UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT …blogs.rep-am.com/sidebar/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DOC2-Moulthr… · FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MARIA MOULTHROP, : : ... Reading/Language

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARIA MOULTHROP, : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL CASE NO.: : v. : : MICHAEL SLAVIN, Lieutenant, Waterbury : Police Department, City of Waterbury, in his : Individual and Official Capacities; : DAVID MCKNIGHT, Detective, : Waterbury Police Department, City of Waterbury, : in his Individual Capacity; ORLANDO RIVERA, : Detective, Waterbury Police Department, City of : Waterbury, in his Individual Capacity; : VERNON RIDDICK, Chief, Waterbury Police : Department, City of Waterbury, in his Official : Capacity; NEIL O’LEARY, Mayor, City of : Waterbury, in his Official Capacity; : PAUL GUIDONE; RONALD FROST; : MARY ANN MAROLD, Education Liaison, : Waterbury Public Schools, City of Waterbury, in her Individual Capacity; DOREEN BIOLO, : Business Office Manager, Waterbury Public : Schools, City of Waterbury, in her Individual : Capacity; THOMAS PANNONE; : TD BANK, N.A.; FREDERICK L. DORSEY, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : Defendants. : FEBRUARY 10, 2016

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for damages arising from a chain of events, initiated and driven

by City of Waterbury (“City”) government officials, culminating in the unlawful June 27, 2012,

arrest of Maria Moulthrop (“Moulthrop”).

2. Moulthrop was the principal of Hopeville Elementary School (“Hopeville”) from

July 1, 1996, through August 15, 2011; the principal of Chase Elementary School from April 1,

Case 3:16-cv-00220 Document 2 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 44

2

1993, through June 30, 1996; a Waterbury District Summer School Principal from 2000 through

2010; and the Waterbury District Summer School Coordinator in 2011.

3. The Connecticut State Department of Education (“SDOE”) issued a news release

on July 13, 2011, reporting student performance on the Fourth Generation Connecticut Mastery

Test (“CMT”) administered in March 2011 assessing approximately 250,000 students on their

application of skills and knowledge as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Goal, and Advanced in the

academic content areas of mathematics, reading, and writing in Grades 3 through 8, and science

in Grades 5 and 8.

4. The July 13, 2011, SDOE news release provided a link to CMT Online Reports at

www.ctreports.com made available that same day, July 13, 2011, for the complete state, district,

and school level CMT results and scores from the 2011 CMT.

5. In July 2011 a Waterbury Republican American newspaper reporter questioned

the comparatively successful results and high scores obtained by Hopeville students in Grades 3,

4, and 5 on the 2011 CMT.

6. Superintendent of Waterbury Public Schools Dr. David L. Snead

(“Superintendent Snead”) immediately placed Waterbury Police Department Chief Michael L.

Gugliotti (“Chief Gugliotti”) on notice of a report drafted by Assistant Superintendent Sequeira

(“Sequeira”), Research, Development, and Testing Supervisor Tara Battistoni (“Battistoni”), and

Reading/Language Arts K-6 Supervisor Patricia Moran (“Moran”) and directed Sequeira,

Battistoni, and Moran in a July 22, 2011, memorandum to contact Chief Gugliotti “in the event”

they “may need to contact him for assistance as well.”

7. The SDOE retained Attorney Frederick L. Dorsey (“Attorney Dorsey”) of Siegel,

O’Connor, O’Donnell & Beck, P.C. on August 2, 2011, to conduct an investigation to determine


3

whether and to what extent “testing irregularities” occurred during the administration of the 2011

CMT at Hopeville.

8. Superintendent Snead notified Moulthrop on August 1, 2011, that effective

August 15, 2011, the first day of the 2011-2012 school year, Moulthrop would be placed on

administrative leave with pay.

9. In total, Superintendent Snead placed seventeen Hopeville teachers and two

Hopeville administrators, including Moulthrop, on administrative leave pending the SDOE’s

investigation of the 2011 CMT at Hopeville.

10. Also, in reliance upon an August 23, 2011, criminal complaint by Waterbury

Public Schools (WPS) Personnel Director Ronald Frost (“Frost”), alleging that as the Summer

School Coordinator Moulthrop “has possibly removed the student documents from her office

computer and placed them onto her personal thumb drive,” the Waterbury Police Department

(WPD) executed a warrant on September 16, 2011, to seize and search two computers located in

Frost’s office that Frost claimed had been misused by Moulthrop.

11. WPD Captain Christopher Corbett (“Captain Corbett”) presented the investigation

of Frost’s August 23, 2011, criminal complaint of computer crime against Moulthrop to the

Office of the Chief State’s Attorney on November 23, 2011, which resulted in a December 2,

2011, report signed by WPD Detective Peter Morgan and his supervisor, Captain Corbett,

closing the case for lack of probable cause because the criminal complaint filed by Frost against

Moulthrop for computer crime was rejected by the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office.

12. Frost’s report to the WPD was defamatory, false, malicious, and made with the

sole intent to destroy Moulthrop’s reputation, cause her termination from employment, prejudice


4

the investigation into alleged 2011 CMT “testing irregularities,” and deprive Moulthrop of her

rights, freedom, and liberty.

13. Attorney Dorsey’s investigation included a taped interview of Moulthrop and 28

City administrators, educators, and employees from which he presumably selected “evidence” to

support findings contained in an Investigative Report of the Connecticut State Department of

Education Regarding Allegations of Testing Irregularities During the 2011 Connecticut Mastery

Test dated September 13, 2011, (“Dorsey report”), none of which can be verified due to the

unavailability of the interview recordings.

14. The Dorsey report vaguely concluded not that cheating occurred but that, through

an “orchestration” by Moulthrop, there “appeared” to be “sufficient credible evidence” of

“testing irregularities”:

a. There is “sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate that testing irregularities occurred during the course of the 2011 administration of the Connecticut Mastery Test at Waterbury’s Hopeville Elementary School”; and

b. The “preponderance of the evidence also appears to show that these irregularities were orchestrated by Maria Moulthrop, with the direct assistance of Reading Teacher Margaret Perugini.” (Emphasis in bold added.)

15. More than four years have passed since the Dorsey report issued and the SDOE

still has not provided Moulthrop an opportunity to defend herself at a revocation hearing against

the damage inflicted upon her personal and professional reputation by the attempt to revoke her

educator certificates.

16. In fact, as a direct result of Attorney Dorsey’s destruction of the investigation’s

recorded interviews, Moulthrop’s capacity to prove that Attorney Dorsey misrepresented,

embellished, and cited out of context interviewee statements, omitted statements that did not

support the City’s agenda to terminate Moulthrop, and protected the City from scrutiny for its


5

knowing and active encouragement and participation in what the Dorsey report termed “testing

irregularities” has been compromised.

17. One example of a statement omitted from the Dorsey report is an observation by

one Hispanic Hopeville staff interviewee that the entire basis of the investigation was a

presumption that Hopeville students, no matter how extreme and focused the seven months of

preparation preceding the tests, could not achieve such results.

18. The Dorsey report also failed to reference written directives distributed to CMT

administrators regarding CMT testing procedures, Battistoni’s full knowledge of every action

taken by Moulthrop in administering the 2011 Hopeville CMTs, and the occurrence of identical

“testing irregularities” in other schools within the Waterbury Public Schools.

19. For example, in a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Battistoni and offered by

Battistoni to City educators regarding the administration of the 2006 through 2011 CMTs, City

educators were instructed by Battistoni to “darken light marks, erase stray marks” in direct

contravention of the State Department of Education (SDOE) CMT examiner manuals which

direct educators not to erase stray marks in a test booklet.

20. For example, in a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Battistoni and offered by

Battistoni to City educators regarding the administration of the 2006 through 2011 CMTs, City

educators were instructed by Battistoni that they could move students who they knew would be

disruptive into smaller groups for testing.

21. The Dorsey report cites both of these occurrences as “testing irregularities” which

the preponderance of the evidence appeared to show were “orchestrated by Maria Moulthrop,

with the direct assistance of Reading Teacher Margaret Perugini.”


6

22. According to Battistoni’s PowerPoint presentation, instructions prepared and

offered by her to City educators about the administration of the 2006-2011 CMTs prevailed over

conflicting instructions in SDOE CMT examiner manuals.

23. The Dorsey report omits any reference to Battistoni’s PowerPoint presentation

and instructions to City educators as the cause of the “testing irregularities.”

24. The Dorsey report omits any reference to an examination of the frequency of the

conduct at other City schools that were deemed in his report to be “testing irregularities” at

Hopeville.

25. When Hopeville students returned in September 2011 for the 2011-2012 school

year the 2011 CMT was re-administered to them and their appreciable lower scores used by the

City as proof that “testing irregularities” in fact occurred during the regular administration in

March 2011.

26. However, the City failed to include a control group in the September 2011 re-

administration and based on the Dorsey report, Superintendent Snead informed Moulthrop in a

September 21, 2011, letter that the City was considering the termination of Moulthrop’s contract

of employment under General Statutes § 10-151.

27. In response to a request from Moulthrop for the reasons underlying the City’s

decision to consider terminating her contract of employment as of September 21, 2011, the City

informed Moulthrop that the decision was based on the September 13, 2011, Dorsey report.

28. With the commencement of the 2011-2012 school year, Thomas Pannone

(“Pannone”) was appointed acting principal at Hopeville to replace Moulthrop.

29. In 1993, Moulthrop was chosen over Pannone, a long-time WPS educator, for the

position of principal at Chase Elementary School.


7

30. While Moulthrop transferred from Chase to Hopeville in 1996 to become

principal at Hopeville, Pannone would have to wait years before his promotion to principal.

31. WPS Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer Paul Guidone

(“Guidone”) granted Pannone $3,000 after Pannone was appointed acting principal at Hopeville

in Summer 2011 so that Pannone would not have to raise funds to support student activities as

Moulthrop needed to do while she was Hopeville principal.

32. Hopeville PTO TD Bank statements mailed to Hopeville were opened by Pannone

and forwarded to Guidone and Frost on September 2, 2011.

33. Frost used the Hopeville PTO TD Bank statements he received from Pannone on

September 2, 2011, to unlawfully gain access to Moulthrop’s Hopeville PTO TD Bank account

by misrepresenting that Superintendent Snead owned the account, convincing TD Bank to

remove Moulthrop as the sole signer and account owner without her authorization, and adding

Frost’s name as the sole signer on the account.

34. Frost obtained Moulthrop’s personal Hopeville PTO TD Bank records and

collaborated with WPS Education Liaison Mary Ann Marold (“Marold”), Business Office

Manager Doreen Biolo (“Biolo”), and Guidone, to present the Hopeville PTO TD Bank

statements and checks to the WPD as evidence that Moulthrop had misappropriated money for

her personal use from the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account.

35. Frost and Marold then filed a criminal complaint on December 6, 2011, with

WPD Lt. Michael Slavin (“Slavin”) and Det. David McKnight (“McKnight”) alleging that no

PTO existed at Hopeville and that Moulthrop had misappropriated money from the PTO for her

personal use.


8

36. Moulthrop resigned from her employment on December 9, 2011, under the duress

of the unrelenting, maliciously-motivated City campaign to direct the resources and attention of

the SDOE, Captain Corbett, Slavin, McKnight, Superintendent Snead, Guidone, Biolo, Frost,

Marold, and Pannone toward the destruction of Moulthrop’s professional reputation and the

deprivation of her personal freedoms and liberty.

37. The City denied Moulthrop due process as confirmed by an email from Waterbury

Board of Education Commissioner Jason Van Stone who, after being informed on December 9,

2011, by Guidone, that Moulthrop had resigned and without hearing any evidence, responded

“Damn, I really wanted to fire her.”

38. In response Guidone told Commissioner Van Stone, “More may be coming.”

39. Moulthrop was arrested on June 28, 2012, pursuant to a warrant sworn to by

Slavin alleging facts in support of probable cause to arrest Moulthrop for larceny in the second

degree conditioning her release on a $50,000 bond.

40. SDOE Attorney Matthew Venhorst (“Attorney Venhorst”) drafted a report dated

October 17, 2012, to SDOE Commissioner Stefan Pryor “in connection with a request to revoke

the teaching certificates of Maria Moulthrop” and for the Commissioner’s consideration in

determining whether “probable cause exists to institute formal certificate revocation proceedings

against Moulthrop.”

41. In reliance upon Attorney Dorsey’s September 13, 2011, report Attorney

Venhorst informed the Commissioner “it appears that numerous breaches of testing security and

protocols occurred during the 2011 administration of the CMT, and that Moulthrop was

principally responsible for the administration of the test.”


9

42. In reliance upon the investigation conducted by Slavin and McKnight and the

June 26, 2012, arrest warrant, Attorney Venhorst informed the commissioner the weight of the

evidence in the criminal case of larceny in the second degree against Moulthrop was “simply too

compelling to be accounted for by Moulthrop’s proffered explanations.”

43. SDOE Commissioner Pryor found probable cause on November 21, 2012, to

institute formal procedures against Moulthrop to revoke her educator certificates.

44. State statutes provide that the next step in revoking an educator certificate after

the SDOE commissioner finds probable cause is notice to the certificate holder of the grounds

for revocation.

45. The certificate holder then has fifteen days to surrender his or her educator

certificates or request a hearing to challenge the revocation and any hearing requested must be

held within sixty days.

46. Nearly 42 months have passed since the SDOE commissioner found probable

cause to institute formal revocation procedures against Moulthrop; however, since the SDOE

commissioner has never provided the requisite statutory notice to trigger the fifteen-day period

for Moulthrop to request a hearing which would trigger the sixty-day period to hold a hearing to

challenge the revocation, the SDOE commissioner has purposely and maliciously denied

Moulthrop a timely opportunity for hearing to clear her name and reputation to seek

employment.

47. The SDOE commissioner buttressed the unsupported findings in Attorney

Dorsey’s September 13, 2011, report with Moulthrop’s June 28, 2012, criminal arrest to find

probable cause to institute revocation proceedings then avoided notice to Moulthrop and the

trigger of the fifteen-day period in anticipation that the June 27, 2012, criminal arrest would


10

result in a felony plea, conviction, or agreement as part of a criminal plea negotiation to

surrender her educator certificates, any of which would have resulted in the automatic revocation

of Moulthrop’s four educator certifications and avoided the statutory requirement of a hearing if

requested by Moulthrop after receiving notice.

48. Moulthrop was acquitted of all criminal charges on November 12, 2014, after the

submission of testimony and evidence through eleven witnesses including Slavin, McKnight,

Frost, Marold, Pannone, Biolo, and a TD Bank, N.A. representative and more than 500 exhibits

during the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

49. Moulthrop informed the SDOE on November 24, 2014, of the criminal court’s

November 12, 2014, acquittal and dismissal of all charges against her related to Frost’s and

Marold’s December 6, 2011, complaint of larceny.

50. The SDOE informed Moulthrop on February 2, 2015, that it was evaluating

whether there was probable cause to institute proceedings to revoke Moulthrop’s educator

certificates and confirmed on May 15, 2015 that the SDOE had withdrawn the original probable

cause report as a result of the November 12, 2014, acquittal.

51. The SDOE requested that Moulthrop attend an interview as part of the new-

renewed probable cause investigation.

52. Finally, in a June 30, 2015, letter, Moulthrop informed the SDOE:

The incentive for Ms. Moulthrop to attend an interview would be to present facts and evidence in support of dismissing the request to revoke her educator certificates. However, Ms. Moulthrop demands more. She demands an opportunity to prove there was never any cause or basis to request revocation. The only manner of proving what Ms. Moulthrop demands proven is a hearing. Therefore, Ms. Moulthrop has no desire to meet with anyone to convince them that a hearing should not occur.


11

53. The SDOE has not responded to Moulthrop’s June 30, 2015, letter or provided

any information about the status of its new-renewed evaluation of whether there is probable

cause to institute proceedings to revoke Moulthrop’s educator certificates.

54. If the Dorsey report was sufficient to terminate Moulthrop as stated by the City’s

response to Moulthrop’s September 26, 2011, request for the reasons underlying the City’s

decision to consider the termination of the contract of her employment, then the delay in

providing Moulthrop a hearing since the November 12, 2014, acquittal of all charges related to

the June 28, 2012, arrest can only be explained by the fact that the Dorsey report was never

supported by evidence and the criminal charge of larceny was created to ensure that Moulthrop

would falter when faced with prison and accept a diversionary program with the understanding

that she would agree to surrender her educator certificates rather than risk a criminal trial.

JURISDICTION

55. This district court has original jurisdiction over Moulthrop’s federal claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. §§

3401 et seq. and supplemental jurisdiction over Moulthrop’s other claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1367 as they are sufficiently related to the claims in this action over which the court has original

jurisdiction.

PARTIES

56. Plaintiff Maria Moulthrop is an adult resident of Connecticut.

57. Defendant Michael Slavin (“Slavin”) is employed by the City of Waterbury as a

sworn member of the Waterbury Police Department. Slavin is sued in his individual and official

capacities.


12

58. Defendant City of Waterbury is a municipality in Connecticut as defined and

described by section 7-148 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

59. Defendant David McKnight (“McKnight”) is employed by the City of Waterbury

as a sworn member of the Waterbury Police Department. McKnight is sued in his individual

capacity.

60. Defendant Orlando Rivera (“Rivera”) is employed by the City of Waterbury as a

sworn member of the Waterbury Police Department. Rivera is sued in his individual capacity.

61. Defendant Vernon Riddick (“Riddick”) is employed by the City of Waterbury as

the Chief of the Waterbury Police Department. Riddick is sued in his official capacity.

62. Defendant Neil O’Leary is the Mayor of the City of Waterbury and is sued in his

official capacity.

63. Defendant Paul Guidone (“Guidone”) was employed by the City of Waterbury as

the chief operating officer and chief of staff of the Waterbury Public Schools at all times relevant

to the Complaint.

64. Defendant Ronald Frost (“Frost”) was employed by the City of Waterbury as the

personnel director for the Waterbury Public Schools at all times relevant to the Complaint

through May 3, 2013.

65. Defendant Mary Ann Marold (“Marold”) is employed by the City of Waterbury as

the education liaison for the Waterbury Public Schools. Marold is sued in her individual

capacity.

66. Defendant Doreen Biolo (“Biolo”) is employed by the City of Waterbury as the

business office manager for the Waterbury Public Schools. Biolo is sued in her individual

capacity.


13

67. Defendant Thomas Pannone (“Pannone”) was employed by the City of Waterbury

as a teacher and principal at all times relevant to the Complaint through June 30, 2012. He is

sued in his individual capacity.

68. Defendant T.D. Bank, N.A. (“T.D. Bank”) is a subsidiary of The Toronto

Dominion Bank, a Canadian multinational banking and financial services corporation

headquartered in Toronto, Canada. T.D. Bank engages in banking and financial services in

Connecticut as a foreign corporation and is incorporated in Delaware.

69. Defendant Frederick Dorsey (“Dorsey”) was retained by the Connecticut State

Department of Education to investigate allegations of testing irregularities related to the

administration of the 2011 CMT at Hopeville Elementary School in the City of Waterbury.

70. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendants Slavin, McKnight, Rivera,

Riddick, Guidone, Frost, Marold, Biolo, and Pannone acted under color of state law.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

A. LIES AND OMISSIONS IN THE JUNE 27, 2012, ARREST WARRANT

i. Hopeville PTO Funds were not Expended on Shrimp and Kitty Litter

71. Slavin signed an affidavit on June 27, 2012, in support of a warrant to arrest

Moulthrop for larceny in the second degree, sworn to under oath, that he had “personal

knowledge of the facts and circumstances hereinafter related as a result of my own investigative

efforts.”

72. In fact McKnight on his own and absent any training in the administration of an

elementary school or principles of accounting, much less forensic accounting, conducted a

review of the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account statements and checks, BJ’s Wholesale (“BJ’s”)

transaction records, and Costco receipts which resulted in his conclusion that some of the


14

purchases made by Moulthrop using the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account did not “appear to be

school related.”

73. Slavin, despite the statement in his affidavit offered in support of the warrant to

arrest Moulthrop that he had “personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances hereinafter

related as a result of my own investigative efforts” went through the BJ transaction records

”pretty thinly” and through the TD Bank records only “briefly.”

74. McKnight performed the forensic accounting related to the review of the BJ

transaction records and the TD Bank records without assistance.

75. The WPD, intentionally and with deliberate indifference, allowed an untrained

officer to conduct a forensic accounting that would be relied upon in seeking a warrant for

Moulthrop’s arrest.

76. McKnight’s investigation of the terms “Parent Teacher Organization” and “PTO”

consisted, upon information and belief, of an internet search on sites similar to Yahoo, Google,

Bing, or AOL.

77. McKnight told Slavin and Slavin alleged in his affidavit in support of a warrant to

arrest Moulthrop that five purchases using Hopeville PTO TD Bank checks did not “appear to be

school related” when in the memo portion of the checks it was indicated the purchases were for a

Secretary’s Day ($75), a baby shower for a staff member ($66.84), a retirement party for a staff

member ($63.60), school art supplies ($350), and stamps ($8.80), all related to the function of a

PTO to reward, encourage, and increase morale in an underfunded, urban public school

environment.

78. McKnight did not investigate and Slavin omitted from his affidavit any reference

to the memos written on the checks indicating the purchases were for a Secretary’s Day gift, a


15

baby shower for a staff member, a retirement party for a staff member, school art supplies, and

stamps.


arrest Moulthrop that five purchases using Hopeville PTO TD Bank checks did not “appear to be

school related” because they were purchased during the summer when as a matter of record

Moulthrop was a Waterbury District Summer School Principal from 2000 through 2010 and the

Waterbury Summer School Coordinator in 2011.

80. Slavin omitted from his affidavit that Moulthrop was a Waterbury District

Summer School Principal from 2000 through 2010 and the Waterbury Summer School

Coordinator in 2011 even though according to one of the complainants, Mary Ann Marold, it

was “just common knowledge” that Moulthrop was the 2011 Summer School coordinator and in

fact the Waterbury Republican American had written articles in Summer 2011 about

Moulthrop’s position as the Summer School Coordinator.


arrest Moulthrop that Moulthrop purchased garden salad, cookbooks, fitness magazines, Tyson

Honey BBQ Wings, rye bread, shrimp, kitty litter, cranberries, walnuts, and Arm & Hammer

Detergent with Hopeville PTO TD Bank funds when in fact these items were purchased by

Moulthrop with non-Hopeville PTO funds.

82. The false and malicious allegations that Moulthrop purchased these items, in

particular the shrimp and kitty litter, exposed Moulthrop to intense media scrutiny and an

outpouring of negative public outcry in local and national newspaper articles and television

reports.


16

83. In the course of the investigation McKnight accessed Hopeville PTO TD Bank

checks made payable to fundraising organizations, including M&R Fundraisers, Mink and

Company, All-American, Scholastic Book Fairs, John Hayes & Sons, Joe Corbi Pizza

Fundraising, MCM, Galaxy Products, and the activities that the PTO and fundraising activities

supported including trips using Durham Transportation to destinations such as Ruwet Farms,

Bridgeport Sound Tigers games, New Britain Rock Cats games, vendors and suppliers such as

Jump and Bounce, A1 Art, Square 1 Art, the Waterbury Police Department for private duty

officers for school security, student of the month celebrations, monthly PAW Print for Success

behavior celebrations, Dr. Seuss Night, Math Night, Parent Literacy and reading workshops,

books for classroom libraries, small group instruction materials, evening and afternoon

workshops and celebrations, PE equipment, recess balls, jump ropes, skip-its, turtle scooters,

flowers and shrubs for the grounds, classroom support books/materials, field day activities,

cotton candy machine, popcorn machine, hot dog roast, celebrity readers, books for lunch bunch

book club, board games for indoor recess, and curriculum related board games.

84. McKnight, in reviewing a Hopeville PTO TD Bank check made payable in the

amount of $3,169.10 to “M&R,” presumed without evidence that “M&R Liquors” was the likely

payee, when in fact the check has been deposited into an account owned by M&R Fundraisers as

payment for coordinating and supplying Hopeville PTO fundraising activities.

85. Information about M&R Fundraisers is available on internet search engines

similar to Yahoo, Google, Bing, or AOL and one of the checks in the possession of McKnight

dated November 28, 2007, was made payable in the amount of $3,169.10 to “M&R Fundraisers.”

86. McKnight, in reviewing the Hopeville PTO TD Bank check made payable to the

City of Waterbury, was unable or unwilling to connect the payment to a private duty job


17

performed by a WPD officer for event security at Hopeville even though weeks prior to

submitting the warrant for Moulthrop’s arrest both Slavin and McKnight had been informed by

Moulthrop during a recorded interview that the check was made payable to the City of

Waterbury police department for a private, extra duty job at a Hopeville school dance.

87. McKnight, in reviewing Hopeville PTO TD Bank checks made payable to two

Hopeville teachers as reimbursement for school supplies that an underfunded, urban public

school environment was unable or unwilling to provide its students, failed to identify the payees

on the checks as Hopeville teachers because he only relied on the WPD database of criminals,

complainants, and witnesses to search for names and failed to request, investigate, or search for

the Hopeville faculty and staff roster or check the WPS web site for the list of Hopeville faculty

and their contact email addresses.

88. McKnight was unable or unwilling to track the sources of more than $123,000

that he claimed Moulthrop has expended from the Hopeville PTO TD Bank accounts between

2002 and 2011, the entirety of which was raised by Moulthrop through Hopeville PTO

fundraising and related to the function of a PTO to reward, encourage, and increase morale in an

underfunded, urban public school environment.

89. Among the financial records McKnight failed to request included Hopeville PTO

TD Bank deposit slips to determine the source of the deposited funds and breakdowns of the

checks paid to BJ Wholesale to determine which items were paid for using the Hopeville PTO

TD Bank account and which items were paid for using Moulthrop’s non-Hopeville PTO funds.

90. Slavin allowed an untrained detective to perform a review that required the

expertise of a forensic accountant to further the City of Waterbury’s goal of presenting

conclusory, unsupported, and false facts derived from a misinterpretation of financial records and


18

intentional disregard of financial entries and opportunities for further investigation, all of which

resulted in a warrant for arrest supported not by probable cause but by falsehoods,

misrepresentations, and material omissions that were not publicly revealed until the state offered

evidence and testimony at the criminal trial.

91. McKnight failed or was deliberately indifferent to the fact that that BJ Wholesale

transactions are further broken down into method of payment so that one transaction could have

numerous methods of payment.

ii. The Hopeville PTO Properly Operated and Funded Hopeville PTO Activities

92. Frost and Marold falsely and maliciously reported to McKnight and Slavin on or

about December 6, 2011, and during the course of the investigation that all PTOs in the City (1)

registered with the City; (2) had bylaws and rules to involve both parents and teachers; and (3)

were organized under a board of directors that approved all PTO expenditures.

93. Frost and Marold falsely and maliciously reported to McKnight and Slavin that

one person could never control an entire PTO.

94. McKnight did not ask Frost or Marold for a list of PTOs registered with the City

and the policies and procedures for registration of PTOs in the City, nor did he inquire about the

other schools in the City having PTOs to confirm whether each was registered, controlled by

more than one person, and had a board of directors.

95. Slavin stated in his affidavit in support of a warrant for Moulthrop’s arrest that

“each individual PTO has a board of directors that, to their [Frost’s and Marold’s] knowledge,

must approve all expenditures and fundraisers and that no one person would ever have control

over the entire organization.”


19

96. Slavin also stated in his affidavit that Frost and Marold confirmed for him that

“there were numerous schools within the City of Waterbury with valid PTOs and each of the

groups has rules and bylaws that involve both parents and teachers.”

97. When Pannone was assigned as interim Hopeville principal for the 2011-2012

school year he did not need to raise money as Moulthrop had done through a PTO because

Guidone simply handed Pannone $3,000 from City funds at the same time that McKnight and

Slavin were interviewing Pannone in an effort to arrest Moulthrop.

98. Pannone assuredly informed McKnight and Slavin that he had interviewed

Hopeville teachers and found that there had not been a Hopeville PTO in more than ten years.

99. One of the teachers that Pannone spoke to was Jodie Luchina who had received a

$30.00 check from the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account to reimburse her for the development of

PowerPoint pictures used for the “Paw Print for Success” student behavior program that the City

would not totally fund, but because McKnight relied on the WPD database of criminals,

complainants, and witnesses and never obtained a list of the Hopeville teachers he did not know

to ask Pannone or Luchina why Luchina would deny the existence of a Hopeville PTO to

Pannone when she had cashed a check from the purported non-existent PTO in 2009.

100. In fact, McKnight did draft a list in his field notebook of individuals paid with

Hopeville PTO TD Bank account checks including Jason Mastriani and Jodie Luchina but he

never identified Mastriani and Luchina as Hopeville teachers because if he had he could have

then asked Pannone why Pannone had represented, and Guidone, Frost, and Marold had

confirmed, that no Hopeville teacher was aware of a PTO when two of the teachers who were

purportedly unaware of a PTO had cashed checks written from the Hopeville PTO TD Bank

account with the name “Hopeville PTO” prominently displayed on the checks.


20

101. McKnight and Slavin accepted Pannone’s representation without obtaining a

written statement from Pannone or anyone else that the Hopeville teachers did not want to talk to

the officers about the PTO.

102. McKnight and Slavin made no attempt to interview the Hopeville teachers to

confirm Pannone’s representation that City of Waterbury elementary school teachers would

refuse to cooperate in a police investigation that supposedly had been initiated to protect the

interests of elementary school students and their parents.

103. Marold, an educator with thirty-six years of experience in City schools, including

twenty-two years teaching first grade at Tinker School and fourteen years combined as an

administrator at Walsh School and Driggs School, directly contradicted the statements attributed

to her by Slavin in his affidavit.

104. Marold stated under oath on October 23, 2014, at Moulthrop’s criminal trial that:

a. The City does not have any procedures or policies that require PTOs to have rules or bylaws;

b. The City does not require PTOs to register with the City; c. No state statute, school board policy, or national policy requires PTOs to have

a board of directors; and d. A principal may be the only one responsible for raising money to support a

PTO in a school.

105. Marold admitted that PTOs at other schools may or may not differ from the

Hopeville PTO because there are no rules or regulations that govern PTOs.

106. While Marold was a principal at Driggs School parent participation was difficult

even though she tried very hard to have parent meetings and her attempts to fundraise and start a

PTO failed.


21

107. Notices and calendars of district-wide monthly parent meetings distributed to the

families of the approximate 17,000 K-12 WPS student families at the beginning of the school

year result in attendance of between 8-12 parents.

108. McKnight stated under oath on October 29, 2014, at Moulthrop’s criminal trial

that a PTO does not require a minimum number of members to operate.

109. But for Moulthrop the Hopeville students would have relied on the annual

allocation of fifty-cents per student from the City for all of their activity needs.

110. McKnight and Slavin accepted Frost’s and Marold’s criminal complaint against

Moulthrop and their representations about PTOs without obtaining any written statements.

111. In a July 16, 2012, response to a Freedom of Information Act request Guidone

confirmed: (1) No state statutes govern the establishment or regulation of PTOs; and (2) A PTO

would own and control accounts established in the name of the PTO.

iii. The Annual Allocation of Fifty-Cents Per Student for Activities

112. Slavin alleged in his affidavit that “in January of each school year Principal

Moulthrop received a stipend of 50 cents per student from the City of Waterbury which was used

for student related activities and placed in a student activity fund” and that Moulthrop “put the

money allocated for the students in the Hopeville PTO account.”

113. Marold admitted in October 2014 under oath that principals “could probably”

deposit student activity funds in “another account.”

114. Between 2007 and 2011 some of the smaller schools in the WPS did not have a

Student Activity Fund (SAF) account to place the City’s annual fifty-cents per student allocation

to fund activities for students.


22

115. In 2009 Louis Fucito (“Fucito”), the WPS Business Office staff member assigned

to monitor SAF accounts, confirmed to Moulthrop that she was not required to have a separate

SAF account.

116. In a May 28, 2009, email from Fucito, copied to all principals, Guidone, then-

WPS Business Office Manager Paul Mazzaccaro, and Biolo, Fucito asked for all SAF account

entries for the 2008-2009 school year:

Hi ! The school year is almost over. Can you be sure that all your SAF entries are in Quicken before you leave for the year? I will be going over your accounts to make sure everything looks ok. If I have any questions or problems I will contact you. The Auditor's have made some suggestions that we may need to implement. They will also make suggestion after the audit that we will need to make. I will keep you informed to any changes that need to be made. If you need any help or have any question please call me at x6112.

117. Moulthrop responded by asking Fucito whether she could fax Fucito a copy of the

check she wrote to Scholastic Books for the entire amount to which Fucito responded: “You

don't have a SAF per say. It will be ok if you just keep the check there. If the auditor's need it I

will call you.”

118. Fucito never contacted Moulthrop to request the receipt for the 2008-2009 school

year or the following school years of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.

119. Between 2007 and 2011 the City never increased the fifty-cents per student

allocation to fund activities.

120. Moulthrop used the 2007-2008 SAF allocation of $232.00 to purchase learning

materials for students not provided by the City and books from Scholastic Books to award

students at Hopeville for positive achievements and encouragement.


23










124. The only City policy in place for receipt and expenditure of the SAF fifty-cents

per student allocation was that the funds be used for the school and student.

125. In a September 2, 2011, email from WPS Central Business Office Manager Paul

Mazzaccaro to Superintendent Snead and Guidone, copied to Biolo, Mazzaccaro wrote:

To the best of my recollection Hopeville did not have a student activity account. I assume there may have had a PTA account but we did not have had any involvement in that. The pta would control like they did at Regan. Doreen could confirm that there was month student activity account. [As in original.]

126. WPS principals at some smaller schools such as Hopeville and Regan Elementary,

where Mayor O’Leary’s sister, current WPS Instructional Leadership Director Noreen Buckley,

was principal, did not maintain separate SAF accounts and cashed the checks without first

depositing them; however each check received by Moulthrop was deposited into the Hopeville

PTO TD Bank account as only a small addition to the total amount used to fund student activities

at Hopeville made possible by the Hopeville PTO.


24

127. Guidone responded to Mazzaccaro’s September 2, 2011, email, copied to

Superintendent Snead and Biolo: “There is no student activity account.”

128. Guidone updated Mazzaccaro and Superintendent Snead, copied to Frost,

Pannone, and Biolo, later on September 2, 2011, by email:

Tom Pannone just received a statement in the mail of a PTO account with a balance of about $2000 even though he says there has not been an active PTO for years. She may have been using this instead of a Student Activity Acct. Paul M contact Tom on Wed.

129. Superintendent Snead, Guidone, and Biolo all knew that Moulthrop’s use of the

Hopeville PTO TD Bank account to deposit the annual SAF fifty-cents per student allocation

was sanctioned by the City and no different than what Principal Noreen Buckley was doing at

Regan School with the PTA account but they purposefully and maliciously withheld this

information from Slavin and McKnight, knowing neither officer would ask any questions or

perform an independent investigation because each officer had been told that their job was to

obtain an arrest warrant for Moulthrop.

130. In fact, McKnight and Slavin did not review City SAF account records, speak to

Fucito about SAF accounts, request the SAF account audits, or ask for any written statements

from Guidone, Frost, Marold, Biolo, or Pannone to hold them accountable for making false

reports related to their representations about the City’s SAF accounts.

B. THE GENESIS OF THE DELUGE OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST MOULTHROP IN 2011

i. Reports of CMT Irregularities

131. In a post to his Facebook page on Sunday, August 21, 2011, at 3:17 pm, former

Waterbury Board of Education Commissioner (“Board”) Paul D'Angelo simply could not contain

his delight in anticipating an article he expected would appear in the Republican-American


25

newspaper the next day: "Cant wait to see tomorrow Republican American …..," D'Angelo

cryptically typed.

132. Michelle Lucian, a Waterbury elementary school literacy teacher, "liked"

D'Angelo's post, commenting in one word: "karma…."

133. When Moulthrop became the district's 2011 Summer School Coordinator she

brought with her 18 years of experience including, in the 10 preceding years, the position of

Hopeville Summer School Principal.

134. The format and clarity of the reports she submitted to Superintendent Snead about

school curriculum and student progress at Hopeville were chosen as examples for other

principles to follow by the Board at its March 2011 meeting.

135. Then, in an article published in the Republican-American newspaper on Monday,

August 22, 2011, appeared the contents of an August 17, 2011, evaluation written by Sequeira

directed to Moulthrop that Moulthrop had never seen alleging that Moulthrop had not fulfilled

her duties as the Summer School Coordinator, stating that in "the 10 years of conducting

Summer School, I [Sequeira] have never been faced with the problems that you have created."

136. Former Board commissioner D'Angelo was aware of the evaluation in

Moulthrop’s personnel file on August 21, 2011, and the evaluation was quoted verbatim in the

Republican-American as anticipated the previous evening in D'Angelo's Facebook post that

Lucian had "liked."

137. Guidone was occupied publicizing Moulthrop’s evaluation revealing also to

Michael Puffer, a reporter with the Republican-American, that he had asked Frost to launch an

"investigation" which he expected would move "very quickly," expressing hope that the issue


26

would be "shared with an attorney hired by the state to investigate cheating allegations at

Hopeville" and envisioning "no conflict between the two investigations."

138. Guidone’s statements would also appear in Puffer’s August 22, 2011, article.

ii. Transforming a Parent’s Concern About Snacks into a Criminal Complaint of Larceny

139. The parent of a Hopeville student in his first year of attendance at Hopeville

complained to the Waterbury School District Action Team during meetings in 2010 where

Marold and Waterbury School Board member Karen Harvey and other City officials were

present about snacks being served in the Hopeville cafeteria during lunchtime.

140. The parent also complained that although her child never purchased any snacks at

Hopeville, she was concerned when her child had asked for money because her child received a

free lunch.

141. No one was interested in the parent’s complaints until August 8, 2011, after

Moulthrop was placed on administrative leave related to the investigation of the 2011 CMT.

142. The Waterbury School District’s sudden and delayed interest in the parent’s

complaints coincided with an August 1, 2011, letter sent by Superintendent Snead providing

notice to Moulthrop of her administrative paid leave and prohibiting Moulthrop from entering

Hopeville and all WPS property pending the SDOE investigation into the administration of the

2011 CMT at Hopeville.

143. Frost and Marold interviewed the parent on August 8 and 16, 2011, never asking

the parent whether the student wanted to purchase the snacks sold by the City during lunchtime

in the cafeteria for profit or the snacks sold by the Hopeville PTO to supplement the City’s

annual SAF allocation of fifty-cents per student for activities.


27

144. Frost and Marold never asked Linda Franzese, the WPS Food Services Manager,

for records of the mandatory visits conducted by her department’s site managers to monitor

cafeteria compliance with rules and regulations.

145. McKnight never asked Frost and Marold if the City had records of cafeteria

inspections

146. Frost and Marold maliciously exploited the parent’s ten-month old complaint to

concoct a criminal complaint of misallocation of Hopeville PTO TD Bank account funds that

Slavin and McKnight never bothered to investigate.

147. In filing the larceny complaint, Frost and Marold informed Slavin and McKnight

that a parent had complained on August 8, 2011, about (1) the use of money raised at Hopeville

during the 2010-2011 school year; (2) the sale of snacks to students in the Hopeville cafeteria

during the 2010-2011 school year; and (3) the absence of a Hopeville PTO.

148. Slavin omitted from the affidavit that the concerned parent had complained

initially more than one year prior to December 6, 2011, and until Moulthrop was placed on

administrative leave no one from the City had cared about the parent or her concern.

149. McKnight spoke to the concerned parent once by phone and neither he nor Slavin

ever met the parent or obtained a written statement from the parent.

C. TD BANK RECORDS

150. When Superintendent Snead appointed Pannone acting Hopeville principal for the

2011-2012 school year commencing August 1, 2011, Pannone had access to Moulthrop’s records

and files left behind in her office when she was placed on administrative leave and told not to

return to school property.


28

151. Pannone opened the first-class mail addressed to the Hopeville School PTO and

provided the bank statements for the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account to Frost and Guidone on

September 2, 2011.

152. Guidone instructed Frost to obtain access to the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account

records and then close the account.

153. TD Bank required Frost to obtain authorization from Moulthrop to add Frost’s

name to the account in order to access and close the account.

154. Frost contacted Moulthrop on September 27, 2011, to inform her that he was in

possession of the Hopeville PTO TD Bank statements for June 2011, July 2011, and August

2011.

155. In his September 27, 2011, correspondence with Moulthrop, Frost informed

Moulthrop that the WPS Central Business Office did not have a record of the Hopeville PTO TD

Bank account and directed Moulthrop to turn over all records of the Hopeville PTO TD Bank

account to Frost on or before October 1, 2011.

156. Moulthrop informed Frost that the account records were in the Hopeville

principal’s office where she had placed them prior to being prohibited from returning to school

property without notice or opportunity to retrieve her personal possessions or perform an

inventory of the items in her Hopeville office.

157. Moulthrop never authorized TD Bank to remove her name from the then-current

and preceding Hopeville PTO TD Bank account or to allow Frost access to the Hopeville PTO

TD Bank account.


29

158. City Corporation Counsel Paula Anthony told Frost that the preferred method for

obtaining access to the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account was for Moulthrop to sign over the

account to Frost although if this was not possible the City could pursue the matter legally.

159. When Frost was not able to obtain Moulthrop’s consent to access the Hopeville

PTO TD Bank account, Superintendent Snead, Frost Guidone, Biolo, and Marold conspired to

use their governmental authority to misrepresent to TD Bank that the owner of the account was

the Superintendent of the Waterbury Public Schools.

160. TD Bank, in contravention of its legal obligation to protect the financial records

of its customers, allowed Superintendent Snead, Frost, Guidone, Biolo, and Marold to use their

governmental authority to access and obtain records on behalf of the Superintendent of the

Waterbury Public Schools when the Superintendent had no connection, whatsoever, to the

Hopeville PTO TD Bank account owned by Moulthrop as the sole signatory on the account.

161. This contravention of the law was driven by a conspiracy on the part of those

employed by the Waterbury Board of Education, the WPS, and the WPD to fabricate criminal

charges against Moulthrop to ensure revocation of Moulthrop’s educator certificates based on the

criminal charge of larceny without the necessity of proving the allegations of 2011 CMT “testing

irregularities” brought against Moulthrop based on her position as principal of Hopeville.

162. According to TD Bank, Frost obtained access to the Hopeville PTO TD Bank

account on October 11, 2011, “pursuant to his authorization from the Superintendent of the

Waterbury Public Schools” after Frost represented, falsely, that the Superintendent of the

Waterbury Public Schools was the “owner” of the PTO entity.

163. TD Bank then disclosed information about the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account

to Frost as if he were an authorized signatory on the account.


30

164. Slavin and McKnight used the records that Superintendent Snead, Frost, Guidone,

Biolo, and Marold obtained illegally as evidence in support of a search and seizure warrant they

obtained for the then-current and preceding Hopeville PTO TD Bank account records.

165. Frost uttered material misrepresentations to Slavin and McKnight that were

repeated by Slavin and McKnight in two search and seizure warrants dated December 8, 2011,

for Hopeville PTO TD Bank account records as follows: Moulthrop had contacted TD Bank to

“put Ron Frost on record as the sole account holder of the PTO account.”

166. Slavin and McKnight included material misrepresentations in two search and

seizure warrants dated December 8, 2011, for Hopeville PTO TD Bank account records as

follows: Moulthrop had contacted TD Bank to “put Ron Frost on record as the sole account

holder of the PTO account.”

167. Slavin and Rivera used the records that Superintendent Snead, Frost, Guidone,

Biolo, and Marold obtained illegally as evidence in support of a search and seizure warrant they

obtained for the BJ Wholesale account records associated with all Moulthrop BJ Wholesale

transactions whether paid through the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account or Moulthrop’s funds

not associated with the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account.

168. After Moulthrop was arrested for larceny in June 2012, American News and

Information Services, Inc. (“American News”) asked the Superintendent of the Waterbury Public

Schools: “Who owns and controls the funds deposited into and spent from PTO and PTA

accounts?”

169. When American News received no response, its President, Edward A. Peruta,

appeared before the Waterbury Board of Education and its counsel, Maurice B. Mosley, to

demand an answer.


31

170. In a July 16, 2012, letter, Guidone informed Peruta:

As you are probably aware, research indicates there are no Connecticut State Statutes governing the establishment or regulation of PTAs or PTOs. In my opinion, the PTA/PTO would own and control accounts established in the name of the Association or Organization.

171. At least two weeks prior to his submission of the warrant for Moulthrop’s arrest,

Slavin was informed of the same by Moulthrop’s counsel in a letter dated May 15, 2012:

This letter will confirm our scheduled meeting at my office in Torrington for 11 am on May 16, 2012, regarding an investigation. Prior to our originally scheduled meeting I obtained voluminous records of bank statements, checks, and purchase history reports from BJ’s Wholesale Club in preparation. Yesterday I reviewed additional records for that same purpose. I recall our discussion some weeks ago when I requested opportunity to review your file and this was not agreeable. When I request records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from governmental agencies the initial response, no matter the request, is a request to limit the scope of the request purportedly to abbreviate the response time and preserve resources. For the same reasons, after reviewing the voluminous records in my possession, I respectfully ask that you provide the particular checks or purchase history receipts at issue in advance so that they may be crossed checked in advance and complete and accurate responses provided. We are more than willing to meet as scheduled and look forward to responding to your inquiries but given the number of financial transactions which occurred over a period of time, we will need either advance notice of the transactions at issue or a period of time after the questions are asked to respond. I do have concerns about my client’s privacy. The records I have reviewed pertain to an account opened by my client under her EIN without any involvement or oversight by the City of Waterbury. My understanding is that the City of Waterbury has not adopted rules, policies, or regulations pertaining to these types of accounts. Therefore I wish to confirm that the funds in question are public funds and not private funds. In conclusion, please understand that Ron Frost of the City of Waterbury already falsely accused my client of taking two laptops and later was compelled to retract that statement when the laptops were located in the City’s possession. This letter simply arises from my desire to be as accurate as possible so that there is no need to supplement or later retract any statements. Your courtesy has been appreciated


32

and I have no reason to believe that we will not be able to resolve these issues.

172. Despite the notice to Slavin that the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account funds were

not City property and that the City did not own the account or the funds, Slavin failed to

investigate Superintendent Snead, Frost, Guidone, Pannone, Biolo, Marold, or TD Bank for

illegally accessing the account and misappropriating the funds from Moulthrop.

173. Despite the notice to Slavin that the City had not adopted rules, policies, or

regulations pertaining to PTO/PTA accounts, Slavin signed an affidavit in support of

Moulthrop’s arrest claiming that the Hopeville PTO was “non-existent” because it did not have a

Board, by-laws, or a certain number of members.

174. Superintendent Snead, Frost, Guidone, Marold, Pannone, and Biolo conspired to

illegally gain access to the private Hopeville PTO TD Bank account by claiming that the account

was opened by Moulthrop on behalf of the Superintendent of the Waterbury Public Schools.

175. TD Bank participated in the illegal scheme by allowing Frost to access the

Hopeville PTO TD Bank account information and by allowing Frost and the Superintendent of

the WPS to steal the remaining funds from the Hopeville PTO TD Bank account that did not

belong to the Superintendent of the Waterbury Public Schools.

176. The Hopeville PTO TD Bank account records illegally obtained by

Superintendent Snead, Frost, Guidone, Marold, Pannone, and Biolo were the records relied upon

by Slavin and McKnight to obtain search and seizure warrants for the same records.

177. But for the conduct of Superintendent Snead, Frost, Guidone, Marold, Pannone,

Biolo, and TD Bank, the bank records would not have been obtained by Slavin and McKnight

and misrepresented by Slavin as evidence to support a warrant for Moulthrop’s arrest for a

baseless criminal charge of larceny.


33

D. ACQUITTAL AND DELAY IN SDOE REVOCATION HEARING

178. Attorney Venhorst submitted an October 17, 2012, Memorandum to SDOE

Commissioner Stefan Pryor entitled, “Investigation Report – In the Matter of Maria Moulthrop.”

179. Attorney Venhorst characterized the October 17, 2012, Memorandum as an

“analysis” to assist Commissioner Pryor in determining whether probable cause existed to

initiate revocation proceedings against Moulthrop.

180. Commissioner Pryor found probable cause on November 21, 2012, but took no

action to commence revocation proceedings and no action in furthering any investigation to

corroborate, among other things, the still uncorroborated allegation that the 2011 Hopeville CMT

answer sheet “bubbles” were erased and altered to “correct” the answers as claimed in the

Dorsey report.

181. In fact, the SDOE, knowing that the Dorsey report findings were false, inaccurate,

negligently investigated, and based on a predetermination of Moulthrop’s supervisory fault for

“irregularities” in the administration of the 2011 Hopeville CMT, did nothing until December 19,

2014, and only when prodded by a November 24, 2014, letter from Moulthrop, to address the

status of scheduling a revocation hearing where Moulthrop would have the opportunity to prove

that the Dorsey report was false, inaccurate, negligently investigated, and based on a

predetermined outcome of finding Moulthrop at fault.

182. In her November 24, 2014, letter Moulthrop provided notice to Commissioner

Pryor that Moulthrop was acquitted of the criminal charge of larceny on November 12, 2014, by

a superior court judge after the prosecuting authority rested its case.


34

183. In her November 24, 2014, letter Moulthrop advised Commissioner Pryor of her

intention to the return to the vocation she had dedicated her life to pursuing as her educator

certificates remained valid and there had been no finding of cause to revoke.

184. SDOE Attorney Louis Todisco responded in a December 12, 2014, letter as

follows:

The CSDE’s files reflect Ms. Moulthrop’s acquittal. Also, the October 17, 2012, report from the CSDE Division of Legal and Governmental Affairs which was based in part on the conduct underlying the criminal charges, and the finding of probable cause which followed the report have been rescinded. Any future action that may be initiated against Ms. Moulthrop’s educator certificates will not reference and will not be based upon the factual circumstances underlying the criminal charges of which Ms. Moulthrop has now bene acquitted.

185. In responding to Moulthrop’s subsequent December 30, 2014, and January 12,

2015, letters about the status of her educator certificates, Attorney Todisco told Moulthrop in a

February 2, 2015, letter that (1) the SDOE was “evaluating whether any further action will be

taken with respect to Ms. Moulthrop’s Educator certificates”; (2) the “evaluation will involve

determining whether there exists probable cause to institute revocation proceedings with respect

to Ms. Moulthrop’s certificates”; (3) the “Department of Education will begin to work on the

probable cause determination promptly”; and (4) the SDOE would afford her “the opportunity to

be interviewed in connection with its determination of whether probable cause exists to institute

revocation proceedings.”

186. However, in a Request to Revoke Certificate or Permit Issued by the State Board

of Education dated January 17, 2012, submitted by SDOE Associate Commissioner Barbara Q.

Beaudin, the only allegations relied upon for the revocation request were those contained in the

September 13, 2011, Dorsey report pertaining to the 2011 CMTs because at the time SDOE


35

Commissioner Beaudin requested the revocation, Moulthrop had not been arrested for the

larceny change.

187. Since the SDOE was fully aware of the allegations contained in the Dorsey report

and had been aware of those allegations for more than three years at the time of Moulthrop’s

acquittal on November 12, 2014, there is no explanation for the SDOE’s failure to determine in

the fourteen months since Moulthrop’s acquittal whether to proceed or not with revocation

except that the SDOE intends to continue to subject Moulthrop to the penalties and consequences

of revocation without having to prove that cause for revocation exists.

188. Meanwhile, after her acquittal, the SDOE educator certification Internet portal

status entries for Moulthrop’s educator certificates indicated “expired” even though her educator

certificates had not been revoked, the renewal fees were paid in advance of the expiration dates

in a timely manner and accepted by the SDOE, and all continuing education requirements had

been met and sufficient proof submitted by Moulthrop to the SDOE.

189. Moulthrop informed the SDOE that omitting the expiration dates from the status

of her educator certificates at the educator certification Internet portal signaled to any potential

employer that there was a negative issue attached to Moulthrop’s certificates.

190. In denying Moulthrop a timely hearing on the revocation of her educator

certificates, while at the same time signaling to potential employers that there was a negative

issue with her certificates and qualifications, the SDOE continues to subject Moulthrop to the

consequences and penalties of a revocation without the opportunity to be heard at a revocation

proceeding.

191. During a June 30, 2015, meeting between Attorney Todisco and Moulthrop’s

counsel regarding whether Moulthrop would be available for an interview as part of the SDOE’s


36

investigation into probable cause for the revocation of her certificates and in a June 30, 2015,

letter, Moulthrop provided the following notice to the SDOE:

I must assume the SDOE believes it has probable cause. Otherwise, the determination to dismiss would have been made months ago without waiting to interview Ms. Moulthrop unless the purpose in interviewing Ms. Moulthrop is to gather information to support probable cause where there is none. The incentive for Ms. Moulthrop to attend an interview would be to present facts and evidence in support of dismissing the request to revoke her educator certificates. However, Ms. Moulthrop demands more. She demands an opportunity to prove there was never any cause or basis to request revocation. The only manner of proving what Ms. Moulthrop demands proven is a hearing. Therefore, Ms. Moulthrop has no desire to meet with anyone to convince them that a hearing should not occur. I am providing you this letter in advance of our meeting as a courtesy and look forward to discussing a timeline for the revocation process.

192. Then, on or about September 9, 2015, at the SDOE educator certification Internet

portal a link to a letter appeared in Moulthrop’s educator certificates history that Moulthrop was

unable to access, again an unusual indication signaling to potential employers that there was a

negative issue with Moulthrop’s certificates and qualifications.

193. On December 11, 2015, the SDOE educator certification Internet portal status

changed to “Hold: Process on hold with a status date of 12/11/15,” again, an unusual indication

signaling to potential employers that there is a negative issue with Moulthrop’s certificates and

qualifications.

194. Although Moulthrop has applied for educator positions since her November 12,

2014, acquittal of the criminal charges the vast majority of school districts rely upon an Internet

application process such as www.appletrack.com.

195. The Internet application process for educator positions requires the click of a

submission button at the conclusion of the application.


37

196. An incomplete application, for example an application missing an expiration date

for the required educator certificate, is blocked from submission.

197. The SDOE’s omission of an expiration date from the status of Moulthrop’s three

educator certificates, even though Moulthrop’s educator certificates have not been revoked, they

have been paid, and all continuing education requirements met, prevents Moulthrop from

obtaining an educator position.

198. More than seven months have passed since the June 30, 2015, meeting when

Moulthrop made clear to the SDOE that she was ready to proceed with a hearing.

199. The SDOE still has not contacted Moulthrop or in any manner indicated that any

progress has been made on the “probable cause determination” that should have been issued

immediately in November 2014 if the SDOE believed it could rely on the allegations in the

Dorsey report as cause to revoke Moulthrop’s educator certificates.

200. In delaying the hearing by refusing to determine whether probable cause exists

and omitting an expiration date from the status of Moulthrop’s educator certificates, the SDOE

has subjected Moulthrop to the penalties and consequences of a revocation without having to

prove that any basis for a revocation ever existed.


38

CLAIMS AND VIOLATIONS

COUNT ONE

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution Unreasonable Search and Seizure of Property, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Article 1, § 7, of the Connecticut Constitution Against Slavin, McKnight, Rivera, Guidone, Frost, Marold, Biolo, and Pannone

201. Paragraphs 1 through 200, above, are hereby incorporated as part and in support

of Count One.

202. Defendants Pannone, Guidone, Frost, Biolo, and Marold, acting under color of

state law, conspired to illegally obtain records from TD Bank of banking and financial activity in

then-current and preceding Hopeville PTO accounts owned solely by Moulthrop on behalf of a

private entity the City had no authority to regulate or access.

203. Slavin, McKnight, and Rivera conspired with Pannone, Guidone, Frost, Biolo,

and Marold, while acting under color of state law, to use the unlawfully obtained Hopeville PTO

TD Bank records to obtain search warrants for the same bank accounts.

204. Then, based on their false and misleading representations concerning the entries

in the Hopeville PTO TD Bank records, Slavin and McKnight, driven by Guidone’s demand that

they obtain an arrest warrant for Moulthrop, submitted a false and misleading warrant to arrest

Moulthrop for larceny in the first degree.

205. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conspiracy to seize bank

records without a warrant in violation of her constitutional rights, Moulthrop has suffered

damages including loss of income, employment, and financial opportunities and emotional

distress, attorney’s fees and criminal defense expenses, damage to reputation, and invasion of

privacy.


39

COUNT TWO

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution Unreasonable Seizure of Person, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Article 1, § 7, of the Connecticut Constitution Against Slavin and McKnight


of Count Two.

207. Defendants Slavin and McKnight, in order to obtain a warrant to arrest Moulthrop

for larceny in the first degree, presented an affidavit to a judge completed with false, misleading,

and inaccurate facts, despite prior notice of the private nature of Moulthrop’s Hopeville TD Bank

accounts and the existence of BJ Wholesale transaction records separating school, student, and

staff related items paid for by Hopeville PTO TD Bank account funds from items paid for by

non-Hopeville PTO funds.

208. Defendants Slavin and McKnight, in order to obtain a warrant to arrest Moulthrop

for larceny in the first degree, presented an affidavit to a judge containing material omissions

concerning the authority Moulthrop had been granted by the WPS Central Business Office to

spend SAF money on books for the Hopeville students, concerning the common practice of

forgoing the maintenance of a separate SAF account at smaller schools, and concerning the

similar manner in which then Principal Noreen Buckley maintained the SAF money allocated to

Regan Elementary School.

209. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ seizure of her person by false

arrest in violation of her constitutional rights, Moulthrop has suffered damages including loss of

income, employment, and financial opportunities and emotional distress, attorney’s fees and

criminal defense expenses, damage to reputation, and invasion of privacy.


40

COUNT THREE

Common Law Malicious Prosecution Against Guidone, Pannone, Biolo, Marold, Frost


of Count Three.

211. The Defendants initiated or procured the institution of criminal proceedings

against Moulthrop.

212. The criminal proceedings have terminated in favor of Moulthrop.

213. The Defendants acted without probable cause.

214. The Defendants acted with malice, primarily for a purpose other than that of

bringing an offender to justice.

215. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ malicious false reports and

concealment of pertinent information, Moulthrop has suffered damages including loss of income,

employment, and financial opportunities and emotional distress, attorney’s fees and criminal

defense expenses, damage to reputation, and invasion of privacy.

COUNT FOUR

Failure to Train and Deliberate Indifference to Incompetency of Investigating Officers Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Against Riddick


of Count Four.

217. The violations of Moulthrop’s state and federal constitutional rights were caused

by the policies, practices, and customs of the City of Waterbury in failing to train its sworn

officers in the investigation of complaints of financial improprieties.


41

218. The violations of Moulthrop’s state and federal constitutional rights were caused

by the deliberate indifference of the chief of the Waterbury Police Department to the misuse of

his department’s investigatory resources by the Waterbury Public Schools, acting through

Guidone, Frost, Marold, Pannone, and Biolo, to procure Moulthrop’s arrest so that she would

falter when faced with prison and accept a diversionary program with the understanding that she

would agree to surrender her educator certificates rather than risk a criminal trial.

219. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s failure to train his officers and

his indifference to the incompetency of McKnight and Slavin to conduct a forensic accounting or

retain a forensic accountant as part of their investigation in violation of her constitutional rights,

Moulthrop has suffered damages including loss of income, employment, and financial

opportunities and emotional distress, attorney’s fees and criminal defense expenses, damage to

reputation, and invasion of privacy.

COUNT FIVE

Violation of Right to Financial Privacy Act 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 et seq.

Against TD Bank, N.A., Slavin, McKnight, Rivera, Guidone, Frost, Marold, Biolo, and Pannone


of Count Five.

221. TD Bank is a financial institution as defined under 12 U.S.C. § 3401(1).

222. TD Bank provided Defendants Frost, Marold, and Biolo financial records

pertaining to two Hopeville PTO TD Bank accounts owned by Moulthrop as the sole signatory in

violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act.

223. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violation of the Right to

Financial Privacy Act, Moulthrop has suffered damages including loss of income, employment,


42

and financial opportunities and emotional distress, attorney’s fees and criminal defense expenses,

damage to reputation, and invasion of privacy.

COUNT SIX

Common Law Intentional Spoilation of Evidence Against Attorney Dorsey


of Count Six.

225. Attorney Dorsey is a Commissioner of the Superior Court.

226. Attorney Dorsey’s investigation of the administration of the 2011 CMT at

Hopeville included a taped interview of Moulthrop and twenty-eight City administrators,

educators, and employees from which he presumably selected “evidence” to support findings

contained in the Dorsey report, none of which can be verified due to the unavailability of the

interview recordings.

227. The recordings are the best evidence of the statements taken by Attorney Dorsey

relevant and material to the administration of the 2011 CMT at Hopeville and Moulthrop’s

defense against Attorney Dorsey’s findings that the “preponderance of the evidence also appears

to show that these irregularities were orchestrated by Maria Moulthrop, with the direct assistance

of Reading Teacher Margaret Perugini.”

228. The destruction of evidence by a Commissioner of the Superior Court violates the

Rules of Professional Conduct which prohibit conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of

justice.

229. Attorney Dorsey intentionally destroyed the best evidence obtained in his

investigation relevant to the allegations against Moulthrop regarding the administration of the

2011 CMT.


43

230. Moulthrop’s capacity to prove that Attorney Dorsey misrepresented, embellished,

and cited out of context interviewee statements, omitted statements that did not support the

City’s agenda to terminate Moulthrop, and protected the City from scrutiny for its knowing and

active encouragement and participation in what the Dorsey report termed “testing irregularities”

has been compromised.

231. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s destruction of evidence,

Moulthrop has suffered damages including loss of income, employment, and financial

opportunities and emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and damage to reputation.

COUNT SEVEN

Breach of Contract Against Mayor Neil O’Leary


of Count Seven.

233. In accordance with an agreement between the City and Moulthrop, Moulthrop

resigned from her employment effective Friday, December 9, 2011.

234. The City paid Moulthrop on December 9, 2011, for the two-week pay period

ending November 30, 2011.

235. Moulthrop then never received an additional check for the salary owed her for the

partial pay period through December 9, 2011, the effective date of her resignation.

236. As a result of this breach Moulthrop seeks rescission of the agreement.


44

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff has suffered damages and requests this Court:

A. Award compensatory and punitive damages;

B. Issue an injunctive order mandating that the City of Waterbury facilitate training for its officers in investigating allegations of financial criminal offenses;

C. Reinstate Plaintiff with back-pay;

D. Award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

E. Award such other further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

PLAINTIFF MARIA MOULTHROP

BY: ______________________________ Rachel M. Baird (ct12131) Rachel M. Baird & Associate 15 Burlington Road Harwinton, CT 06791 Tel: (860) 605-9340 Fax: (860) 605-9343 Email: [email protected] Her Attorney

Dated this 10th day of February 2016, at Harwinton, Connecticut.


Documents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT …blogs.rep-am.com/sidebar/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DOC2-Moulthr… · FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MARIA MOULTHROP, : : ... Reading/Language