that evening expressly stated that the District
would be obligated to pay up to $30,000 for Kessler's services.
97. Upon infoffilation and belief, the District has actually paid Kessler more than
$100,000 for his unsuccessful efforts to find some support for charges against Hamilton.
Moreover, this expenditure of more than $70,000 over the authorized contract price was made
without Board approval and no RFP was ever issued for such services.
98. Kessler delivered at least ten (10) written summaries of his findings to the Board
befOre the Amended Charges were filed by Froio in February 2012 and befOre Froio filed a Part
83 complaint against Hamilton on April 10, 2012. Upon information and belief, Kessler's
conclusions in several instances do not support the charges and in other instances actually refute
those charges. Upon information and belief, however, this fact did not deter Froio from filing
accusations that he knew or should have known were false.
99. Froio testified in a related 3020-a proceeding that he had not read a report from
Kessler that set forth the results of an investigation he had conducted for the District because a
District employee had criticized Kessler's manner and methods. In that proceeding, the District
did not call Kessler as a witness and, in an effort to keep his report from review by the arbitrator,
Froio testified that he "was not interested in Mr. Kessler's work based on the feedback [he]
received from the teachers." Upon information and belief, this testimony was intentionally
misleading, if not outright false.
{W0236466.J} 29
100. As the Superintendent of a school district that had spent more than $100,000 for
Kessler's investigation, he certainly knew or should have known whether the information
gathered by Kessler supported or belied the charges being prosecuted by the Board at significant
taxpayer expense. Upon information and belief, the reason for such an incredulous claim by
Froio was that Kessler's investigation conclusively demonstrated that the charges were without
merit.
101. Upon information and belief, the bad faith and utter hypocrisy of Froio and the
Board with respect to Kessler is clear from the fact that they thereafter did produce Kessler as a
witness in the Hamilton 3020-a proceeding without raising a single question as to his tactics or
the reliability of his conclusions. In fact, Froio sat by Kessler's side throughout his testimony as
if to vouch for his credibility.
102. Upon further information and belief, the malice and bad faith of Froio and the
Board is evident from their efforts to withhold exculpatory information from the Hearing Officer
in a 3020-a proceeding in violation of Education Law 3020-a, the due process rights of
District employees, and fundamental ethical principles that govern the conduct of proceedings
before a tribunal.
(b) Zacher and VanMinos Collude to Manufacture Charges Against Hamilton
103. Upon information and belief, VanMinos and Zacher were involved in an intimate
personal relationship after Zacher was appointed as Interim Superintendent of the District.
Hamilton had no knowledge of that relationship, as he was suspended at the time.
104. VanMinos and Zacher conspired to manufacture false evidence of misconduct by
Hamilton in an effort to wrongfully secure Hamilton's job for VanMinos. Zacher's romantic
fWD236466.1} 30
relationship with VanMinos provided malicious motivation for him to attempt to wrongfully
terminate Hamilton and to commit the acts and make the public statements hereinafter alleged.
(c) False Allegations are Made to Law EnfOrcement Authorities.
105. Upon information and belief, Alley, Mevec, Mattie, Zacher and Froio have, at
various times, filed or been responsible for the filing of complaints with law enforcement
authorities that have maliciously and wrongfully accused Hamilton of committing criminal
conduct.
106. At the time said complaints were filed, these defendants did not actually believe
that Hamilton had committed any criminal conduct or, if they had such a belief, it was not
reasonable under the circumstances. Rather, the defendants acted maliciously and in bad faith in
trying to convince criminal authorities to prosecute Hamilton and others so that they would finish
the attacks on these employees that the Board Defendants, Mattie, Mevec and VanMinos had
started. As a consequence, Hamilton has suffered injury as hereinafter alleged.
107. Upon information and belief, such false reports were filed with the New York
State Police, the New York State Attorney General, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, the New
York State Comptroller's Office, the New York State Commissioner of Education, the Office of
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education, and the Onondaga County Sheriffs
office.
108. It appears that law enforcement authorities may have initially given Mattie's
allegations some credibility due to the presumption of validity that might typically be afforded
the findings of an Internal Auditor. However, upon information and belief, law enforcement
authorities soon discovered that Mattie's findings and conclusions are not entitled to any such
presumption in light of her incompetent and biased investigations.
{W0236466.1} 31
109. Hamilton has freely answered any questions put to him by these agencies and
authorities and no criminal or other charges have been levied against him by any of these
agencies and/or authorities. Upon information and belief, every agency and law enforcement
authority that has investigated these complaints has determined they were unfounded and
decided to take no further action. It has been almost four years since the defendants attempted to
convince law enforcement authorities that Hamilton and others had committed criminal acts, and
no proceedings have been commenced against anyone as a consequence of such false and
malicious allegations.
110. Upon information and belief, these criminal allegations were maliciously filed by
the defendants in an effort to intimidate Hamilton and to cause him to incur additional legal and
other costs in order to respond to such allegations.
(d) The Public DefGmation o[Hamilton
111. On June 7, 2010, the Board held a special meeting at which the only item of
business was a resolution to adjourn to an executive session. After 58 minutes, the Board
returned from the executive session. At that time, Alley publicly read aloud the following
bizarre statement from a sheet of paper she was holding, and then she adjourned the meeting:
"The Jordan-Elbridge School District is out of compliance with certainpolicies, procedures and laws. The Board does not agree with how the District ishandling specific issues. The Board does not agree with, nor does it condone,certain actions that are retaliatory in nature against its employees. If retaliationdoes not stop, the Board will consider taking further action with the StateComptroller or Attorney General."
112. Alley's remarks were effectively ratified by the Board since no member took
issue with it that evening or thereafter. Moreover, the minutes of the meeting and Alley's
{W0236466.1} 32
statement were thereafter published on the District's website. Upon information and belief,
everyone in attendance at that Board meeting and everyone who read the statement posted on the
District's website knew that Alley's statement referred to Hamilton.
113. On October 6, 2010, Alley made several defamatory comments at a public press
conference held in the High School library prior to the Board meeting that was held later that
evening. During her remarks, she stated that 128 charges had been filed against Hamilton, that
he was unfit to be around children, and that he was responsible, in part, for the District's low
student test scores on standardized tests. These statements were untrue and known by Alley to
be untrue when they were made. Moreover, they were made despite the fact that none of the
3020-a charges filed against Hamilton alleged misconduct related to children or to the instruction
of children.
114. At the Board meeting held later in the evening on October 6, 2010, the Board
orchestrated a PowerPoint presentation in front of approximately 800 members of the public.
During that presentation, Alley, Drake and Foote criticized the competency of Hamilton and the
recently fired School District Treasurer, Anthony Scro, and accused them of financial
mismanagement.
115. At public budget meetings in February and March 2011, Zacher told the public
that the District's financial accounting software that had been used by Hamilton "did not work,"
and that it was impossible to run accurate financial reports using that software. This statement
was meant to imply, and was understood by those who heard it to mean, that Hamilton had not
produced accurate financial statements during his employment.
116. At that time, Zacher also stated to the public that the Chart of Accounts developed
by Hamilton was all wrong and that Hamilton had not budgeted enough money for debt service.
{W0236466.1} 33
Again, the clear import of Zacher's statements was that Hamilton was incompetent. These
statements were false and malicious, and known by Zacher to be false when made.
117. Upon information and belief, Zacher and his paramour VanMinos sought to
ingratiate themselves with the Board by publicly claiming on several occasions that the
employees who preceded them, including Hamilton, were to blame for all the financial and other
problems facing the District (instead of their own incompetence). Upon information and belief,
anyone hearing these comments knew that they referred to Hamilton.
118. Zacher sent Hamilton a letter on April 12, 2011 that threatened legal action in the
event that Hamilton continued to speak out as a citizen on issues related to the District's 2011-
2012 budget. Upon information and belief, this letter was sent with the prior approval of the
Board and was a clear prior restraint on Hamilton's right to comment on matters of public
interest.
119. At a Board meeting in April, 2011, the Board's consultant, Rick Timbs, stated
that (a) the District's capital construction fund was "missing" $500,000, (b) this amount had been
missing for "years," and (c) the District would be facing bankruptcy within 18 months. Zacher
then stated to the audience that the "missing money" was simply gone, implying that it was due
to years of financial mismanagement. These statements were false and, intended to publicly
impugn Hamilton's professional reputation. Upon information and belief, Timbs' comments
were orchestrated in advance and made with the prior knowledge and approval of the Board,
VanMinos and Zacher.
120. In response to claims that the District was "missing" $500,000 from the Capital
Construction project, Hamilton submitted a FOIL request for the District's financial reports so he
could show that this claim was false. However, the defendants illegally withheld the requested
{W0236466.1} 34
documents until Hamilton commenced an Article 78 proceeding to compel production of these
documents. Once produced, the financial statements showed that no money was "missing" and
that defendants' contrary statements alleging or implying impropriety by Hamilton were
completely false and inaccurate.
121. During a public Board meeting on April 28, 2011, Zacher criticized Hamilton, by
name, for submitting FOIL requests. Zacher's comments implied that Hamilton's exercise of his
statutory right to request public records was improper and harmful to the District. Upon
information and belief, Zacher knew that Hamilton had a statutory right to inspect records under
FOIL at the time he accused him of impropriety in doing so.
122. On July 7, 2010, the Board appointed VanMinos to replace Hamilton as the
District's Purchasing Agent. Almost a year later, on May 25, 2011, the Board Defendants voted
at a public board meeting to terminate "the appointments of William Hamilton and Paula
VanMinos as purchasing agent, deputy purchasing agent, records access officer, records
management officer, asbestos coordinator, pesticide coordinator, Medicaid compliance officer,
and representative or deputy representative on the Board ofDirectors ofthe Cayuga-Onondaga
Area School Employees' Health Care Plan". Upon information and belief, the Board knew at
the time that these were annual appointments and that Hamilton had not been appointed to such
positions. This resolution injured Hamilton's professional reputation because it implied that he
was responsible for several errors made by VanMinos in these positions and it was intended to
associate Hamilton with VanMinos in the eyes of the public.
123. On or about July 11, 2011, Froio was quoted by television and radio station YNN
as stating that there was "a lot ofmerit " to the 3020-a charges against Hamilton.
{W0236466.1} 35
124. On July 8, 2011, while responding to questions regarding Hamilton's suspension,
Froio was quoted in The Auburn Citizen as stating that a report by Kessler had been referred to
the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to "safeguard the funds
and reputation of the District." Froio thereby implied, falsely, that the Kessler findings had
uncovered illegal conduct on Hamilton's part.
(e) Froio Files Further Unwarranted Charges Against Hamilton
125. Upon information and belief the Board and Froio knew that the initial charges
were bogus and, in many instances, outright false and could not be proven at a 3020-a hearing.
Thus, beginning as early as August of 2011, they began an intense search for additional charges
to file against Hamilton. On February 15, 2012, Froio filed a second set of 3020-a charges (the
"Amended Charges") against Hamilton.
126. The Amended Charges withdrew five (5) specifications and amended four (4)
specifications contained in the initial charges. Otherwise, the Board reaffirmed the initial
charges. In other words, in making its finding of probable cause on the Amended Charges in
February 2012, the Board reviewed the initial charges and decided to continue prosecuting them
as amended.
127. This determination was made by the Board after Kessler conducted an
investigation at great cost to the District and issued several written reports which showed that
there was no basis or insufficient evidence for several of the charges. Thus, in making the
determination to approve the Amended Charges and to continue prosecuting the initial charges as
amended, the Board knew or should have known that several of the charges were not supported
by the evidence and did not justify the further expenditure ofpublic funds to pursue.
fW0236466.1} 36
128. Upon information and belief, the Amended Charges were brought for the same
malicious reasons as the initial charges and all allegations in other forums. That is, to (a)
wrongfully continue Hamilton's suspension, (b) place financial pressure on him to resign his
employment, and (c) retaliate against him.
(f) Froio Files a Part 83 Complaint Against Hamilton.
129. Upon information and belief, in November or December of 2011, Froio traveled
to Albany to meet with Bart Zabin ("Zabin") from SED to discuss the filing of a complaint
against Hamilton pursuant to 8 NYCRR Part 83 ..
130. Upon information and belief, Froio presented a draft of a Part 83 complaint to
Zabin, which alleged that Hamilton had ''poor moral character unbecoming of an Assistant
Superintendent ofBusiness and Finance." At that time, Froio knew or should have known that
this draft contained several allegations that were false.
131. Froio filed his Part 83 complaint seeking to revoke Hamilton's administrative
certifications on April 10,2012. This was two months after Amended Charges were filed, some
five months after he met with Zabin, and after Kessler had submitted at least ten (10) reports to
the Board which illustrated that many of these allegations of misconduct against Hamilton were
without merit.
132. Froio filed the Part 83 complaint in bad faith and with malice, after he knew or
had reason to know that the allegations in that complaint were without merit. Upon information
and belief, he did so in an attempt to bludgeon Hamilton into submission in the pending 3020-a
proceeding.
(g) The Board Abolishes Hamilton's Position to Circumvent his Tenure Rights
{W0236466.1} 37
133. Upon information and belief, Froio and others came to the realization in the
summer or early fall of 2012, that they would not be successful in their efforts to terminate
Hamilton's employment based on the bogus 3020-a charges. For that reason, they began to
scheme on how to reorganize the District in a way that would abolish Hamilton's position so that
he would not have a job to return to when he prevailed in the 3020-a proceeding. Specifically,
the Board, upon the recommendation of Froio, first changed Madonna's tenure area and then
abolished Hamilton's position in a malicious, illegal and transparent attempt to circumvent his
tenure rights and to increase economic pressure on him to give up defending himself.
134. At a Board meeting on August 15, 2012, Froio made his first vague reference to a
"plan" to reorganize the District, The minutes of that meeting contain the following notation
regarding his comments:
Mr. Froio shared his concerns over the district being too top heavy in top leveladministration positions. In November of 2012, he will recommend the boardeliminate the positions of Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance,Director of Operations, and Director of Special Education, and Interim BusinessManager.
135. At the August 15, 2012 Board meeting, Froio did not specify who would perform
the duties of the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance position. Instead, he stated
that, beginning with the 2013-2014 school year, all District level administrative duties would be
carried out by "the remaining administrative staff' as spelled out in an organizational chart that
he gave the Board members. However, that organizational chart has never been made public and
Froio has refused to provide a copy of the same to the public or to Hamilton. Moreover, this so-
called organizational chart has never been approved by the Board.
136. On January 2,2013, the Board held an executive session for the stated purpose of
"Discussing litigation strategy for 3020-a versus Hamilton." Upon information and belief,
{W0236466.1} 38
however, the Board actually discussed Froio's plan to "reorganize" Hamilton out of a job. This
discussion was illegal because the resolution calling the executive session did not identify
proposed administrative reorganization as a subject to be discussed and because a plan to
reorganize the administrative structure of a school district is clearly a topic for public discussion
in an open meeting.
137. Stated differently, the "litigation strategy for 3020-a versus Hamilton" that was
eventually agreed upon by the Board in executive session was to circumvent Hamilton's tenure
rights by abolishing his position. The strategy was to make it futile for him to continue to defend
the disciplinary charges.
138. At its next meeting on January 16, 2013, the Board adopted the following
resolution to abolish certain positions, including Hamilton's, effective June 30, 2013:
Motion by Mr. Gallaro and Seconded by Mrs. Zelias, upon therecommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, that the Board ofEducation of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District adopt thefollowing resolution:
Section 1
BE IT RESOLVED, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools,that the Board of Education of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District adoptthe following resolution: abolish positions as follows for the reasons of economyand efficiency effective June 30, 2013:
Position Number
{W0236466.1}
Director of Operations 1.0 full time equivalentDirector of Special Education 1.0 full time equivalentAssistant Superintendent for Business & Finance L.Q full time equivalent
Total 3.0
39
Section 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that whereas William E. Hamilton is the soleoccupant of the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance position, thereare no current incumbents in the other positions being abolished, and there are noother positions available within the District that encompass work that is "similar"to the work previously performed by the Assistant Superintendent for Businessand Finance, William E. Hamilton is hereby excessed from his position ofemployment with the District effective June 30, 2013.
139. Hamilton's position (Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance) was the
only abolished position that was then encumbered. The Board resolution incorrectly stated that
there were "no other positions available within the District that encompass work that is 'similar'
to the work previously per:formed by [Hamilton}" and that Hamilton would be excessed from
employment effective June 30, 2013. A copy of the Board resolution is attached as Exhibit
"G."
140. Before it abolished the former Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance
position, the Board failed to approve any administrative reorganization plan that reallocated the
duties and responsibilities of that position. Rather, the Board simply left it up to Froio to figure
out who would thereafter perform those duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, the Board
never made any determination as to whether the abolition of that position would achieve any
efficiencies and/or economies for the District.
141. In fact, essential functions of the business office which were formerly perfonned
by Hamilton were ignored and/or overlooked by the District after he was suspended. Rather than
develop and implement a rational alternative plan, Froio simply overloaded existing personnel in
his misguided effort to terminate Hamilton's employment.
{W0236466.1} 40
142. Upon information and belief, the sole reason for Froio's recommendation to
abolish Hamilton's position was to set up a situation where there would be no position for him to
return to when the 3020-a charges against him were dismissed. This tactic is a blatant bad faith
effort to circumvent Hamilton's statutory rights as a tenured employee.
(h) Froio's "Plan" was to Create a Civil Service Position for Mahaney
143. On January 16,2013, the Board abolished Hamilton's position. On the same day,
it also approved an employment agreement with the District's Treasurer, James Mahaney
("Mahaney") that gave him a 33% raise (from $58,820 to $78,000 per year). That raise was
made retroactive to July 1, 2012. Upon information and belief, this agreement and the
significant increase in Mahoney's compensation was part of Froio's "plan" to reorganize
Hamilton out of a position in circumvention of his tenure rights.
144. Upon information and belief, Froio's unannounced plan was to have Mahaney
pass an open competitive test for the position ofDirector of Accounting that was scheduled to be
administered by the Onondaga County Civil Service Commission, and then reassign the duties of
Hamilton's position to Mahaney as a Civil Service rather than a certified employee. This was an
effort by Froio to create a position that would not be "similar" to Hamilton's position within the
meaning of Education Law 2510(l).
145. However, on February 26, 2013, the Onondaga Civil Service Commission
published the eligibility list based on the results of the Open Competitive test it had administered
for the position of Director of Accounting. Upon information and belief, Mahaney failed that
test.
146. Consequently, Froio had to develop a different plan. Upon information and
belief, under this revised plan Froio would be personally responsible for the District's business
{W0236466.1} 41
operation and he would supervise the District Treasurer, an account clerk, two administrative
aides and a personnel aide who would collectively perform Hamilton's duties.
147. Even if Froio's so-called "administrative reorganization" had been conceived in
good faith and was not an obvious pretext to circumvent Hamilton's tenure rights, the current
"plan" is facially absurd on two levels. First, Froio has no training, education, experience or
certification in school district finance and is eminently unqualified to supervise a $27 million
dollar school district business operation. Second, an account clerk, two administrative aides and
a personnel aide are not legally qualified to perform the essential duties of Hamilton's position.
(i) Froio's Plan is Based on a False Premise.
148. Moreover, the plan is predicated on false information provided by Froio as to the
administrative structure of other school districts in New York State and, in particular, the
responsibility for business operations. Specifically, Froio represented to the public and to the
Board in August 2012 that he would "be hard pressed to find a school district of1,400 kids with
two assistant superintendents," implying that the District was overstaffed since it had an
Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance and an Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction.
149. Upon information and belief, the claim that most school districts with similar
enrollments do not have a dedicated school business official responsible for business and finance
helped convince the Board to eliminate Hamilton's position. However, for the reasons set forth
below, Froio's claim in this regard is false.
150. The membership of the New York State Association of School Business Officials
("NYSASBO") includes individuals employed by 565 school districts (i.e., they are not
employees of a BOCES, private school, or other agency). Within that membership, there are at
{W0236466.1} 42
least 118 different job titles for positions other than the superintendent or the treasurer that are
dedicated to overseeing school district finances.
151. With respect to student enrollment, 265 of these 565 school districts have an
enrollment that is less than the District's student enrollment. Over three-fourths of these smaller
districts (i.e., 201 school districts, or 76%) employ an administrator who is dedicated to
supervise the school district's business operations as follows:
Total543822181198855211111111211111111111
TitleBusiness ManagerBusiness AdministratorSchool Business Administrator
School District Business Leader
Director of Finance & OperationsDirector of Finance
School Business ExecutiveSchool Business ManagerDirector of Business Administration
Director of Finance & Administrative ServicesAdministrator of Business Services & Student AccountabilityDirector of Finance and Instructional Technolog
Business OfficialSchool Business OfficialBusiness Executive
Director of Finance and Operations
Senior Director of Business, Finance & OperationsBusiness AdministratorChief Financial Officer
Grand Total 201
{W0236466.1} 43
152. As shown by the position titles highlighted above, 36 of the 201 (18%) of those
school districts that have fewer students than the District employ an Assisting Superintendent as
the administrator whose sole or primary responsibility is to oversee the school district's finances.
These smaller school districts recognize the obvious fact that they are multi-million dollar
enterprises that require dedicated financial management oversight.
153. Moreover, there are seventy-one (71) school districts in the Central New York
region (i.e., in Cayuga, Cortland, Herkimer, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, Otsego and
Tompkins Counties). Forty one (41) of these school districts have student enrollments that are
smaller than the District's. Thirty (or 73%) of these smaller school districts employ a dedicated
school business administrator.
154. Also, every school district that borders the District (i.e., Baldwinsville, Cato-
Meridian, Weedsport, Auburn, Skaneateles, Marcellus and West Genesee) has a dedicated school
business official. In five of these seven school districts, that position is an Assistant
Superintendent (i.e., Baldwinsville, Cato-Meridian, Weedsport, Skaneateles and West Genesee).
The Cato and Weedsport school districts have lower enrollments than the District (994 and 873
students, respectively).
155. Everyone of the other eight school districts in the Cayuga-Onondaga BOCES
(i.e., Skaneateles, Moravia, Southern Cayuga, Union Springs, Auburn, Port Byron, Weedsport
and Cato-Meridian) and the Cayuga-Onondaga BOCES has a dedicated school business official.
Except for Skaneateles (1,547 students) and Auburn (4,245 students) these school districts have
fewer students than the District.
156. Only ten members of NYSASBO (i.e., 1% of the 862 school district titles) have
administrative set ups similar to what Froio has implemented. The average student enrollment of
{W0236466.1} 44
these ten school districts is 565 (they range from 310 to 950), which approximately one-third of
the District's enrollment of 1,449 students. The Superintendent is also the Business
Administrator (i.e., Superintendent/Business Administrator) in only one of these districts.
Business Manager/Treasurer 600 1Business Manager/Treasurer 696 1Business Manager/District Treasurer 353 1School Business Official/Treasurer 609 1School Accountant/Business Manager 950 ISchool Business Manager/Treasurer 651 1Business Official/District Treasurer 576 1Superintendent/Business Administrator 310 IBusiness Official/Treasurer 394 1District Treasurer/Business Manager 508 1
Grand Total 10
157. Finally, the District is the only school district among its enrollment peers in the
entire State of New York that has abolished its chief financial officer's position. Of the 565
school districts that are NYSASBO members, 31 had student enrollments for 2012 in the range
of 1,400 to 1,500 students. As shown in the following table, every single one of these districts
has a dedicated