Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Secret Meetings Continue

Former Superintendent Maria Geryk getting a $309,000 buyout
Region and Union 26


Once again Pelham school committee representative Trevor Baptiste put up a stink about proceedings, this time concerning Union 26 taking a revote/do over on Maria Geryk's $309,000 buyout package, after he questioned if Union 26 is even a legal entity.


 Trevor Baptiste, former Chair of the Region 


Union 26 (Amherst & Pelham SC members) revote Maria Geryk $309K buyout

Last week they voted in favor of the contract but did not have a legal quorum.  

So after 10 minutes of bickering they came to a 4-1 affirmative vote (one member, Chair Tara Luce, had recused herself).  Last week the Amherst Pelham Regional School Committee voted 4-3 in favor of the buyout.

So now, theoretically, it's a done deal.

Except RSC member Vira Douangmany Cage is asking the Attorney General to investigate the matter.  And/or it only takes 10 teed-off taxpayers to file a class action lawsuit in Hampshire Superior Court
.

 Mike Morris appointed acting Superintendent

The Amherst Pelham Regional School Committee then went into executive session to negotiate a contract with Mike Morris to become Acting Superintendent, and to approve the executive session minutes over the past four sessions amounting to just over 11 hours of secret meetings.

Chair Laura Kent said it would be 45 minutes.  The Committee finally came back into public session around 9:15 PM -- after THREE HOURS -- but said they would not release the executive session minutes tonight.

   Audience at 6:15 when RSC went into executive session

267 comments:

1 – 200 of 267   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Morris's hiring is illegal.

Can't these a-holes do anything in public?

Larry Kelley said...

It was on the executive session agenda, and I'm pretty sure if they ever come back out in public they will take a vote to confirm him.

Dr. Ed said...

Luce can not serve on the union board if IT is the legal entity.

She ONLY can if Amherst & Pelham School Committees are separate entities, which is the difference between a union and a district.

Hence both town school committees must vote to approve the payout. Trevor is right.

Anonymous said...

Larry, who made the decision to make him acting supt? THAT was illegal.

Larry Kelley said...

The School Committee can hire and fire the Superintendent so I assume they can also hire an "acting/temporary" one.

Rebecca Casa said...

Still waiting 845 pm SC still un exec session since 610 pm.

Anonymous said...

Always a circus around Vira, who in the world would vote for her?

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, the school committee, like town meeting, only exists in the context of a convened meeting. In both cases, special & emergency meetings can be convened, but they must be. Neither the SC chair not the TM moderator has the right to make decisions for the body!

Yes, the SC has a right to hire an Acting Supt, but they must actually meet, IN PUBLIC SESSION and vote to do so. Kent & Appy CAN'T DO THIS ON THEIR OWN!!!!

And as to Luce making this decision, you can't hire your own boss....

Larry, he may be the best person for the job, he may be the only person who will take it [I wouldn't], but they gotta do this "by the book."

It's like not tagging second when you hit a home run. Wasn't this an issue in some World Series game back in the 1960's? Or maybe with some key Red Sox game?

BOTTOM LINE: THEY GOTTA FOLLOW THE RULES!!!! This is my issue with Enku Gelaye [and Tom Aceto] -- not that I disagree with what she [or he] seeks to accomplish, but HOW SHE GOES ABOUT TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IT.

You gotta do stuff "by the book."

Dr. Ed said...

Not only would I vote for Vera, but I'd be happy to help her were she elected.

Seriously, Larry -- and you know how conservative I am. Integrity counts for something, and she clearly has it.

Anonymous said...

Is Morris holding out for 400 grand a year? He will probably get it! How many hours in exec session? I am disgusted!

Anonymous said...

Lol!

Rebecca Casa said...

It was expalined it is a week to week just like now when je covers for our past super. They formed a sub committee to find an actual interim asap. I guess it is not ok to have no super in place. I dont know all.the rules just what was stated it was so late. It was questioned by s Sullivan and explained in detail def I wld recommend watching actv to completly understand what was explained.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm..Maybe Dr. Ed is Larry Kelley's alter ego...

Smiling an evil smile.... said...

Time to burn Kent & Appy in effigy. Maybe if someone can find a hogshead barrel, an effigy of Geryk as well. And yes, a herring hogshead, Maria is that rotund, and every bit as fishy.

0r if it's too dry to burn, stake the effigy down on the town common and ceremoniously drive an Ash stake through each of their hearts. Appy's a Psychologist (at least when she remembers to renew her license) and her spiel tonight was a PsychOp.

Oh, poor, poor Laura -- doing highly questionable things and being held to public scrutiny. No,you want to see "visceral", my dear, just keep it up.


"Mommy,Mommy, what is a '***t'?"
"Every telephone pole in town says you 'are a dumb ***t', what's that mean, Mommy?"

That, my dear Dr. Appy, is the dark side of your profession.

RELEASE EVERYTHING N O W !!!!!!!!! No more secrecy!



Anonymous said...

The Gazette is reporting that "the boards voted to appoint Assistant Superintendent Michael Morris the district’s acting superintendent for the next four weeks or so." What happens after that? Do they have some interim superintendent candidates in mind? And when someone is hired as interim superintendent, what funds are going to be used to pay them?

Also, Sean Mangano stated that some of the money for paying Maria Geryk's buyout is coming from keeping the Director of Equity and Professional Development position unfilled. That position has been occupied by Monica Hall for the past few years. In the FY17 budget cuts was switched from full-year to school-year only. Hall's linkedin profile (www.linkedin.com/in/monica-hall-70083497) still lists her in that position, but I guess she javascript:void(0)won't be returning to Amherst anytime soon. Linkedin says Hall is now in Texas.

Anonymous said...

Something smells with this whole process? We have the right to be pissed off.

Michael H said...

Are there any honorable attorneys out there who would be willing, for a fair price, to help us file a Chapter 40, Section 53 "ten taxpayer" lawsuit for "Restraint of illegal appropriations" of the joint Regional School/illegal "Union 26" school committee $300,000.00 pay-off to Maria plus at least another eventual $500,000.00 minimum pay-out to Ms. Hiza for damages caused by Maria's violations of Ms. Hiza's civil rights?

How many teacher and school services for our children does $800,000.00 buy? Apparently, the SC doesn't want our children to learn about U.S. History, Civil Rights or the U.S. Constitution.

Does this concern any of my many Regional parent, teacher, staff and administrator friends? Why all the silence? Are you too afraid to voice your opinion? Let's talk.

Anonymous said...

Larry, when will the minutes of these exec sessions be available to the public? Ms Kent has assured us that more will be clear after we see them....

Anonymous said...

Mr. H - For someone so worried about the impact of finances on our students, you are very quick to file complaints that no doubt will cost more money.

Anyone think about how much money the school committee is already spending in legal fees over this ordeal and they just won't let it end? Those who wanted Geryk out, got what they wanted but not the way that they wanted. You can not have your cake and eat it too sometimes.

Last night was the Trevor AND Vira show. Sadly, so little voice was heard from the other school committee members who all looked haggard and in shock. It sounds like Vira (and perhaps Trevor) are pretty verbally intimidating towards their sc peers in executive sessions and there is no room for disagreement or agreement from her.

Felt bad for Trevor's wife again. Clearly there is real pain and fear that is legitimate. The positioning of Trevor as a POC next to Geryk with no context is dangerous.

Wondering though how come his wife or Trevor or Vira and her family, don't seem to understand the impact Trevor and Vira have had on their sc peers or Geryk and her family. Both of them have been repeatedly and publicly out to get Geryk and have treated her badly. Doesn't make sense to see the situation from only their perspective.

Trevor was not speaking truthfully about his alleged supportive statement of Geryk. He went after her and created conditions along with Vira that were out of control. What a farce his message was about sc support and the public and treating everyone better. Anderson was out of control and he never spoke up when she personally attacked the HR person. The statements about white supremacists everywhere and at every level was out of hand.

If the HR person was a POC, would it be more acceptable that she worked her way up to her position? She worked for Hochman who didn't strike me as the type to promote randomly and she has worked for a number of superintendents since. Seems to me that she earned her position and kept it based upon her ability to do her job.










Larry Kelley said...

The executive session amended minutes will be released this morning. Hopefully.

Anonymous said...

You all have created a climate that is so toxic that no superintendent could be expected to function in it. To expect that Geryk will not get compensation is not based on the ways things work in the real world. While her compensation is a lot of money, it's probably less than she will get if she heads to court. All the prayers for lawsuits to stop this settlement will only bring a more costly lawsuit from Geryk. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Anonymous said...

anon@8:12 I want to understand your position. What is (or could be) the basis for a lawsuit from Ms Geryk? Who would be the plaintiffs? What has happened outside of the SC meetings that the public is not seeing? If you think her 'civil rights' have been violated- which ones, when and how? If you think her contract is violated, please provide the exact terms in her contract that have been violated and when.

Anonymous said...

How is it that the district has $300k for this sitting around "far away from the students" and we have cut an art teacher from the 7-12 region? How is it that last spring Amherst Town Meeting had to argue and vote to put $40k into the elementary school budget for library assistants? If there is money "far away from the students" sitting around school accounts, I say put it closer to the students, in fact, put it next to the students and rehire the art teacher to keep our excellent middle school and high school art programs strong.

Janet McGowan

Anonymous said...

let me answer your question anon 8:27...there is no basis for a lawsuit from Ms. Geryk except to bully, intimidate and extort money from the school system

Anonymous said...

What an orgy of incompetence and ego.

Anonymous said...

Not true she asks the questions everyone is thinking but scared to ask

Rebecca Casa said...

Kent has a learning curve that we as the public need to be cognizant of. She.is learning and being guided I suspect by the Amherst SC chair Appy. Which is what it is. I do however believe Laura is doing best she can considering she is brand new to sc. However I wld encourAge her to keep her own voice and be wary of others using her for thier agendas be sure to balance Appys opinions with Trevors opinions and the make her own judgement. People really need to give Kent a chance before they jump on the negativitiy band wagon.

Rebecca Casa said...

I am not sure the equity position is the best one to leave vacant nut I do think we had to much admin before maybe they caN rearrange something to have someone cover that role.

Rebecca Casa said...

Yes but as stated by Dolven they were at a stalemate last night when she came in to explain why they were taking so long. If we are approving minutes and dpcumentation why a stalemate unless half of the committee or the attry didnt believe we should see everything in the minutes or all the documents. I would like to know what the stalemate was about.

Anonymous said...

appy, kent and modestow need to resign before they do any more damage to our schools. is modestow the vice-chair of the regional committee like aisha's lawsuit says? i didn't think so

Anonymous said...

The irony of cutting the director of equity position to pay off Ms. Geryk.... Particularly in the context of what has happened in the district under geryk's leadership over the past few years. I hope all the white members of the SC are closely paying attention to the optics on this. I am concerned about this as a white man, I can't imagine how I would feel as a POC.

I am equally disturbed by the spin that the cuts are not affecting the children. Any dollar spent in our schools is to educate the children. We are now paying $310k plus the increase to Morris' salary (and who knows what else) with no gain for the children. It is sad it has come t this.

Since nothing ever seems to be made public I have no idea whether the payout is justified, whether SC members acted incorrectly, or whether Geryk did things that merited her being fired. I just know the results of all of this are negative for the district.

I just hope the next super has the vision to clean house in the central office and to throw the support behind the high quality principals throughout the district. There have been too many central office staff creating and dumping initiatives at the expense of the principals and staff getting their work done.

Anonymous said...

Trevor and Vira are toxic. Their opinions on anything are the last thing Ms Kent should consider. We are in this mess because of them. They are destroying the committee.

Anonymous said...

The spewing of vitriol from 3:37, which suggests effigy-burning targeted at specific individuals, and includes a putdown of one person's body and sexist vulgarities, has no place in civil discourse. How does printing this advance the conversation?

Anonymous said...

Ms Geryk was NOT FIRED! what is wrong with you people???????

Anonymous said...

You are laying the blame at the feet of the wrong people. It is Trevor and Vira who should resign for the good of the district. They are the root cause of all that has gone on. They are toxic.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure it was Trevor and Vira not wanting the truth to come out.

Larry Kelley said...

How can you be sure of anything. They were in executive session.

Anonymous said...

Good to see Modestow doesn't just save his "mucking up the process" comments for Frontier Regional.

Anonymous said...

It was clear that Whitney Battle-Baptiste is very distraught about her family being affected, but what actually happened? I remember reading something about her child and Aisha's child being friends. Is it related to this? And Trevor allowing discussion at the Regional Committee about a Pelham elementary issue? She mentioned phone calls. She seemed very angry at the School Committee members. Were SC members calling the house? It wasn't clear what she was talking about.

Anonymous said...

"Ms Geryk was NOT FIRED! what is wrong with you people???????"

Yes, not officially, but it won't take but a minute in court to prove that the SC had no intention of keeping her on.

Anonymous said...

That's pure unadulterated BS.

Dr. Ed said...

Rebecca, equity is supposed to be the SUPERINTENDENT'S job.

Of course, seeing how badly that was dealt with when the position was filled, how can it be any worse having it vacant?

Anonymous said...

Ed, this is no business of yours. You don't even live in Massachusetts.

Anonymous said...

still no minutes posted, in fact the last minutes for the Regional SC appears from March 22, 2016. we're all waiting for a $310K enlightenment. Who is the person(s) responsible for posting/releasing the minutes?

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Vira and Trevor. You've really made a positive impact on this town. /s

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:09 please refer to the comment you mean is pure unadulterated BS OTHERWISE you are posting pointlessly or at least more pointlessly.

Dr. Ed said...

App & Kent need to stop acting like blushing virgins -- Appy in particular is responsible for a lot of the visceral she complains about.



I think it is time to ask the state auditor to look at this.

Anonymous said...

Ed, STOP. Whatever compulsion you are feeling to involve yourself, just resist. Put a rubber band around your wrist and every time you start to post here, ping it hard. You have NO way of knowing what Ms Appy might have said outside of SC meetings. I am neutral towards her, but she has NOT been spreading any viscera at the public meetings. STOP, please. You are behaving offensively and need to STOP, move on already. Amherst public schools haven't done anything to you.

Anonymous said...

Quite frankly, Ed, this is none of your business.

Anonymous said...

Can we stop talking about fucking Ed? Whoever here complains about him is a newbie - stop feeding the troll.

Dr. Ed said...

Look, Appy & Kent all of this direct their visceral at these leaders?ent are theface of all of this -- why shouldn't those upset address their visceral at these two LEADERS.

Kent & Appy somehow think they should be able to sweep this whole sordid mess under the carpet and make it go away. BULLBLEEP!!!

It's like telling a rape survivor that she (or he)should "forget about it" and "move on." No, she was violated and she has the right to see the perp prosecuted. `

SAME THING HERE! IF this whole charade is legal, and I emphasize "if", then the General Court needs to act. This is my field and an insult to my profession, I have every right to speak out against it.

You don't have to listen -- I think the issue is that others might.

And I'm tired of the personal attacks on anyone who questions any of this. Appy's statement last night was both offensive and unprofessional.

And Kurt, I'm tired of you passive voice.

Anonymous said...

Pelham, with 60 or so kids in their elementary school, has 3 votes on Union 26 and Amherst, with a 1000+ kids in the their elementary schools, has 3 votes. Do Pelham and Amherst split the bill for the payout to the superintendent or does Amherst pay 95% of the bill?

Anonymous said...

Vira has long dashed any hope she had of State Rep..
Toxic, liar, manipulator, all fit…She has about 5 people who have her support, and most are from this blog, which is no gage on how the community feels as a whole

Larry Kelley said...

But they sure seem to be tuning in.

Anonymous said...

Seems like it is time to pay for the mistake and move on. People in government or education do not get punished, it is one of the perks.

Anonymous said...

This story has more layers then we will ever know. Is Maria just sick of it all? Is she trying to avoid a bad review? Is she hoping to avoid a lawsuit from aisha? Has Kurt started wearing dresses and a wig? Not that there is anything wrong with that! Is Maria in a secret affair with Dr ed? Was this all a giant plot by morris? Was there jealousy over splitting up kickbacks from the new school project? Will art classes ever be the same at our schools? Will Vince ever grow a mustache? How old do you think Mary Wentworth actually is? Will Larry Kelly be the first mayor? For these and other answers watch "As The Amherst Turns"

Anonymous said...

If "Chair Laura Kent said it would be 45 minutes. The Committee finally came back into public session around 9:15 PM -- after THREE HOURS -- but said they would not release the executive session minutes tonight." do we have any idea when they will be released? and why they weren't released last night?

Larry Kelley said...

We were told they would be released this morning. But alas, that has not come to pass.

Anonymous said...

Mucking Up the Process means revealing the fact that these Executive Sessions are being misused to grab taxpayers money to pay out, pay off and pay up. Why aren't people going crazy about the $$$$.

Sometimes it takes exceptional measures and obnoxious behavior to break apart petty little tyrannies.

Rebecca Casa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rebecca Casa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Siege mentality on this school committee. Members digging their heels in to stick to a side. It's awful, but it's understandable. "Mucking Up The Process" is described as some were unhappy about a decision so they complain about process, however, the process was always dubious at best and potentially illegitimate. Picking a battle and fighting for what's right is disruptive and can get ugly. It's tiresome. It's all-consuming. If this was a pitched battle for a decision about sewers, it wouldn't have the weight carried by fighting for a school, children, community. People have a tendency to not make waves. Until they have to. It's unpleasant but it gets the public looking into past decisions, recurring faces and names, and how agendas were carried out in private, using taxpayers money to pay off, pay up and pay out.

Rebecca Casa said...

The school committe needs to get along and support each other. Not act like middle schoers. Trevor was never supported was made to look like it was himself against Geryk. Which was not the case.. Niw laura Kent is getting slammed. She is new, it will take her a while to get her footing. Whem we see the individual enaluations online we can make decisions on wheth we new sc members shpuld be voted in based our feelings abt how they evaluated the SI. We can also look at how ppl handled and acted and do the same. For email your ac members and tell thwm how you feel abt things. The Ww prohect, the payout, the interim appointnment. Technology makes it easy and the more guidenace the sc has from the public abt what we want and expect the better.

Anonymous said...

They can't create a stalemate by themselves there was 10 period and Trevor and Bri are for transparency so there's nothing in those minutes but they care about him and removed they want everything there so the public can see it. So your argument here doesn't make any sense they've been transparent all along they've always said what's on their mind they have nothing to hide. We all know who has things to hide and that's the woman who just left with three tenths of a million dollars. And her protector Miss Appy.

Anonymous said...

when are you leaving for Sweden I'm really tired of listening to you on this blog

DrEd said...

Amherst will pay a lot more than half -- read her contract. Read her bribe, if we ever can -- if she was hired jointly, there is joint liability.

But there may be personal liability for Maria.

Anonymous said...

She could have been the lawyer is only to be fired too they did a terrible job for the school committee and honestly they did a bad job for Maria not in her settlement obviously they did a pretty good job there but as far as advising her on the parents and they need to be fired from the school system think we need a whole new law firm here whose school committee is so that they can protect themselves properly

Rebecca Casa said...

They didn't finish they were in a stalemate 15 minutes before they came back to us. And then they said they needed to go back in to approve the documents that went with minutes and that seem to be an area of disagreement based on people's responses and the looks on their faces when Laura Kent insisted that they go work on it until 11.

Anonymous said...

Time for burning Appy & Kent in effigy?

Anonymous said...

Better yet, when there is eventually a search committee formed for a new superintendent volunteer to be on it!

Anonymous said...

This is a blog about schools and eucation. Yet I can not read a bunch of the comments due to spelling, punctuation and a lack of real words. I have to guess what Rebecca and others are trying to say! It's really terrible!

Anonymous said...

To the "Vira is toxic" and "Trevor is toxic" person who keeps writing on this blog. Do you know how creepy and strange you seem? Over and over, no details, no name, nothing but this ugly, repetitive statement. It makes you seem ugly and toxic.

And your weird, creepy remarks are aimed, over and over, at the only two people of color on the school committees. Does that strike you as even more odd and inappropriate? It should. Put it to rest.

Janet McGowan

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that you are not concerned about the constant attacks against Dr. Appy or Maria or now Laura Kent. I find those attacks creepy.

Anonymous said...

To 6:48, "eucation" If you're going to comment about punctuation and spelling, at least check yourself, before you wreck yourself. Derp.

Anonymous said...

minutes have to be approved by the SC members. I suspect that some members of the SC (number unknown) are refusing to approve them as they have been presented. Either they contain too much information, which I doubt, or not enough information, which I suspect given the level of secrecy we've seen so far. Or there is mixture of non approval votes, some members think too much is revealed while others at the same time think there is a lack of transparency. Lets face it, lack of transparency (ie sharing information) has been the MO (deliberate or not) of Ms Geryk's tenure. Just one example, look at the SC minutes posted (good luck finding any) or proposals for initiatives (never submitted) or progress reports (what's that) available online on the ARPS website.

Anonymous said...

As $300,000+ of "extra...non-child" school money is wasted, remember what has happened, next time you vote. When you cast your ballot, think of this advice....If you want the privilege of spending your own, hard earned dollars, don't ever vote for a Democrat. Liberals are big spenders of other people's money. Somehow they feel they know how to spend your money so much better than you do. This payout is such a wasteful example of how our hard-earned tax dollars are spent!

All of this is so very sad for the students. Just think of what $300,000 could (...and should) do for them. Suddenly makes me want more Charter Schools! They seem to know how to spend money more carefully and have the children's education in mind.

Katrina van Pelt said...

7:07 or maybe they just need time to "create" some minutes that will pull the wool further over our eyes:)

Katrina van Pelt said...

7:41 This has absolutely nothing to do with liberal or conservative leanings, and everything to do with shady character traits and the manner in which contracts are negotiated. what sort of incentives and caveats are we granting in our desperation to fill positions. In other words...where did we screw ourselves in Gerry's contract and how do we prevent it in the future?

Anonymous said...

google charter school embezzlement and read the first article or two or three or four. Wide spread misuse of funds. Come back with some evidence (not your observations) that charter schools, "know how to spend money more carefully". Inform yourself.

Anonymous said...

Why Mrs Trevor so angry?

Anonymous said...

"This has absolutely nothing to do with liberal or conservative leanings, and everything to do with shady character traits and the manner in which contracts are negotiated."

And hence liberals.

Anonymous said...

"This is a blog about schools and eucation. Yet I can not read a bunch of the comments due to spelling, punctuation and a lack of real words. I have to guess what Rebecca and others are trying to say! It's really terrible!"


You could use quite a bit of schooling yourself.

Anonymous said...

"Why Mrs Trevor so angry?"

As my very good friend Tony McGowen who happens to be black always says; "A lot of black men and women are just angry people."

Dr. Ed said...

Off topic but relevant to concerns expressed here re bike lanes. Federal Regs require a bike lane to END 100 feet BEFORE the start of a right-turn lane. (A school bus is 40 feet long.) Time for Birdie?

------------------

Standard:
06 A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane or to the left of a left turn only lane.

Support:
07 A bicyclist continuing straight through an intersection from the right of a right-turn lane or from the left of a left-turn lane would be inconsistent with normal traffic behavior and would violate the expectations of right- or left-turning motorists.

Guidance:
08 When the right through lane is dropped to become a right turn only lane, the bicycle lane markings should stop at least 100 feet before the beginning of the right-turn lane. Through bicycle lane markings should resume to the left of the right turn only lane.

09 An optional through-right turn lane next to a right turn only lane should not be used where there is a through bicycle lane. If a capacity analysis indicates the need for an optional through-right turn lane, the bicycle lane should be discontinued at the intersection approach.

10 Posts or raised pavement markers should not be used to separate bicycle lanes from adjacent travel lanes.

Support:
11 Using raised devices creates a collision potential for bicyclists by placing fixed objects immediately adjacent to the travel path of the bicyclist. In addition, raised devices can prevent vehicles turning right from merging with the bicycle lane, which is the preferred method for making the right turn. Raised devices used t

Dr. Ed said...

Blogger was not designed for lots of comments and does some funky things...

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:58 yes I missed a d while typing. Now read a few of Rebecca's posts and tell me it's the same thing. The point is to communicate.

Anonymous said...

In Tuesday's Gazette, Scott Merzbach reported that "Initially, the committee was told by its lawyer that Geryk was alleging breach of contract, including non-compliant performance evaluations, according to Douangmany. A demand letter that was handed out a subsequent meeting accused individual members of violating Geryk's civil rights and breach of contract."

At the very least, a complete copy of executive session meeting minutes from all 3 or 4 meetings, along with the non-compliant performance evaluations and the demand letter that Vira talked about should be released to the public. That way we can make up our own mind about whether or not school committee members screwed up by offering Geryk so much money.

Anonymous said...

the only specifics about evaluation in Ms Geryk's contract states the deadline of June 30th. As to violating her civil rights- I'd like to know which ones: was she deprived of life (obviously not), liberty, or property (unless she alleges the SC have ruined her career?)? Not allowed to vote? I sure hope all committee members made themselves very knowledgeable of her contract (and the bill of rights of US).

Does anyone know, who made the rule (not in her contract) that anything less than a proficient in her evaluation requires supporting narrative. Is that something the SC decided in their policy (bc its not in her contract).

Anonymous said...

thank you anon 11:30 for specifying the threats made against our elected officials, by geryk in collusion with kent, appy and modestow:

In Tuesday's Gazette, Scott Merzbach reported that "Initially, the committee was told by its lawyer that Geryk was alleging breach of contract, including non-compliant performance evaluations, according to Douangmany. A demand letter that was handed out a subsequent meeting accused individual members of violating geryk's civil rights and breach of contract."

because union 26 doesn't exist as a legal entity, the signature of a union 26 representative on geryk's contract made and makes it NULL & VOID!!!! so, there is no breach of contract. the idea that geryk's civil rights were violated has absolutely no merit. AND appy's, kent's and modestow's clandestine determination that 2 non-white members' evaluations are "non-compliant" proves appy,kent and modestow deliberated behind closed secret government doors in violation of the open meeting law, and the 3 violated Vira's and Trevor's civil rights by illegally discriminating against them because of the color of their skin.

should we fail to stand up to these racist bullies, our children, teachers and school will suffer the consequences. what a sorry epitaph for our school community...they saw it coming, but didn't have the wit nor the courage to do anything about it.

Katrina van Pelt said...

10:22 I find your statement Highly offensive and Racist....you hide behind anonymity AND make statements but don't own them by attributing them to a "friend"? why didn't you call out your friend on their racist remark, instead of repeating it here? Disgusting!

Dr. Ed said...

Tuesday's Gazette, Scott Merzbach reported that "Initially, the committee was told by its lawyer that Geryk was alleging breach of contract, including non-compliant performance evaluations, according to Douangmany. A demand letter that was handed out a subsequent meeting accused individual members of violating Geryk's civil rights and breach of contract."

Her contract had an arbitration clause. She couldn't sue, she couldn't issue a demand letter

Anonymous said...

"dr. ed said...Off topic but relevant"

It is off topic. Start your own blog. Your endless pontificating is annoying.

Anonymous said...

Kurt go away. For a person who hates this blog so much why don't you start writing your own? Why waste your time here?

Anonymous said...

"Dr. Ed said...Blogger was not designed for lots of comments"

It never stopped you before.

Anonymous said...

7:56 - The rule that anything less (or more for that matter) than a proficient rating in her evaluation requires supporting narrative is part of the new educator evaluation system that the MA Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education implemented a few years ago. It's a state regulation that applies to the evaluations of all administrators, classroom teachers, guidance counselors, school nurses, and any other comparable professional-level school staff.

Dr. Ed - Whatever Maria's lawyer could or couldn't do in your judgment, unless Vira is fibbing, he did issue a demand letter to the committee. And it appears to have had a role in this whole mess.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:22 As my very good friend Bill "Bojangles" Robinson who happened to be black use to say "little white girls sure can dance"!

Anonymous said...

There is a good deal of guesswork toward the agendas of the various parties involved. Suffice it to say that a board or an entity does not simply approve a $300,000K buyout on a whim. Stephanie Murray in the Gazette nailed some of the internal discussions when she reported Ms. Kent's statement back on Aug. 10th-- “Our members worked diligently over the course of 14 hours to understand the claim put before us and then to negotiate an appropriate separation that would meet terms of our contract and not put our district in further jeopardy,” Kent said, reading from a statement.

“This experience has put a mirror in front of our committee and made clear that we have a lot of work to do to minimize the risk of a similar situation in the future..."

Now, putting aside all the agendas involved, and shelving the racial & equity overtones that can so often inflame public debate, it's pretty evident that whatever side you come down on regarding the politics, there were a few highly serious and very public screw ups earlier this year by certain members of the various school boards as they attempted to use whatever levers of power were at their disposal to publicly disparage Superintendent Geryk.

It's pretty clear that if you were a fly on the wall during the recent executive sessions, the board was informed by their attorney that (whether you agree with the politics or not) they, as a board bear a degree of responsibility when they do not follow the proper legal mechanisms involved during performance and contract reviews.

Former Chair Mr. Baptiste and board member Ms. Douangmany-Cage have been the strongest voices engaged in a protracted public battle disparaging Supt. Geryk. Those voices, statements and actions, in a private and public capacity as board members, were very purposeful toward inflaming the divisiveness of recent public discussions.

Responsibility for where we are regarding Ms. Hiza and Supt. Geryk and her contract is by no means theirs alone--but their public actions (along with others) have consequences.

Many of us believe it's noble when you stand up for your beliefs. But there are times when standing up for those beliefs at all costs will have consequences. Getting arrested or imprisoned can be a price that is paid when one chooses to engage in personal protest. When that personal protest spills into words and actions taken in an official elected capacity, the cost that is now paid will tally $300,000. That cost is not born out of the pockets of Mr. Baptiste, Ms. Hiza or Ms. Douangmany-Cage. That cost for those public actions are paid by us.

I would HOPE that at this stage, with Supt. Geryk poised to exit--pointed sticks can begin to be lowered, public anger can be given a brief chance to cool, and hopefully, a small degree of courtesy and reasonableness can re-enter the discussion.

We are a community. We will have a new Superintendent, and a degree of goodwill is essential. It is up to the members of the community to decide for themselves how much reasonableness can re-enter the discussions, and how much goodwill they are willing to extend.

We're a community. There are those among us (on all sides) that choose to see the world and the actions of others *only* through a particular prism. That can be unfortunate, as well as being highly impactful to constructive public debate.

Viewing recent deeds and actions only through that prism has led to our current situation. It is my hope we *all* take a collective breath as we consider our words and actions as we move toward a new school year.


Anonymous said...

thx 10:46 for sourcing the eval requirement

Katrina van Pelt said...

11:05 how unfortunate and impactful is the view of your own prism? who issued the stay away order? why are the minorities to blame for this mess?

Anonymous said...

I believe Mike N is a good egg and a smart fellow. Do you think he'd make a good superintendent? Or is he too tainted by his association with Maria G? Given she hired him into the higher bracket job and he was loyal to her and her policies.

Anonymous said...

Okay, it's Friday morning, 11am, August 9, 2016…and the SC exec session minutes are still not released. Does anyone have an update?

It appears that the SC just doesn't care at this point. They're willing to take the hit from violating the Open Meeting Law then let the public know what's going on. Like Vegas, what's happens in the SC meetings stays in the SC meetings..

What is the OML penalty? Just a fine?

Anonymous said...

The minorities are the ones to blame for this mess because they are the ones who inappropriately disparaged Ms Geryk. Actions have consequences. When people behave badly there are consequences no matter what color they are.
On sort of another note where is the OML complaint for the release of the Pelham SC minutes where the stay away order was discussed? I've heard that when the SC heard the reasons for the stay away order they backed the SI.

Anonymous said...

10:46 and 11:32: You just don't get it, do you? there are no DOE regulations or laws defining a "non-compliant" superintendent violation. geryk, kent, appy and modestow jointly violated the open meeting law when they deliberated behind closed government doors and maliciously determined non-white members' evaluations are "non-compliant." it is likewise a violation of title VI of the us civil rights act of 1964 for 2 of 9 members of the regional school committee and non-member modestow, to make any kind of determination that 2 school committee members' evaluations are "non-compliant" simply because of the color of their skin.

Anonymous said...

12:04...ma attorney general rulings against the infamous open meeting law violators will be forever memoralizaed in the public record (just like the one last year against ms. appy) and a $1,000 fine each will be personally levied on ms. appy and ms. kent.

Anonymous said...

@11:05AM, your statement makes me ill: "Former Chair Mr. Baptiste and board member Ms. Douangmany-Cage have been the strongest voices engaged in a protracted public battle disparaging Supt. Geryk. Those voices, statements and actions, in a private and public capacity as board members, were very purposeful toward inflaming the divisiveness of recent public discussions."
Well, what about the letter from an attorney representing Ms. Geryk wherein Dr. Baptiste was accused by her lawyer of self-aggrandizement, arrogance, grandstanding?! That wasn't inflammatory? What about Ms. Geryk's very public admonishment of Dr. Shabazz? That wasn't disparaging? What of her issuance of stay away order against a custodial parent without due process, or even a modicum of communication? That wasn't inflammatory? Frankly, I think your prism is cracked.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:05 The takeaway from your comment seems to be that you should always agree with the majority or any conflict will be your fault ( whether you agree with the politics or not).Quote " were very purposeful toward inflaming the divisiveness of recent public discussions." When people don't agree ...yes...it becomes divisive. You act like you are neutral but why not blame the majority party (whether you agree with the politics or not)? You want to shelve the agendas and put aside the issues and to you that clarifies who is at fault? What the hell are you talking about? Screw democracy! Makes you want to know who wrote this. The entire thesis "begs the question". Junk self-serving logic! I didn't understand until recently that Team Maria was evil. I know who to blame now (whether you agree with the politics or not)!

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Modestow part of a discrimination lawsuit against Frontier Regional School recently? Anyone know the outcome of that suit? Was he named in it?

Anonymous said...

You're welcome, 11:32.

Anonymous said...

Katrina van Pelt @ 11:47--

11:05 here with a reply--First,

What sort of post would you have written if you started with a premise that [Ms. Geryk] in this situation deserve dignity, respect, and due process for all charges made against her.

(I believe, by the way, these were your precise and exact words posted at 9:19 here http://onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-shuning-continues.html changing ONLY the person under discussion). I would trust that above expressed sentiment is indeed always, rather than selectively, applicable? Just checking.

Second, I believe the far more pertinent question which has been assiduously avoided by many riding along on the Superintendent Geryk hate train is *WHY*--EXACTLY why--was the stay away order issued? Distracting from this root cause is part of the problem as one is forced to assume by that accusatory tone that the stay-away order was issued entirely without any merit. As if our Superintendent woke up one morning with the goal and motivation to go to work that day to ban a parent for no cause. I don't think any reasonable person could legitimately say that Superintendent Geryk took that step in a vacuum, yet, sadly, that's the way a lot of the conversation happens.


Finally, as unfortunately stated, "the minorities" (from your post @ 11:47) are NOT to blame. We all take responsibility for both what we say and how we say it. I have a frustration with the discourse, and ironically, that frustration is actually very well demonstrated in that last sentence of your comment.

The immediate assumption that minorities are to "blame" is damaging. I have a point of view to be sure, and in expressing that point of view, I am nothing but respectful to Mr. Baptiste, Ms. Douangmany-Cage & Ms. Hiza. They are not "the minorities", but three of the more public individuals who, in this case, I strongly disagree with.

I am very disappointed that several in this case who advocate and cry loudest for fairness, transparency and equity are the exact same parties that could, for example, (if they chose) allow for the release of confidentiality to which the school or administrator (such as the Superintendent) is legally bound when discussing specific student-parent matters.

We have arrived here because we all can, at times, assume the worst in other's actions and motivations. Look toward the better angels of our nature if possible and let that potentially influence how we choose to discuss things.

We can disagree, we can disagree strongly, and believe it or not, we can even have some fun as we disagree. Calling you out with the words of your previous post for example...no real harm intended, but an effective way to make a point.

We're motoring down the long interstate and all those in the car are argumentative, whiny, hungry, tired and restless. There's an off ramp coming up. Supt. Geryk will be leaving and she has been, deserved or undeserved, the public lightning rod at the center of some of our divisiveness in the community. We can choose to stop for a bit, get out of the car, stretch and have a bite, or we can continue to hurtle on down the road.

I vote for the off ramp.

Only problem is, I'm not the one driving.




Anonymous said...

will we have to wait until the next SC meetings (Union 26 and Regional) before the minutes are released? This delay is only adding fuel to the fire (of resentment, mystery and conspiracy). Come on, let's see them already or give us a reason why not? Please.

Dr. Ed said...

The rule that anything less (or more for that matter) than a proficient rating in her evaluation requires supporting narrative is part of the new educator evaluation system that the MA Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education implemented a few years ago. It's a state regulation that applies to the evaluations of all administrators, classroom teachers, guidance counselors, school nurses, and any other comparable professional-level school staff.

BULLSHITE!!!! -- There is no such reg AND as to a supt, the regs are the exact opposite.

Yes, they have a model, a SUGGESTED method, but that IS NOT A REGULATION!

Whatever Maria's lawyer could or couldn't do in your judgment, unless Vira is fibbing, he did issue a demand letter to the committee. And it appears to have had a role in this whole mess.

only because the committees had legal counsel who was, at best, incompetent.

Anonymous said...

anon 1:05 - when the dust from your eratic driving settles, the facts will prove Ms. Geryk violated Ms. Hiza's civil rights and retaliated against a loving mother who appropriately tried to prevent, and is still trying to prevent, the racially based bullying of her young daughter. So, to use an analogy similar to the one you used, Ms. Geryk got drunk as a skunk, hopped in her car and purposefully ran over us and our children, and then hired her attorneys Long, Tate and Colomb to sue us and our children.

Anonymous said...

comments above by 2:49 were responding to comments made by anon 11:05 not 1:05 as incorrectly stated

Anonymous said...

I have never before posted on this blog, but I read it occasionally to keep track of some of the nitty-gritty in town governance. I feel compelled to say a few things in strong defense of the person who wrote at 11:05/1:48.

1. It seems to be the case that the board is legally exposed by virtue of their actions toward Geryk. Why else would they make some sort of payout? That's a big part of what 11:05/1:48 is getting at. What other non-paranoid, non-demonizing answers are there to this question?

2. Why might the board be legally exposed? If it's indeed the actions of Mr. Baptiste and Ms. Duoangmany-Cage, then I think there are some serious questions that need to be asked. A good fighter knows what they're doing, they don't expose their rook to their opponent's knight unless it leads to a greater strategic advantage, etc. If Ms. D-C in particular exposed the board to legal jeopardy, she either did that intentionally or unintentionally. If intentionally, then she needs to say to potential voters how costing the district hundreds of thousands of dollars in an expected payout might lead to an improvement in the educational opportunities of students of color, which is a laudable goal, and which she cites as the basis for many of her actions. But on the face of it, I can't see how this kind of payout is a good thing for anybody, up to including students of color; and therefore if it this is an intentional strategy, I am inclined to think it is a very bad strategy, since it seems to run counter to her stated aims, which are also the aims of most people in Amherst. If on the other hand she unintentionally or mistakenly exposed the board to legal jeopardy, producing in the process a result that will decrease the educational opportunities of our students, I think that means that she is just not very good at her job. In this scenario, she is not, as she claims, a fighter; she is just combative, which is not the same thing, and which indeed tends to correlate with bad tactical and strategic thinking. Either way, this whole episode makes me very unwilling to vote for her in the upcoming primary. I don't think she would be an effective fighter for western mass in Boston politics. I think she would just be combative.

3. 11:05/1:48 also raises questions of tone, and here're too he or she is right. I have lived in Amherst for a decade, and never have I been more ashamed of our town than when reading the tone of the comments on issues pertaining to our schools and public servants. If we demonize our public officials, rather than simply criticizing or disagreeing with them and then trying to provide reasons for our criticisms or disagreements, then we will have fewer competent and qualified people willing to serve us, and we will all suffer as a result.

Anonymous said...

2:49--Perfect! Now we're bringing down the temperature of the arguments. For future posts, might I suggest "Ms. Geryk picked up a hunting rifle and mowed us down like so many innocent deer?" How about, "Ms. Geryk reached to pull the knife out of the drawer and advanced slowly upon us like a desperate fox about to set itself upon a injured rabbit..."

Oh, one more for the Potter fans--"Ms. Geryk approached, stealthily and silent, drew her wand and whispered the unforgivable curse...AVADA KEDAVRA, she uttered and a jet of bright green light flashed toward our children...

Anonymous said...

The geryk/ apply demons are very verbose today. They seem to think length of comment equals quality of comment . Vira should never have endangered our children by disagreeing! The demons are very lawyer like in the organization of their thoughts like good bureaucrats! Too bad they are totally devoid of ethics. After Geryk is long gone where will Apply and the other demons be? Will it have all been worth it? Who would ever trust them again after getting a few hundred thousand in ransom for their friend and fellow devil? How many will cross the street when they see them coming? Oh I do go on!






Katrina van Pelt said...

1:48
What sort of post would you have written if you started with a premise that [Ms. Geryk] in this situation deserve dignity, respect, and due process for all charges made against her.


I do think it ALWAYS applies. where have I not given her Dignity? I did say she was incompetent as a matter of opinion, but that doesn't take her dignity, it was a critique of her actions regarding the stay away order because there were no clear protocols in place about how/when the SI issues one.

I have not disrespected her in my language that I'm aware of, I have not called her nasty names.

I have personally not leveled any charges against her without giving her a chance to respond (albeit here) Other than to ask for answers on why the order wasn't lifted in it's entirety early on?

Unknown said...

Where does our current Rep. Ellen Story stand on these issues? Or Senator Stan Rosenberg? Is there any government entity, paid by the taxpayers, who can explain what is happening as 300,000 leaves the school budget?

Dr. Ed said...

allow for the release of confidentiality to which the school or administrator (such as the Superintendent) is legally bound when discussing specific student-parent matters.Look toward the better angels of our nature if possible and let that potentially influence how we choose to discuss things.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

-- James Madison, Federalist 51.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

Rick Hood said...

“Does anyone know, who made the rule (not in her contract) that anything less than a proficient in her evaluation requires supporting narrative. Is that something the SC decided in their policy (bc its not in her contract).”

The instructions are clear on the evaluation forms we use, and have said this since this form of evaluation was started (2011-2012) to follow the then new educator evaluation system: “comments are recommended for any overall rating; however, ratings other than proficient require the elevator to provide comments including rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement” No SC member ever objected to this rule. What exactly is done if a member does not do that, it does not say.

Where that came from is in the DESE regulations: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/ Specifically see page B3 of this: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/PartVI.pdf

Dr. Ed said...

What sort of post would you have written if you started with a premise that [Ms. Geryk] in this situation deserve dignity, respect, and due process for all charges made against her.

In other words, she's royalty who must be worshiped.

WRONG!

A public official does NOT deserve due process because she already has process.
That's what _NY Times v. Sullivan_ was all about.

She had no legal claim, any competent lawyer would have known that.

Anonymous said...

All should read carefully the wisdom expressed by 11:05/1:48 and 4:23. Their ideas are clearly expressed and articulately written. Some important questions are posed for readers to ponder?

The public needs to know FACTS.

Anonymous said...

Unknown 6:56 hits on a very important fact …
There is a very specific reason that neither Rosenberg or Story has made a comment ..
They are aware of the facts and the facts do not support Toxic Vira and Toxic Trevor

Katrina van Pelt said...

7:37 let's start with the FACTS own who is speaking....anonymity hardly screams wisdom to me

Anonymous said...

The negative characterizations as a result of anonymity alone are actually more damaging to the accuser that the accused. Facts, opinions and ideas can stand on their own without identity - in fact most good ones do just this. The idea that there is a temporary high value to one's identity implies there is a low value to what is being said, but that the accuser is actually lacking anything of substance to respond with to substantiate any claims. Additionally, mentioning such weakens any associated valid statement. Rather McCarthyesque though, trying to limit ideas by artificially anchoring them to people, who can then be further vilified. Ironic that it is then noble to protect anonymous sources in the media....

Newton did not make the apple hit the ground.

Laura Quilter said...

It seems that Geryk made a legal threat, but it does not follow that the legal threat is actually meritorious. Unrepresented parties and poorly represented parties cave in the face of non-meritorious legal threats all the time.

Without seeing the legal threat we have no way of assessing the merits of the claim.

I am worried that our School Committee is not well-enough advised, given what appears to be close ties between Geryk and the School Committee's attorney(s).

Dr. Ed said...

Laura, better stated than I could have.

Dr. Ed said...

Rick Hood said:
The instructions are clear on the evaluation forms we use,

1: Who produced these forms?
My guess is that it was the school system itself, i.e. Maria and/or her minions. Any conflict of interest here?

2: The instructions could say "dance naked on your front lawn while howling at the full moon", and SC members could choose to do that, but could not be forced to.

A better example: "May only be completed by White Christian Males." Do you think that could be enforced?

3: Who approved these forms?

Where that came from is in the DESE regulations: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/ Specifically see page B3 of this: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/PartVI.pdf

Rick, THESE ARE NOT REGULATIONS!!!

A regulation must appear in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations and have a CMR number, e.g. 105CMR410.551, 105 CMR410.552 (screens required on windows & doors).
A regulation is enforceable, everything else is a suggestion.

Now there ARE regulations regarding the evaluation of superintendents, I have posted them before and can again if I have to, but the most relevant part -- a regulation that states that none of the regs may interfere with a SC right to fire or not rehire a Supt.

Dr. Ed said...

Facts, opinions and ideas can stand on their own without identity

Objective ones can, but subjective ones can NOT as they rely on the reputation of the person making them.

Anonymous said...

There is a very specific reason that neither Rosenberg or Story has made a comment ..
They are aware of the facts and the facts do not support Toxic Vira and Toxic Trevor.


Other than the fact that it'd be highly inappropriate for them to do so, could it have anything to do with the fact they don't want to be called "toxic" as well?

Rebecca Casa said...

A side bote on the cinfrmation. They didnt discuss it in exec session. I think.it took all that time to.spprove the notes withholdimg the attchments. Sullivan said no one discussed Morris appt later during the appt part of the meeting. Kent then explained it wasnt long term and needed to happen asap due to some rule (law)

Rebecca Casa said...

Modestow voted in the best interest of pelham. He wanted maria to go away. Pelham only shoulders 11,000. Not sure if thats 11,000 per year or total. But that is a good del for pelham.way less than pelham would pay for legal fees. Modestoe also wS the Sc member that made it possible for ms hiza to attend her daughters play during the school ban. Maybe we shouldnt be so quick to judge him. Ill decide when I see his eval of Geryks performance.

Anonymous said...

If they aren't out then didn't finish it has to be a 5 -5 stalemate on some of those attached documents kent memtioned. So its no longer 8 -2. Some people are behinning to think.about what is best for community not the ex suoer. Too bad TM truth is gonna come out. ,

Anonymous said...

Thanks but Kurt you and I both know she wanted almost 600000. Is that what pisses you off, that after your wife and you heard the SC counter offer and said no. We eant twice that. YOU guys( Maria & Kurt) were not going to move off the 600,000 number. Until.the SC lawyer leaked to his lawfirm the SC decided to make Maria work out her contract if she didnt accept the 309,000? Is that why your so sour Kurt?? Because you got half of what you wanted..from our children?

Rebecca Casa said...

True but it needs to be addressed and not ignored was my point. Especially now with two towns divided.

Rebecca Casa said...

It was definitely the other way around. Trevor and Vira stood up to the obvious corruption in the SC and Chestnut St. The did not always ahree but stood up for what was right. They voiced the opinions and put themselves out there to stand up. Thete was a lot happening in our district that wss hood vut a lot more that was wrong. If you dont like what they did vote them out! In pelham I am happy with Trevor becUse he isnt the reason we getting sued. MARIA is. Of course I am waiting for the exec session notes, and evauations to becposted online before I make any real decisions about how I feel about any of our Reg/ Pelham SC members.

Anonymous said...

Appy is way more involved with the manipulation and not holdimg SI accountable than you know. It would be best for our town if she didn't run.again.

Anonymous said...

I would love to offer to pay half the SI buyout! IF Amherst pays half of Aisha's lawsuit.

Rebecca Casa said...

Yes, I should be more respectful of my alma mater and reread my posts. I apologize for being in a rush most days. When I get a chance I try to edit and delete the posts. Just because anon658 seems so concerned regarding my education. I graduated in 1986 ARHS. I graduated in class of 2000 from Umass GPA 3.94. dbl major Education & Psychology with a Specialization in Dev Disabilities. Btw I also passed my teacher test on the first try. I apologize for not editing while I am ranting on my phone with small buttons. (Also I have my Med in School Counseling from Univ of Western Alabama.)

Rebecca Casa said...

All the direct attacks should stop the SC needs to work as a team & make decisions. Once the decision is made, even if it is a split vote they need to own it. They did a terrible job supporting Trevor, THEY need to do a,better job supporting Laura. The SC has to learn from the mistakes of the past, grow and move forward to new day. If it stays business as usual the people will be very upset.

Rebecca Casa said...

I suspect the third choice on your list- split vote on certain.items. I agree no transparency for many years now.

Rebecca Casa said...

That is for Whitney to share. in detail..There are many reasons. My understanding of what she said was two of the reasons are media people using Trevor to make it look like it was Trevor vs Maria. 2nd Trevor's treatment / non soppurt and disrespect by other SC members and SI including threatening emails and phone calls. Listen to what she says. It is pretty clear. The pelham video of her speaking at Pelham SC says it all. Just remember when she refers to being threatened she is refering to Maria / Maria's lawyer not residents of Pelham.

Rebecca Casa said...

She wanted twice thst.

Anonymous said...

It want tally discussed Maria does not want the prlhsm school.committe ecec session released. It wil show things she doesn't want seen by the public. With the pending lawsuit they may never be released.

Anonymous said...

Do not forget Maria's lawyer advised her or broke Fed law herself in the ban from school committee . Humunski vs something.

Anonymous said...

Gazette has all the details/ notes and evaluations

Larry Kelley said...

And clearly obtained them in an illegal manner.

Anonymous said...

All of this highlights, once again, how school administrator's salaries in Amherst are just plain too high. I don't see anyone in the Amherst schools with the competence to demand that kind of money.

Rick Hood said...

The most important thing is missing:
"The committee members have not yet approved release of the full demand letter from Geryk. Kent said she will consult with Colomb to see whether this is exempt from the Open Meeting Law."
That had better get released. There is nothing in the minutes that talk about the strength of the claim(s), which must be contained in that letter.

Anonymous said...

One thing Maria is good at- is knowing (too well) how the school district/ town is forced to respond in situations like this.

Anonymous said...

High salaries- as well as the ability to bank an endless number of sick/ vacation days.

Where I work- It's use them (vacation) or lose them at the end of the year -and sick days can only be accumulated for a few years.





Anonymous said...

Good to see Rick come out of hiding. Maybe you should run for SC again. LOL!

Anonymous said...

Larry, why is it that the Gazette has the minutes and you do not have posted?

Larry Kelley said...

Because they obtained them illegally; and I try not to break the law.

Anonymous said...


4:23 anon here again. From the documents on the Gazette website, it appears to be the case that the school committee attorney thinks that Geryk's contractual claims against the committee are strong. It's true that this could be bad legal advice; it's also true that lawyers within the firm could be somehow colluding to swindle the district, although frankly I doubt the benefits of this gambit to the firm would outweigh the attendant risks, and therefore I think the likelihood of this is low. But in the event that the attorney is right, then it appears that the district's options are really two: (a) litigation, with significant costs both to the district's budget and its long-term reputation; and (b) confidential negotiations over a buy-out, conducting with the aim of keeping costs to budget and reputation low. Cage and Baptiste appear to want (a), and the rest of the committee appear to want (b).

From where I sit -- a taxpayer and voter who wants to raise kids in a progressive community, but who does not have kids in Amherst schools right now -- even the best case scenario version of (a) would be a pyrrhic victory. The lawsuit itself would be expensive to win, especially if Geryk's contractual claims are strong. Reputationally, it would be bitter and ugly. Already we find ourselves in a position where we need to hire a "super" superintendent. In the concrete, this means hiring someone who will be able to command a high salary in exchange for agreeing to discharge the onerous responsibility of mediating a divided community -- a community that seems quick to assume bad faith in, and to make ad hominem attacks on, its elected and appointed leaders. The more litigious the district gets in its relation to Geryk, the higher the price will be for the next superintendent, creating even more strain on an already strained school budget. That wouldn't be good for us or our kids. But that's where Cage and Baptiste seem to want to go. They seem to want to bring it on, to go to trial, to be put on the stand, etc. But if the committee's attorney is correct and Geryk's claims are strong -- or, put differently, if it's more likely than not that the committee violated her contract -- then why would litigating this be in the best interest of our schools? Do supporters of Cage in particular really think that she is exercising good judgment here?

Anonymous said...

What a rotten kettle of fish. From all appearances the School Committee was given terrible advice from their so-called lawyer T. Colomb to rush and be railroaded into giving Maria G her $309k payout.

Some choice quotes from the recently publicly released executive session minutes:

Vague particulars of Maria G's oh-so credible 'compliant':
“..violations to the contract, constitutional claims, defamation,ethics and emotional distress..”
Constitutional claims? It seems that any criticism of the superintendent must be defamation.

Warning the School Committee that is a big, bad scary lawsuit:
“..Attorney Colomb responded that this is a serious claim..”

Let's settle quickly using district money! No need for more scrutiny or process from filing an insurance claim:
“..Attorney Colomb stated that insurance companies often do not cover back wages as opposed to unlawful discrimination and emotional distress, and this would potentially need to come out of district funds..”

As always Ms Appy was more loyal to the superintendent than to the School district. Here she's in collusion with Colomb, let's settle this quickly as possible and get Maria her money:
“..Ms. Appy felt that the most responsible thing for the district would be to negotiate with the Superintendent, confirm the request for separation and avoid litigation..”

What a mess. How does this improve our schools? Where are concern for the students in all this?

I guess the payout has been delivered and they could care less.

Michael H said...

I applaud Rick H for his 8:33 AM comments below and join him in calling for a public release of Ms. Geryk's "smoking gun" threatening demand letter. In full support of acting supt. Mike Morris and his mostly (but not all) very competent and high-performing administrators, principals, teachers and staff, we must surgically remove the cancer found growing in the last school administration to make sure it doesn't metastasize in the new school administration.

While I have disagreed with many of Rick's school positions in the past, I continue to honor Rick, a former school committee member, for his vote to fire Ms. Geryk's attorney Regina Tate over 5 years ago, I believe Rick is an honorable seeker of truth and join him in his call below:

The most important thing is missing:
"The committee members have not yet approved release of the full demand letter from Geryk. Kent said she will consult with Colomb to see whether this is exempt from the Open Meeting Law."

That had better get released. There is nothing in the minutes that talk about the strength of the claim(s), which must be contained in that letter.

August 20, 2016 at 8:33 AM

Anonymous said...

Larry...the minutes are Amhersts' Pentagon Papers. A good reporter breaks a government malfeasance story whatever the source!

Anonymous said...

The comment Dr. Ed made at 7:06 pm on 3/19 is worth review by all U.S. citizens. This is an important document.

Thanks. Anon.10:58 pm. Great comment!

Larry Kelley said...

Pentagon Papers? Really? Yikes!

The minutes were going to be released anyway. They should have waited (although they don't seem to work on weekends) for the official "amended" version to be released and then put in a public document request for the only thing of interest missing -- the original extortion memo from Maria Geryk.

Which I did a few hours ago.

Anonymous said...

I meant Dr. Ed's comment on 8/19 @ 7:06 pm is worth review. Thanks. Should have proofread my entry more carefully!

blu8bird said...

I greatly appreciate Trevor Babtiste's and Vira D.Cage's persistent drive to hold themselves and the school committee accountable, just as they were driven to hold Maria Geryk accountable. While it might be a toxic environment, you are wrong to blame these two for generating it.

Anonymous said...

GERYKGATE!!! You decide: a crime, a coverup, a SOCIAL INJUSTICE?

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, as a public service, print out the arbitration portion of her contract.

Anonymous said...

Were Vira and Kathleen evaluating the same person?

Anonymous said...

It's getting harder to defend her. She's done a number on her legacy, which Mr. Fonsh made the best case for in last week's Bulletin. So sad.

Rich Morse

Anonymous said...

what are you Mr. Morse going to do about holding Ms. Geryk accountable for her violations of the public trust and costs to you?

Anonymous said...

Not knowing the composition of "the whole picture," I don't understand how anyone can take sides. I am afraid that much of the important evidence will never be made public. So, how will we ever know the "true" story?

Anonymous said...

Geryk will get her money and then sue the loud mouths who will not be able to keep their mouths shut, which is a stipulation in the agreement. School committee members will not be able to say disparaging things about Geryk as a result of the agreement. She likely has solid grounds for the lawsuit, since there are so many loudmouths on the school committee, Vira. And yes, Vira, you should probably call your lawyer since you're going to get sued anyway for the disparaging things you've been unable to control yourself from saying.

Townspeople ought to look straight at the committee members who've been on the warpath toward Geryk for some time as the cause of this payout. In the real world, one has to know how to act when in a position of responsibility. Ask Donald Trump. School committee members cannot slander and defame people with impunity.

And since no one has any real evidence against Geryk, the hate speech becomes the cause of the fallout. It takes more than rumors, innuendo and verbal attacks to take someone to task.

I doubt you care what I have to say, but the lawyers will show you how the law interprets such attacks.

Anonymous said...

Haven't all you perfect people about covered every angle of this topic?
About time to move on to the next witch hunt, don't ya' think???

Larry Kelley said...

Actually that's for a JUDGE to decide.

Anonymous said...

The lawsuit itself would be expensive to win, especially if Geryk's contractual claims are strong.Geryk agreed not to sue.

The contract says she has to go to the American Arbitration Association for arbitration and SHE HAS TO PAY HALF THE COST.

Reputationally, it would be bitter and ugly.

And this isn't?

The only difference is that Maria would have had mud on her too.

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, do you have any idea how significant a civil rights violation was perpetrated on Trevor & Vera?

I'm rarely at a loss for words -- I am here.

Having read the stuff on gazettenet.com, all I can say is WHISKEYTANGOFOXTROT.

This has now gotten to the point where I can think of at least a half dozen national civil rights groups that'd love to talk to Trevor & Vera - and I'm not even talking about folks like the NAACP and the Civil Rights Division of the US Dept of Justice, who'd be equally pissed were they to be informed of this.

[Has anyone asked Bill Newman his thoughts on this?]

Kent & Appy essentially nullified the First & Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, much of the Massachusetts Constitution -- violating countless laws including the Anti Klu Klux Klan Act of 1781, which is both a CRIMINAL and civil offense.

Maybe Kent & Appy can share a cell in Danbury, CT.

And forget worrying about a lawsuit and start worrying about a Federal Receivership. Like Judge Garrity in Boston back in the 1970's.

#GerykGate

Anonymous said...

Earlier someone asked the question (I'm paraphrasing) "Why is Dr. Battle-Baptiste so unhappy?" Having just seen Ms. Appy's fawning comments on the Supt. evaluation, this commentary stands out as one of many reasons Dr. Battle-Baptiste might be upset:

"Ms. Geryk has fallen victim on numerous occasions to members of the larger community who have sought to exploit issues for their own interests. These efforts have been given an unfortunate outlet by the leader of the Regional School Committee who, through his incompetence, narcissism, and grandiose self image who fails continually to understand the parameters of school committee leadership and leadership in general." Not only did Ms. Appy gloss over Ms. Geryk's repeated mishandling and escalation of issues of equity this last year ("Exemplary" for Managing Conflict?! Are you kidding me?), she took it upon herself to disparage a fellow school committee member within the superintendents evaluation!

Rather than show concern and an ear to the ground for some very legitimate concerns of climate and equity in the school community, Ms. Appy chose to ignore numerous red flags and instead praise and protect the Supt, whilst disparaging a fellow committee member within the body of the Supt's evaluation! It's no wonder Dr. Battle-Baptise is angry. having read Appy's vile, unprofessional commentary embedded in the evaluation, I'm angry now, too.

Ms Appy, you are a disgrace to the children of the Amherst schools, to your fellow Committee members, and to the community. I do not trust you to represent the interests of my children, their peers, or their families in the region. I do not trust you to ensure a safe and equitable space for students, staff, or families of the schools to share their grievances or concerns. You should be ashamed of yourself. And Vira, if you're reading this? You've got my vote in September.

Dr. Ed said...

Correction: 1871

Anonymous said...

I wonder where ms apply will move to? Can you imagine her showing her face around here much longer? Dr ed stop being so dramatic! the klutz Klum Klang act...lol

Anonymous said...

I believe your quote about incompetence and narcissism was written by Kip Fonsh and not Ms Appy. I thought it was a perfect description of. Mr. Baptiste.

Katrina van Pelt said...

8:29 Thank you for saying this, I feel exactly the same. It makes me angry too when I read evaluations that gloss over very serious incidents as just some normalized dissent in any given district. I know one little girl whose life has been upended this year, and for her family and some others as well, they have not been well served. Almost every evaluation acknowledged the Pelham Issue, but gentle words like "needs improvement",to me, sounds like "it's fine as long as we are working on it". I don't know what else could be done at this late stage, but Vira has my vote too. Trevor's family has my support too in whatever capacity they would need it.

Anonymous said...

9:22 I stand corrected regarding attribution. Kip Fonsh used those words, not Ms. Appy. I am glad he is no longer on the committee- the world needs fewer "good Germans."

Anonymous said...

Vira and her "bring it on" sounds a little reckless. I think she feels a little judgement proof because she has nothing to lose. Has she ever had a paying job?

Dr. Ed said...

"through his incompetence, narcissism, and grandiose self image who fails continually to understand the parameters of school committee leadership and leadership in general..."

WHISKEYWHISKEYTANGOFOXTROT!!!!!!

1: Appy is a Licensed Mental Health Professional, well, maybe licensed, see:
http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2013/02/amherst_psychologist_to_pay_a_fine.html

2: A medical professional is expected to act like one on a 24/7 basis.

3: The words "narcissism" and "grandiose self image" have a specific meaning in the Mental Heath [!] Profession -- they are things which define one as being Mentally Ill, particularly a Sociopath or Psychopath.

4: Note how she defines his behavior rather than describes it. In other words, "WHY" rather than "WHAT."

QED Appy is guilty of professional misconduct. Big time professional misconduct even if a few other things I suspect aren't true.

forget Maria's spurious claims, this is libelous defamation for which Trevor can and should sue. Appy would NOT be indemnified because of the medical malpractice "standard of care" issue, nor would she be able to use the _NYT v. Sullivan_ defense because of Appy's Voodoo Science license.

What infuriates me is that this is yet one MORE example of silencing criticism via maliciously false allegations of mental illness.
There is no place for this sort of thing.

Dr. Ed said...

Anon 8:49 -- the Anti Klu Klux Klan Act was the formal name of the act often (incorrectly) referred to as the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and codified as 42 USC 1983 (civil) and 42 Usc something (criminal) -- it used to be 42 USCA 1982

These are the "under color of law" statutes.

Anonymous said...

Uh, Eddie,
Dr. Appy never said those things. Down boy down.

Dr. Ed said...

If Dr. Appy nether wrote nor said those words, I stand corrected.

I was truly shocked that a licensed professional would put that in a public report.

Anonymous said...

What is so very truly appalling to me in all of this is how the bullies are being cast as the victims here. I pose this question: can a PoC ever do anything wrong in this town? In the eyes of the Larry Kelley collective can any PoC ever do anything wrong?
Two members of the Regional SC have bullied the SI and bullied the other members of the SC so much that the SI has left and the SC has been rendered unfunctional. And these are the people who are being hailed as conquering heroes. We are in a twilight zone. We are in a place where up is down and left is right. Something like this could only happen in Amherst.

Larry Kelley said...

Your whiteness is showing.

Anonymous said...

This is what I mean. Everything in this town comes down to black vs white. Instead of right versus wrong. Nothing in my post indicates what color I am and I will not say what color I am. Your comment Larry implies that only white people would stand up for what is right. A bully is a bully. No matter if they are white black pink green or purple. And we have a SC that has been torn apart by bullies. This town needs to stand up to them.

Anonymous said...

No, anon 7:05 is completely correct. Affirmative action is alive and well in this Town Mr. Kelly.
Some of the people that are being brought in to interview for open positions in the Town, were not the most qualified in the applicant pool.

Anonymous said...

“Ms. Geryk’s position is that the evaluations are non-compliant because the committee did not afford her an opportunity to be heard on the complaints against her.’ (clause 5)

Clause 5:The committees, individually and collectively, shall, in their discretion, refer all criticisms, complaints and suggestions called to their attention to the superintendent for study and recommendation. If the Committees do not bring such a criticism, complaint or suggestion to the Superintendent, then that criticism, complaint or suggestion may not be included in or referred to in the evaluation of the Superintendent.

There are no specifics of how SC members are to REFER all criticisms, complaints and suggestions called to their attention to the superintendent for study and recommendation. All the SC needs to do is find the part of the taped SC meeting where MS. Geryk schools a SC member by telling them that the ONLY time that they can evaluate her is in her annual review. This was in response to the SC member offering "criticisms, complaints and suggestions". Sorry but Ms Geryk can't have it both ways. That was an opportunity to "for her to be heard". Just one example. And it doesn't stipulate in her contract that she is is afforded an opportunity to respond to the complaints (BTW).

As to non-compliant evaluations (ie not all portions supported by narratives). The offending SC members should have provided such, but I am confident that there would be many such offenses across the Commonwealth, certainly not a basis for a lawsuit. Also at this point there has been NO evaluation, right? She was never present at a SC mtg to receive it...At this point it must be last years evaluation.

Anonymous said...

People should read Mr. Robb's evaluation also. I think it will give all sides things to think about. I don't think the superintendent would want these specific criticisms public.

Anonymous said...

I am surprised to not find in the minutes, any members asking to discuss clause 5 and what it means (or how it would be seen legally) with Mr Colomb. The language is so vague, as to what would constitute 'all criticisms, complaints and suggestions called to their attention to the superintendent for study and recommendation'. IMO that is where the SC members and their lawyer should have spent time discussing...as according to Mr Colomb it was the one complaint that might have legs.

Anonymous said...


On a plain reading of the documents that are now publicly available, Vira (a) failed to fill out her evaluations of Geryk correctly, thus (b) violating the terms of Geryk's contract, and (c) exposing the entire committee to a lawsuit by Geryk. Then, when confronted by the dismal choice between (a) settling with Geryk for a high sum that will come out of the school budget and (b) risking an even more expensive lawsuit, she advocates (b) by saying "bring it on." Does anyone on here really find any of this reasonable or prudent? It is desirable to fight the racism in our town. It is not desirable to act as though fighting against racism can be achieved through sloppy thinking or reckless action. And it is not at all racist to criticize an avowed anti-racist for not doing her job well, indeed for acting in a way that costs our schools and our kids. If we elect someone who promises to fight for our most underserved and disadvantaged students, but who then fights in such a way as to produce a result where we now have fewer resources to educate these selfsame students, then we need to hold that person accountable for doing a bad job at fighting. The reason to be worried by Vira, in other words, is not that she wants to fight for social justice. That's a good thing. It's that she's not good a fighting for social justice. You would not hire a carpenter who cannot hang a door properly, and we should not elect a state representative who cannot fight for social justice well.

Anonymous said...

So much of the criticism directed at School Committee members in the comments on this blog and elsewhere is focused on Ms. Cage & Mr. Baptiste, who are repeatedly referred to in the most unkind terms. They are not the only SC members who feel there is considerable room for improvement in how the departing superintendent has been doing her job. From the individual superintendent evaluations, consider, for example, the comments of Mr. Robb, who gave the superintendent an overall rating of "Needs Improvement." Unlike Ms. Cage's and Mr. Baptiste's ratings, Mr. Robb's ratings were not disallowed from the final combined SC scores, & some of his comments are quite critical of the superintendent.

I also question why Ms. Luce, an Amherst School employee working under the superintendent, does not recuse from the evaluation process. Unsurprisingly, in her evaluation, Ms. Luce had Little critical to say about her boss, rating her as Proficient overall, and giving her a "Needs Improvement" rating in only one area. Ms. Luce is also of the two SC member who submitted an evaluation who wrote nothing in Q20 to explain her overall rating.

Anonymous said...

Kip Fonsh's attacks on a fellow school committee member as part of his evaluation of the superintendent are completely inappropriate. Perhaps Baptiste has cause for an official complaint against Fonsh. Fonsh has always been dismissive of the concerns that Baptiste and other School Committee members (and members of the public) with whom he disagreed, all the way back to when Fonsh was chair of the Regional SC. At an October 2013 SC meeting, for example, Fonsh accused those who asked questions and made comments on the district and school improvement plans, including fellow SC members of "coming dangerously close to cannibalizing" those ARPS staff people who were charged with doing the important work of creating and implementing the improvement plans.

This blog reported on Fonsh's comments at this time:
http://onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/2013/11/amherst-school-committee-cannibals.html

Anonymous said...

To the folks that say fighting a legal battle with Maria over her extortion demand and dangerous and divisive behavior would ultimately harm the children...I disagree. I think it will teach them to stand up to bullies; to untangle the rat king of bureaucracy and cronyism; and to understand that classism needs to be challenged.

Anonymous said...


9:30 anon, do you think we all still would have voted for Vira for SC if she had run on a platform promising not only to do all of the things you list, but also to decrease the resources we have at our disposal to actually educate our kids? A savvy fighter would not make unforced errors that force the public to choose between setting a good example for our kids, on the one hand, and losing funds to educate those same kids, on the other -- or between symbolic challenges against classism, on the one hand, and material losses that leave less money for the real education disadvantaged kids, on the other. This is an important question. Vira is asking for us to vote for her to be our state representative. Would any of us really vote for a state representative whose platform is to set a good example fighting for us once in Boston, but also to fight in a way that results in decreased state appropriations for western mass? "Bring it on" is something that George W. Bush would say. It's the phrase of someone who just fights for the sake of fighting, not for the sake of winning . Someone who fights just for the sake of fighting is just bellicose. A real fighter knows how not to fight -- how to exercise self-restraint -- under conditions where fighting means that there are going to be losses for the people one is fighting for.

Anonymous said...

People are not criticizing Mr. Robb because he did not do anything wrong. He was not a bully. He did not evaluate the SI outside the formal evaluation process. He did not violate her contract. He did what most of the other SC members did. Acted appropriately as a SC member during the year and submitted a compliant evaluation. The issue is not about people giving Ms. Geryk a certain type of evaluation - good or bad. The issue is with bullying and evaluating the SI outside the proscribed evaluation process, thus breaking the SI's contract. This is not only about the current evaluations that were just released. This situation has been an ongoing problem all year where two SC members consistently broke the SI's contract by evaluating her over and over again during the year, outside the process outlined in the contract. They were warned over and over again that their evaluative comments during the year were a breach of the SI's contract and were putting the district at risk. But these particular SC folks did not think the rules applied to them. This is what got us to this place. The violated the SI's contract because they did not think they needed to be bound by the rules that govern the operation of the SC. This renegade attitude also led them to believe they could break the SI's contract with impunity. Welcome to the real world of employment law!!!!
The state legislature is also governed by rules of operation and conduct. Ms. Cage's seeming disregard of the rules of operation and conduct on the SC in my mind disqualify her to be considered for the office of state rep for our district. Her displayed attitude of "bring it on" is also a disqualifier in my mind. I want a state rep who will represent our district in an honorable way in the legislature. Not one who will bring disrepute to the district. Ms. Story's shoes are big ones to fill indeed. And Ms. Cage brings small feet to the task.

Anonymous said...

I don't think "bring it on" will have served Vira any better then it did GW Bush.

Anonymous said...

Baloney. In my 30+ year career, the evaluation/feedback process for myself and for my employees occurs throughout the year. How else can an employee make course corrections or show progress if s/he is given feedback, and potentially blindsided with a negative performance evaluation, only once a year at the time of her/his annual review? What purpose would the school committee possibly serve if not to guide and direct the superintendent and provide evaluative feedback, throughout the course of the year? This is pure nonsense.

Anonymous said...

anon@10:50: where in her contract does it state that evaluation (ie. criticisms, complaints and suggestions ) cannot take place outside the evaluation process? "The issue is with bullying and evaluating the SI outside the proscribed evaluation process, thus breaking the SI's contract. "?

In fact the opposite seems the case- (cut directly from clause 5)"The committees, individually and collectively, shall, in their discretion, refer all criticisms, complaints and suggestions called to their attention to the superintendent for study and recommendation. If the Committees do not bring such a criticism, complaint or suggestion to the Superintendent, then that criticism, complaint or suggestion may not be included in or referred to in the evaluation of the Superintendent".

I think you are making stuff up, please provide some supporting contract information.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 267   Newer› Newest»