COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

______________________________________

Joseph P. Giardina,

Petitioner.

Board Of Education, Bedford Central Schools

Bruce L. Dennis, Superintendent of Schools

James Alloy, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources

Robyn Lane, “Teacher in Charge” (a.k.a. Principal) West Patent Elementary School

Respondents

_______________________________________

Petitioner’s Response

to Affidavit Submitted by Dr. Bruce L. Dennis Against Stay Order for Rescinding Appointment of Robyn Lane as Teacher in Charge at West Patent Elementary School

Petitioner requests the Commissioner accept this specific response to the sworn affidavit (herein affidavit) of Dr. Bruce L. Dennis submitted in the pending matter requesting a stay order. Petitioner is compelled to immediately address inaccurate and misleading statements by Respondent Dennis. Petitioner respectfully alleges:

Affidavit is Misleading With Regard To Events Surrounding Board Resolution Appointing Robyn Lane Teacher in Charge

1. Bruce L. Dennis’ anticipated appointment on 8/28/02 as principal of WPES is a cynical maneuver to make moot the request for a stay order rescinding the appointment of Lane as “Teacher in Charge” (see paragraph 45 of Affidavit).

2. Attached hereto is a copy of the Agenda for the 8/28/02 Meeting of the Bedford Board of Education wherein under the “consent agenda” (p.6) is the motion to appoint respondent Superintendent as Principal of West Patent Elementary School (WPES). (attachment #1)

3. Respondent Dennis’s defensive self-appointment as WPES principal (with the anticipated rubberstamp formality of board approval on 8/27/02) belies his sworn statement that petitioner’s action is “void of any merit” in paragraph 2 of affidavit.

4. The commissioner, however, should be able to see through this outrageous masquerade. Robyn Lane is the de-facto WPES principal without NYS certification. This logical inference is bolstered by Respondent’s own words in paragraph 4 of Affidavit wherein he states that Lane’s appointment became necessary “by virtue of the sudden resignation of the principal.”

5. Extending Respondent Dennis’ preposterous logic in paragraph 45 of affidavit, the Superintendent could serve as principal of all five elementary schools in the Bedford Central School District since all that is required is one to “sign all State forms requiring the signature of the building Principal.”

6. Attached herein is a photocopy the District’s own webpage listing administrative personnel at its schools. For West Patent, Robyn Lane is listed as Principal. (attachment #2)

7. Contrary to Respondent’s remark in paragraph 4 of affidavit there is nothing incumbent on Petitioner to draw an imaginary and irrelevant distinction between a “probationary appointment” and a “mere temporary assignment as teacher in charge.” The whole point behind Petitioner’s argument is that there is no distinction between “Principal” and “Teacher in Charge.”

8. The “lateness of resignation” excuse offered by Respondent Dennis in paragraph 11 of affidavit is irrelevant.

9. The “unavailability of personnel” excuse offered by Respondent Dennis in paragraphs 12, 13, 38, 39 and 40 of affidavit is irrelevant and, further, is unsupported and left for conjecture.

Illusory and Irrelevant Distinction between Stipend and Salary

10. To re-cast Lane’s $97,500 “salary” as a “stipend” is as ludicrous re-naming the “principal” as teacher in charge. It is another example of Superintendent’s backpedaling to cover-up wrongdoing.

11. Upon information and belief, based on District’s listing of “stipends” for personnel, such are clearly understood in the educational parlance to be monies attributable to extra duties such as coaching or chairing a department. (attachment 1, p.6 “2002 Fall Coaching Recommendations”)

12. In the Board’s motion approving Lane’s appointment no indication exists of a stipend in Lane’s appointment as “Teacher in Charge.”

13. Lane’s reassigned duties Dennis speaks of in paragraph 22 of affidavit are precisely those of a building principal thus the huge increase in her salary. Her new duties are not “additional,” they are, in fact, new.

14. Therefore, By Dennis’s own reasoning in paragraph 23 of affidavit, the “continuing wrong” theory does indeed apply if the Commissioner considers Lane’s salary as compensation for the duties and responsibilities of a principal.

15. The question before the commissioner is simply posed: Is the WPES “Teacher in Charge” position for $97,500 really a WPES Principal without administrative certification? If she is, then the logic for granting the stay to rescind the Lane appointment is applicable.

16. Paragraphs 37 and 43 of affidavit confirm that Robyn Lane lacks administrative certification.

Allusions to Illusory Time Restraints As A Defense

17. Superintendent Dennis assumes an undefined and illusory time pressure to hire a principal, interim or otherwise, in paragraphs 4,8,11,12,36,40,42 and 44 of affidavit.

18. Superintendent Dennis also admits District did not advertise the administrative vacancy of WPES principal internally or externally consistent with district policy in paragraph 11 of affidavit.

19. A one-year position of principal in charge is not a temporary position (see paragraph 12 of affidavit). Temporary or not, a principal has to have administrative certification based on NYS Law and commissioners regulations.

20. Indeed, Respondent Dennis testifies in paragraph 15 of Affidavit, Robyn Lane was not given a probationary assignment but rather a one-year assignment as Teacher in Charge. The Teacher in charge is not “merely” an informal designation but rather a cover for a position as principal for which she in not in any fashion legally qualified to assume. This is the thrust of Petitioner’s argument.

21. The assignment of Robyn Lane as the principal is for twelve months. It is a full-time assignment for $97,500 plus benefits. This notion of a “traditional” time to hire principals is more gibberish explaining away illegal behavior.

22. Legal requirements for principal are not suspended for the BCSD.

23. The stay for rescinding of Lane’s appointment should be granted. Clearly no academic certification exists and the renaming of the job from principal to “teacher in charge” is a sham. District has no right to flaunt the law and regulations of New York. These actions are an embarrassment to the District and an affront to the taxpayers and parents of Bedford Central School District.

Regarding Service and Technical Issues

24. Petitioner re-served co-respondents Lane, Alloy, Board of Education and Dennis on 8/22/02. Copies were sent to the Commissioner and to Respondent District’s counsel, Ingerman Smith, L.L.P. the following day. It is likely that Respondent Dennis was not aware of this at the time of his affidavit.

25. “Notice of Petition” was submitted with Petition.

26. For these reasons and those previously stated, Petitioner strongly urges the Commissioner to issue a stay order and rescind the appointment of Lane as principal or teacher in charge at WPES stand pending further investigation.

Dated August 27, 2002

Joseph P. Giardina

Mt. Kisco, NY 10549

AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

In the Matter of Joseph P. Giardina,

Petitioner

Bedford Central School Board of Education Bruce L. Dennis, James Alloy, and Robyn Lane,

Respondents

Joseph P. Giardina being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the Petitioner pro-se in this proceeding, that he has read the annexed response to the Dr. Bruce L. Dennis Affidavit and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to the knowledge of deponent except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters he believes to be true.

Subscribed and Sworn This 27th day of August 2002