161
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME 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 "Consultant Defendants") 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 this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete ifthis summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will he-· n against you by default for the relief demanded herein. Dated: October 11,2013 Dennis G. O'Hara, Esq. O'HARA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7207 East Genesee Street Fayetteville, New York 13066 (315) 451-3810

Bill Hamilton's Summons and Complaint (W0238403)

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