Sunday, August 14, 2016

OML Complaints Piling Up

Maria Geryk is seeking $309,000 to buy out last two years of her contract

The Amherst Pelham Regional School Committee is planning to go into executive session on Wednesday for the 5th consecutive meeting, only this time to approve the minutes from the previous four session so they can be released to the general public, and to discuss the Open Meeting Law complaint filed by Michael Hootstein on August 1st.

Well now they will have even more to discuss concerning that complaint because Mr. Hootstein has filed yet another seeking an overturn of their 4-3 vote last week to pay Superintendent Maria Geryk $309,000.

Furthermore, he is requesting the Attorney General fine RSC Chair Laura Kent and Amherst School Committee Chair Katherine Appy $1,000 for willfully and knowingly violating the Open Meeting Law.

 In addition he seeks release of an email from Maria Geryk distributed but retrieved by attorney Tom Columb, an associate of attorney Giny Tate, at the first executive session July 13 meeting where she presented her demands with assistance from Giny Tate who is the Regional School Committee's legal counsel.

107 comments:

Dr. Ed said...

Ginny Tate did WHAT?!?!?

Larry, assisting a adverse party is the lawyer version of a teacher sleeping with one of his students, and reducing it to writing (ie email) is like getting the girl pregnant -- with DNA eliminating all doubt of guilt.

Forget OML, if he has even a scintilla of evidence that Tate did this, he should file a complaint with the Bar folks in Boston. BOSTON, not Northampton, and name her firm as well. Lawyers get disbarred for a whole lot less than this, a LOT less.

And even if Tate didn't do this, there is enough malpractice to dump the whole bill on the firm -- along with a lot of other costs and punitive damages. Insurance companies aren't stupid, they'll gladly pay the 310K. After all, no matter how unfounded the suit, no matter how much it costs to defend against it, their total take can only be $100K.

Why do you think I didn't sue umASS? It wasn't worth it -- far better to release a book decades later and do unto them what they did to me -- destroy people's reputations, but I digress.

Bottom line: the law firm was obligated to act in the best interest of the taxpayers, it didn't, and it's liable for that.

Anonymous said...

Maybe UMass should get credit for the assist, Ed, but you've been far more effective at destroying your own reputation than even your most dedicated foe could ever hope to accomplish.

You don't see it that way, of course, which is why you'll continue to shoot yourself in the foot over and over again. Reputation is a measure of how others regard you, and you're clearly incapable of stepping outside your own ego for even a second.

(No, I have direct or indirect affiliation with UMass, the Amherst school system, or even the town of Amherst, your usual excuses for dismissing any criticism as coming from a biased source.)

Oh, and about that decades-in-the-making book... Will it be published posthumously?

Anonymous said...

could Tate be disbarred for this?

Dr. d said...

could Tate be disbarred for this?

ABSOLUTELY! I'd be surprised if she wasn't.

Anonymous said...

if this description is accurate, why/how, in the world, would SC members 'turn over' this SMOKING GUN EMAIL? Did the lawyer insist on seeing all members delete the email from all their electronic devices? IF so, how could anyone think that was a legal or rational request? (I know I have emails on at least 3 devices...). If this account is remotely accurate, I think we've entered the Twilight Zone.

r. Ed said...


Oh, and about that decades-in-the-making book... Will it be published posthumously?

While I'm not planning on dying anytime soon, you raise a valid concern.

Thank you.

I'll be speaking with counsel to ensure that it could be published posthumously. Seriously, I thank you...

Anonymous said...

How were the other committee members threatened to vote for the settlement?

Anonymous said...

Lawyer Columb passed out copies at the beginning of the executive session and then "confiscated" them at the end.

Anonymous said...

anon@7:44: sorry I must be dense... I thought the SMOKING GUN EMAIL was sent to the (or some members) SC. If it wasn't sent to SC members, who was it sent to? If it wasn't emailed to anyone and was just printed out, given to SC members, and then they were confiscated, it seems that it wasn't and email but rather a document. How could SC members be forced to give the document/printed email back (ie confiscated)? I'm just trying to understand the event as described by MR H

Anonymous said...

anon 7:40, Geryk threatened to sue named members who didn't vote for her WRITTEN EXTORTION DEMAND.

Anonymous said...

The coverup may not be worse than the crime in this instance.

Rebecca Casa said...

Yes this is true I heard that from a school committee member right after the vote

Rebecca Casa said...

It depends on what crime were speaking of. There's been so many problems and issues I'm for anything that gets her leaving with nothing

Rebecca Casa said...

It depends on what crime were speaking of. There's been so many problems and issues I'm for anything that gets her leaving with nothing

Anonymous said...

7:51 - the complaint says an email from attorneys tate & long to columbo or whatever his name is was copied, handed to committee members and confiscated at the end of the meeting...yes 7;18, little did they know they entered the ONLY IN AMHERST TWILIGHT ZONE. NO SPIN JUST FACT. THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY HA HA, TO THE FUNNY FARM. THERE MUST BE SOME WAY OUT OF HERE SAID THE JOKER TO THE THIEF. TOO MUCH CONFUSION I MUST GET SOME RELIEF.

Anonymous said...

How do we know geryk threatened to sue anyone?

Anonymous said...

Must be nice-someone else's tax money..and moving on to the Umass School of Education cliquestas gang..for an "upgrade'..jez say'n...!!

Dr. Ed said...

8:08, that letter from her lawyer that Larry posted might as well be a threat.

(I know I have emails on at least 3 devices...). If this account is remotely accurate, I think we've entered the Twilight Zone.

You have more copies than that.

As Hillary Clinton is learning, there are an INCREDIBLE number of redundant copies. There are assorted .temp files on your local machine, there may be one in your server, and your ISP likely has multiple copies.

Then there are copies at hops all the way back to the sender.

And say the email was printed, there will be temp files for the print job.

And say it was just written as a Word document -- do you have any idea hoe many .temp and backup files Word creates?

Now not all of this is recoverable, but someone trained in computer forensics can often get a LOT of it. And yes, I do believe that Team Maria would be stupid enough not to know this....

And the crime IS worse -- RICO comes to mind, isn't that a felony?

Dr. Ed said...

Laura Kent risks expulsion from UM if she is fined -- UM applies CSC to off-campus in-Amherst acts and hence...

Anonymous said...

The School Committee meeting scheduled for this Tuesday has been canceled & no other meetings are shown yet on the ARPS on-line calendar for the rest of the month.

I assuming that the meeting & the new exec session will be rescheduled, but who knows?

How much time does the SC have to respond to the OML complaint? & don't they have to meet at a posted meeting before doing so.

Larry Kelley said...

That was the Amherst School Committee not the Regional School Committee, which is supposed to be on Wednesday.

Anonymous said...

Holy S**T Batman are these people going to have any time left for the kids? Isn't education about the STUDENTS?

Anonymous said...

The regional SC meeting isn't posted yet. Is it still happening -- hopefully, it is.
Things are a mess now and prolonging these discussions is not going to help.

Anonymous said...

This is about Geryk's, Appy's and Kent's abuse of power and they OBVIOUSLY don't give a damn about the STUDENTS. Except for a dysfunctional superindent and SC, we have great teachers, staff and administrators who are committed to the STUDENTS. But we need to pull out the Wasserman-Shultz-like weeds before they destroy everything and everyone!

Dr. Ed said...

Things are a mess now and prolonging these discussions is not going to help.

Things are going to get messier when people realize that Maria knew that the extra Chapter 70 money was coming and that she made a lot of unnecessary budget cuts so as to be able to fund her largess. That means she had to be planning to do this way back early last spring, if not earlier -- before Vera was even elected.

Before Aisha was even trespassed -- which makes the cynic wonder if Maria intentionally did it to provoke an incident. I always thought that Maria, who came out of Westfield state, didn't know who Aisha was -- maybe she did....

But, 7:24, I have two words for you: Emmanuel Kant.

Trevor was right -- she should have been forced to make her threats in public. The schools have been playing games for years -- 15 years that I know of -- and you have now managed to awaken a sleeping public. Don't expect them to nonchalantly ignore that which awakened them.

The public is outraged, time to stop talking about "prolonging the discussions" and instead start worrying about a "pound of flesh."

Anonymous said...

Imagine if we let these people run something important like the food system, in stead of something that is has now been proven optional - education.

Folks would be starving, everyone would know it, but an elite group would stand behind the food super, pushing for a $300k payout while some kid trades his teddy bear for food (as is reported in the Huffpost today).

Again, are you going to hire a new super and EXPECT SOMETHING DIFFERENT?

Anonymous said...

Ed, I respectfully think we should be seeking justice and government transparency instead of revenge. Please, we all need to envision a future where all our children, their parents, teachers, school staff, school committee and officials, and taxpayers are included and valued members of our school community. If we continue to feed the fire of our fears, it will without doubt consume us and all that we hold dear.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:59, I wouldn't worry about Ed's revenge. Now that he realizes posthumous payback is a possibility, his procrastination must know no bounds. I'm sure he's already thinking about reincarnation, realizing with great relief that he can postpone execution of his diabolical schemes until the next life. So it's back to that beer cooler -- time to pop another frosty!

Anonymous said...

Ed seek something other than revenge? You know this is Ed you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

You're not supposed to be hearing these things from a SC member. That's part of the problem. The too loose lips of a few on the SC.

Anonymous said...

It is still unclear to me to whom Ms Geryk originally sent the SMOKING GUN email? Was it to Ms Tate? I still don't understand why Mr Colomb (an associate of Ms Tate) would show this email to the SC members?? Is the former member who (allegedly) is also threatened Mr Shabazz?

Anonymous said...

THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE! YOU YOUNG WHIPPER-SNAPPERS FORGET THAT NIXON WAS FORCED TO RESIGN BECAUSE OF THE COVERUP NOT HIS CRIME!

Anonymous said...

better that no one knows what is going on 11:34?

Anonymous said...

this isn't a fucking national security issue. the more loose lips the better.

Anonymous said...

In today's politics, Nixon's cover-up is like preschool. I would bet that many on this blog who now support Hilary and the PC agenda just hated Nixon and his lies! Hypocrisy at its finest!

The stuff going on here in Amherst, is just a small town version of our corrupt politicians subverting the Constitution and ruining our government. Let's clean up the disaster and vote them out of office.

No more new school spending until they get their acts together.

Anonymous said...

Three attorneys were looking out for Maria's best interests during this process?

Anonymous said...

Exec sessions are supposed to be confidential until the minutes are released.

Anonymous said...

i'm pretty sure maria has pretty loose lips by this point. she's been f*cked by this town for so long.

Anonymous said...

Let it all go to court!

Dr. Ed said...

It increasingly appears that actual CRIMES were committed.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:10 makes a good point. I think we should outlaw executive sessions and let the clear light of day wash over everything. Wait until we see how useless the minutes will be!

Anonymous said...

Your heralded school system is an absolute shit show. Rome is burning.

Dr. Ed said...

All we need is a drug dealer getting busted and willing to talk, there is all kinds of stuff for a Federal grand jury to be interested in.

I'm serious about that RICO stuff -- just imagine what numerous people (including squeaky) could tell a grand jury.

JAIL 4 MARIA!

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, what ever happened to the UMass School of Ed?

A call to the PR hacks over there might be interesting. HINT, HINT, HINT....

Anonymous said...

Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand
Workin' in the dark against your fellow man
But as sure as God made black and white
What's done in the dark will be brought to the light

You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God'll cut you down
Sooner or later God'll cut you down

RM

Dr. Ed said...

In other words, the teachers are being replaced by the psychologists.

Look at what the faculty have degrees in, look at where the acting dean is from.

The teacher conveys knowledge, the psychologist DOESN'T, and that fundamental difference is where all this secrecy is coming from. A teacher would want Larry to transcribe & publish every word uttered in those 13 hours of secret meeting -- and expect everyone to read them.

Contrast that to the secrecy of the medical people -- Appy, Kent, & Geryk. A full week later, we still don't have the text of what was voted last Mon nite -- that's outrageous!

Anonymous said...

A couple of weeks ago, the Gazette and Larry published Laura Kent's confidential email to Regional School Committee members informing them that Geryk had accepted the financial offer they had UNANIMOUSLY voted to offer to her in executive session. Then, last week the same group of people voted 4-3 to officially sign off on the deal. Why did the three members who voted against it in public session last week vote for it the week before in executive session? Is this like a John Kerry move? First they were for the deal before they were against it?

Now, along comes Hootstein's OML complaint, where he claims that some members of the committee (Vira, Trevor, and Steve Sullivan) were "extorted" into voting for it in executive session. Really? How is Vira going to handle the tough politics on Beacon Hill if she can't resist the pressure of Geryk, Kent, Appy, Tate, and who knows who else? Not sure she's ready for prime time in Boston.

Dr. Ed said...

6:52 -- Who says there was a vote?

Who says Kent didn't just declare a consensus?

There seemed to be a lot of argument over a pro-forma vote -- 3 hours worth.

And who says Kent didn't "forget" the dissenting votes a month earlier?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why we the taxpayers, we the Amherst citizens, we the voters, and we the parents can't know what's going on? I think when all is said and done appy, Kent and both geryks will have to leave town!

Anonymous said...

http://www.gazettenet.com/Amherst-School-Committee-member-seeks-to-stop-superintendent-payout-4095963

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:06, who says anybody's going to find out whats going on?

Anonymous said...

6:52 - Thanks for convincing me to vote for Vira. If Vira's got the guts to take on Geryk, Kent, Appy and Tate in Amherst, she's the women I intend to vote into the State House. Don't feel bad, I'm also voting for you and your former boss Geryk to go into the Big House!

Anonymous said...

8:09 - You drank the Vira Kool-Aid long before 6:52 commented, so spare us the line about your sudden awakening to her supposed toughness. Hootstein's incoherent OML filing yesterday and Vira's wacky consumer complaint to the AG that was in today's Gazette have the strong odor of political panic. The election is coming up in three weeks and she and her supporters are in damage control mode.

Hmmmm, what will they do today to redirect attention from their own guilt? I think they'll contact the MSPCA to file an animal cruelty complaint against Kent and Appy for mistreating their neighbor's cat or dog.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:52- Vira was one of the three that did NOT vote for the payout and she spoke up against it before the vote took place.

Katrina van Pelt said...

10:25 nothing incoherent about the OML filing, and you seem to be panicking by attacking someone for their vote....

Anonymous said...

Vira is the most guilty!

Anonymous said...

Maybe it would be best to allow parents to seek education for their children on the open market, which has none of this hoopla. We can provide a welfare system for those that cannot afford it, like the ACA.

If people think that Vera or Maria or whoever are the problem, then we definitely have an education issue. This is a very poorly designed system, legitimized by repetition. Taking ungodly amounts of money from the property owners and businesses to fund a system that works only fairly, but at an extreme cost, to be run by a group of chosen few that have little personal consequence if they do not do a great job, in fact, can quit and be paid more than most of the Amherst students will make in their first decade of their working life, if they can even get jobs. Almost all the decent students will move away along with their poor educations. You literally force locals to sacrifice so that you can export their investment....all so parents don't have to make the investment themselves in a better, more selective system.

Don't fix this, replace it. Even if it is hard. Start a new debate, start a real one.

Anonymous 10:25 said...

Ms. Van Pelt,

When you say I'm "attacking someone for their vote," which vote are you talking about? As 6:52 said, Vira voted for the offer to Geryk in executive session before voting against it in public session, without publicly explaining the contradiction.

There's an old saying that the best defense is a good offense. It's pretty clear that Hootstein's OML filing and Vira's consumer complaint (huh??) are attempts to go on the offensive by attacking Kent and Appy before the bad news comes out tomorrow night out with the release of executive session stuff at the school committee meeting. Vira won't be able to mislead after that happens.

I'll give you this. 6:52 was wrong about her readiness for prime time. She's so mean, dishonest and calculating, she could work for the biggest liars of all, Trump and Hillary.

Katrina van Pelt said...

1:02 Sorry, I didn't clarify which vote, I did mean the vote for State Rep. People are more than capable of choosing the person who best represents their interests....and just because they differ from your interests, doesn't mean they've participated in some Kool-aid fest.

Michael H said...

Dear Anonymous 10:25,

My 2 OML filings are not an attempt to go on the offensive. I filed it after reading maybe 30 OML decisions by the AG. This case is about the most offensive OML violations that one could imagine: threats against SC members essentially by their own law firm obligated to represent them, an original demand for over $600,000 or else, intentional obstruction of the required supt. evaluation and predetermination of a contract dispute by 2 of 9 members behind closed doors and outside public view. There is not a doubt in my mind, in 2-3 months, the AGs Office will rule in favor of both of my 2 OML filings.

Likewise, Vira's consumer filing is not attempt to go on the offensive, but rather a courageous act by an elected official to demand accountability on behalf of her constituents. I wish I could vote for her but I can't because I live in Shutesbury.

I want to thank all you commenters out there like anon 11:54 and Katrina van Pelt for always stating your opinions in a kind and courteous manner so that we may raise the level of public discourse in Larry's blog here and begin to identify and solve the numerous problems facing all of us before it is too late!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hootstein,

Your desire for "kind and courteous" discourse is contradicted by your OML complaint, which is nothing more than a collection of ad hominem attacks on the character of several people, including two elected officials who voluntarily donate a significant amount of their time to serve on school committee. Your OML complaint will be rejected by the AG's office and when it is, you should apologize to the people you have shamelessly libeled.

Assuming your account of what went on in executive session is accurate, that means someone on the committee violated the legal confidentiality of the meeting. You have identified yourself as a Shutesbury resident. The current Shutesbury representative on the regional school committee is one of the three people who, along with Vira, changed his vote on the offer to Geryk from being in favor (in executive session) to being against (in public session). Was the Shutesbury representative on the committee the person who violated executive session confidentiality by discussing it with you?

Anonymous said...

Did Viral vote in exec session for Marias buy out?

Dr. Ed said...

Vera's 93A complaint is a stroke of genius.

This points out that giving what amounts to TWO years salary (1.5 X 2 = 3) in exchange for nothing is a fraudulent expenditure.

Anonymous said...

Fortunately for us, the Attorney General, not 3:52, will determine the facts of Mr. H's and Vira's complaints and whether Ms. Appy, Ms. Kent or anyone else violated the law!

Anonymous said...

so anon@3:52: if as you posit that what went on in executive session is accurate in the OML complaint, then you would rather all SC members participating should keep their mouths shut and let the School District get taken to the cleaners? If it went down anything like Mr H has presented, then I'm glad there is a whistleblower (and you should too, unless you are tied to Ms Geryk's fortunes).

I don't know what is true (and you probably don't either) but I question what has happened and want a disinterested legal party (ie the AG) take a look and determine who did what and who deserves what (sanctions? $$?).

Dr. Ed said...

3:52 -- First, cite the law that establishes this alleged "legal confidentially" of these meetings. FERPA clearly does not apply, nor any other law I am aware of.

ALL the law says is that they don't have to let Larry sit there and video the meeting. Anyone who was there is free to tell anyone anything they damn well please, and in some cases may be legally obligated to -- Ch 51A comes to mind.

Notwithstanding that, there is never a legal duty to keep illegal acts secret.

And as to your guilt-by-residence fallacy, you are disgusting.

Katrina van Pelt said...

5:30 agree

Anonymous said...

Yes.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Dr. Ed said...
Vera's 93A complaint is a stroke of genius.

Now that E says it's a stroke of genius....We know Vira's move was who knows what You want an injunction, you go to a judge.

Ed you remind me of the wizard of oz...sitting behind a curtain in your mother's house......

Dr. Ed said...

Someone doesn't know the powers of the AGO....

Anonymous said...

This has reached the point of insanity!
SC members releasing confidential information is illegal. We need to file a complaint on them or should I say VIra DC.
She'd be a great addition, not, to our state and would release confidential information. Hmmmmm. Duh!
Last ditch effort by Vira since she didn't get the outcome she wanted from the RSC vote. ROTFL.
Holstein is a very sad man and misguided. Feel bad for him.
And, well, we all know Larry is a slime.
What a fine kettle of fish...

Anonymous said...

4:41

Yes, Vira and every other committee member voted in executive session to offer Geryk a 300K+ severance payment. That's what it says in Kent's confidential email to other committee members that someone leaked to the Gazette and Larry. You can see Larry's copy of it in an earlier blog post.

Then last week in open session, Vira, Baptiste, and Sullivan voted against giving Geryk the 300K that all three had supported in executive session.

Why did they change their minds? Who knows. None of the three have bothered to explain it to the public. The only explanation offered so far is in Hootstein's OML complaint - that they were extorted into doing it.

I hope the minutes that will be released tomorrow will give the public detailed information about what went on in the executive session in which the committee unanimously voted to offer Geryk the 300k+ settlement. Who made the motion to offer the settlement? Who seconded the motion? What did each committee member say about the offer? What reasons did each member give for supporting it? If members opposed it, why did they oppose it and then change their minds? Most importantly, what were the roles and positions in this discussion of Vira, Baptiste, and Sullivan.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:00 is hysterical! C'mon is that you Kurt? Or another geryk bottom feeder?

Katrina van Pelt said...

8:56 of course it is!

Anonymous said...

8:54 hasn't had a lot of experience with minutes! Meeting called to order...meeting adjourned!

Anonymous said...

8:54PM "Why did they change their minds? Who knows. None of the three have bothered to explain it to the public."

Why single out three of nine committee members and make it sound as though they haven't a care in the world and just can't be bothered to explain their decision-making? As if these three alone have been silent and the rest of the committee has been so open and transparent with its process and decision making! Pah! I doubt that any of the three who voted against the settlement the 2nd time around would mind expressing their views on the matter if they weren't under a professional, legal, and ethical obligation to wait until the executive meeting minutes are released and the committee is able to speak more freely on the subject. I only hope they're allowed to express their rationale- it seems the constant and censorious threat of litigation will not abate even after the minutes are released.

Anonymous said...

Of course my understanding is this email was printed on paper and handed out and it was multiple pages long but I don't really know that for sure just by rumor

Anonymous said...

Imagine sitting there in this room with everybody else on the school committee and having an email he passed around saying 3 people on the school committee are going to get sued. And in that same email is the demand for a settlement of a contract that a person is willfully leaving. And the three people that are getting sued are people that have openly disagreed with the superintendent and her practices is that right there is intimidation so of course you're going to be concerned. So you may decide to vote for something you wouldn't normally voted for because you're scared of being sued. And it doesn't help that one of the regional chairs who shall remain nameless isn't everyone's ears saying geez we should pay this money so that we don't get sued. And this Regional chair happens to be buddy-buddy with a superintendent so I think that there was quite a bit of intimidation but at the same time for a small towns it's cheaper to pay out the amount that we're going to have to pay her out then it is to pay for lawyers. For example I think it's going to cost Pelham the most of the small towns at 11000. Shutesbury Library less than that so Amherst is really carrying the burden upon the superintendent contract payout.

Rebecca Casa said...

I probably shouldn't have but at that point we thought it was done and over we thought she was gone when they realize all this extra stuff was going to be happening

Rebecca Casa said...

Because it's written down on a piece of paper that the school committee lawyer gave to the school committee that's what the complaint says. I guess we'll find out if that is true. The main problem is the school committee has a lawyer from the same firm as a superintendent that is a complete conflict of interest in the school committee should have got themselves their own lawyer a long time ago and the fact that they didn't well they're going to have to live with the consequences of that

Rebecca Casa said...

That would be a shame I actually think she's doing a good job and she's brand-new and she's learning all the rules As She Goes since we appointed a chair that I've never been on the school committee as a regular member for very long. I think she is doing a decent job considering she's learning As She Goes. Laura is not the problem and the school committee there is a problem on the school committee but it's not Laura.

Anonymous said...

Kent learning. Unfortunately she is listening to Appy. She is the problem. All about supporting Maria vs. Supervising she was to protect Maria and she's done a pretty good job up until now

Rebecca Casa said...

I agree transparency is what we need we need transparency from the beginning I'm perfectly happy with Maria moving on with her life and being happy. I'd be a lot happier if we didn't pay her and take the money out of the budget but if she's going to sue it's probably going to cost us less money in the long run to pay her than it is to pay the lawyers

Rebecca Casa said...

Attry C represents the SC. He is in the same firm with Miss Tate. And mr. Long possibly but I am not sure I just know that there is an attorney that represents the superintendent and someone else from that office represents the school committee I'm sure he showed them the email because it was her demand letter for leaving. And he printed it so I'm sure that turned it into a document at least that's how I interpret all the posts that I've read

Rebecca Casa said...

We win either way either we get somebody who knows how to say no in the state house or we keep somebody who knows how to say no on the school committee either way we get somebody to represent us that has the guts to stand up for what's right

Anonymous said...

Must be Kurt he's moved on to try to ruin somebody else's life

Anonymous said...

I commend them for listening to their constituents who probably sent them numerous emails I know I did I know at least 15 people that emailed them after that became public in The Gazette telling the school committee members not to buy out his contract so if they're voted in and elected officials they're supposed to listen to their constituents and I know shutesbury residents emailef mr. Sullivan and asked him not to buy at Maria's contract after The Gazette story. I know I emailed my Pelham Representatives and ask them not to buy at Maria's contract. I'm sure Rebecca email the representatives to tell them not to buy out the contract. And I know many South Amherst parents who are also Against the Wild wood projects email Vera as well I am sure those emails the same ones went out to the whole school committee but some of the school committee members decided to vote the way they felt would be best for their towns even if it was not what the email for asking them today I don't know how many emails actually went out. That would be a question for each School Committee Member how many emails they got personally

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your opinion Kurt we do appreciate it when you go to Sweden maybe they don't have internet there and you can move on from this blog you should go to Sweden before your wife isn't allowed to leave the country

Dr. Ed said...

Executive sessions are no more required to be secret than bicyclres are required to obey traffic laws - and Kurt should know they aren't.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the school committee now wishes they had supervised Maria instead of letting her rule the roost look what happens she leaves the whole school committee falls apart

Anonymous said...

That's Kurt Style so that was probably Kurt talking anon 1025. I don't personally try to mess with people's professional lives without cause, or make them look crazy, like you do Kurt or minion. KENT AND Apot can

are probably safe from the anti Maria group, anti waste of money group. We don't do the bar things you guys do. We, just talk on the,blog.

Dr. Ed said...


I don't understand why we the taxpayers, we the Amherst citizens, we the voters, and we the parents can't know what's going on?

It's the mental health model which is best understood in the context of Plato's Cave. It would harm us to know the truth, we must thus be protected from it.

They are doing this for our own good.

Anonymous said...

Anybody else see the real irony in this situation?

A couple of years ago, Vira and Trevor helped an ARHS teacher and her lawyer extort $$$$ out of our school district on the grounds that this teachers civil rights were violated.

Now, Vira and Trevor are about to justify their support in executive session for the $$$$ pay out to Geryk on what grounds? That her lawyer sent them a demand letter accusing them of violating Geryk's civil rights. In other words, Geryk's lawyer extorted them into it.

Sweet!!

Anonymous said...

bullshit 7:28 geryk's and hacks' discriminatory conduct was the sole reason we taxpayers had to dish out $180,000 last year but yes geryk's lawyers are complicit in the extortion of $300,000 this year...

Anonymous said...

Vira and Trevor are outspoken against the payment to Geryk. Sounds like the executive meetings were cut throat- I'm sure I would've said "I agree" behind closed doors as well in order to end the sessions.

The Smoking Gun email and the behavior of all three attorneys assisting Maria in this process needs to be examined.

Dr. Ed said...

Or did Maria deliberately provoke the Gardner case?

Anonymous said...

I wanted believe that Maria G, Appy, Kent and the school committee are looking out for the best interests for the students of Amherst. But these latest events lay down some serious doubts.

I certainly don't always agree with them, or their approach, but good for Hootstein and Vera for officially raising some serious questions that need to be voiced about Amherst School Board shenanigans. These efforts need to be supported.

Two points:

1. Open meeting/sunshine laws are important. The School Board appears to be in lock down mode, beholden to nobody, certainly not teachers, parents, students, or Amherst taxpayers. Let the sunshine in. You've been appointed to serve the community, and, although you appear to hate this part, you need to answer to them. Amherst ain't the Soviet Union, yet.

2. $300k for what? I can understand that the Amherst Superintendent job can truly be a thankless one. I did not understand a lot of decisions that Maria G made, but I hoped she had the best interest of students at heart for the direction she wanted to go in. She now wants out, okay. But why on earth do we need to pay her $300k to do nothing for the next few years? All the more head scratching that it comes right before a difficult job review. Note that the school district will still need to paid the salary of an actual superintendent. But that's okay, because the School District is flush with extra cash, and property owners love paying more taxes for NO RETURN AT ALL.

Dr. Ed said...

Did Maria deliberately provoke racial incidents?

There have been at least a half dozen racial incidents over the past 5 or so years and the only common thread is that all were handled badly.

Or was that deliberate? What better way to "divide & conquer" than along racial lines? The Gardner matter never made sense to me, but it wouldn't have been difficult to deliberately provoke it.

Like I said, there is no common thread other than all being handled badly, no trend of racial bias either way. What else makes sense?

Anonymous said...

Ed did you learn in Sunday school that "self abuse" is bad for your mental health? Get out of your mom's Maine basement and get some air!

Anonymous said...

I'm just glad somebody else filed a complaint with the attorney general other than me I filed a complaint back in May. I know another Pelham parent filed a complaint as well in June. I know they called her back on the phone I actually just got an email back from them. So now both Vera and Michael have also filed complaints. So that's four complaints in the Ago office regarding our superintendent. And those are just the ones I know of

Anonymous said...

I want to see the Pelhem minutes from the executive session from
The Hiza complaint. I wasn't told anything directly about what happened or what resulted in that situation because it's not supposed to be shared but I was told that it ended up being more about Trevor and Maria arguing and Maria accusing Trevor of being biased then it ended up being about this parents complaint against the superintendent. Also I do know that none of the information that parent gave toGuna Tate as she was directed to do by Tate made it too Pelham school committee. So that's very interesting she does have a history of making things go away. I guess finally some people have their eyes open in this District and their heads out of the sand.

Anonymous said...

If in fact everyone agreed in Executive Session to agree to this amount for Maria, and if in fact it was because she had threatened to sue some members, there must have been grounds for this lawsuit. As much was implied by Laura Kent's statement that this event turned a mirror on themselves.

Anonymous said...

Laura Kent told a friend of mine....I am not suppose to say...I have inside info......uhhh....I forget......

Dr. Ed said...

4:45 -- Aisha had a legal right to be present at the Pelham exec session.

I'm still waiting for someone to post the alleged law that prevents Trevor from telling all.

HOWEVER, if Aisha Hiza was told to send anything to TATE [and not Geryk], then Tate became personally bound by FERPA which -- for a bunch of reasons -- made her an agent of the school instead of it's attorney. That will put her into an impossible position if Aisha raises a few things.

And as the SC [and not Geryk] was her employer, then not forwarding stuff to them is DISBARRMENT!

Anonymous said...

He said, she said...these complaints most likely will go nowhere if the AG will even investigate....they are swamped. But watch for the civil suits or settlements to come. Always cheaper to settle and just move on.

Dr. Ed said...

5:18 -- There doesn't have to be a basis for a suit -- a friend once wrote a law journal article on this.

My favorite, the man who sued God. Yes, God.

If what I have heard is true, we are talking criminal extortion. Maybe Geryk & Tate can share a cell in Danbury...

Laura Quilter said...

Hey Larry -- You might want to put tags on this post so it also comes up with "Maria Geryk" and ARPS and what-not.