Thursday, October 6, 2016

APD Did NOT Recommend Stay Away Order

Maria Geryk (rt) pondering how to spend $310K
Click to enlarge/read

Or not
 

79 comments:

Anonymous said...

Money corrupts-and lot's of money-absolutely corrupts-as with these school union booster nuts-it also corrupts-morally-ethically-and with a negligent job performance quality issue attending-look no farther than this case-..I thought "Education" was all about learning-then NOT repeating..our mistakes-our bad-the union says it's all about..Money..money..money-must be funny-someone else's..OURS !!

Anonymous said...

Larry--This is not as exculpatory as you would like to believe; true, the PD did not "recommend" a stay away order, but they did say that based on the information a stay away order COULD be put in place. Obviously the wrong things had been said.

On the other hand, how pathetic was it that Geryk did not even attend the meeting with the PDs.

Anonymous said...

This all looks pretty good for Ms. Geryk. The police advised that it was within per purview to issue stay-away orders, and she acted because she and others had serious concerns about the safety of the staff and children. Better safe than sorry.

Larry Kelley said...

Except I can assure you that a "restraining order" from a District Court would never have been issued under these circumstances.

Anonymous said...

No shit Larry, you need a dating relationship for a 209A.

Anonymous said...

Not clear how a "restraining order" from a District Court has any relevance.

Larry Kelley said...

Because you have a sane Judge weighing the facts in the matter.

Anonymous said...

School superintendents don't run to a judge every time they issue a stay-away order. Since they already have that power, it wouldn't make any sense.

Larry Kelley said...

But it would prevent them from issuing them capriciously.

Anonymous said...

She didn't issue it capriciously. There were multiple incidents that provoked it.

Anonymous said...

Right, run to a judge, we see how that works with the drunks, and all the other creeps they let go daily. You put to much trust in a system that is based mostly on money and not the law bidden citizen.

Anonymous said...

Soon-to-be Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Larry Kelley reveals even more smoking gun evidence to prove Maria Geryk and her partner in crime Katherine Mazur violated Ms. Hiza's Constitutionally protected 14th Amendment liberty rights to due process and equal protection. School bullies Geryk and Mazur will be held personally responsible for their lies, abuse of power and violations of Ms. Hiza's due process liberty rights.

Finally, something in Amherst to be proud of. Thanks for coming forward Chief Livingstone! Excellent reporting Larry!

Anonymous said...

Doesn't sound like this was done capriciously to me. She went and discussed it with two police departments and they both agreed that it seemed right to issue the order.

Anonymous said...

Larry, you are not a lawyer, and you do not play one convincingly on this blog.

I get your logic. Your logic is legally incorrect.

When you're in a hole caused by your insistence that you are right in all instances, stop digging.

I know you don't like it, but: she honored her responsibilities to the safety of the people within her jurisdiction. End of story.

Rich Morse

Larry Kelley said...

I yam what I yam.

Indignant Reader said...

I think Mr. Kelley is a horrible, horrible person for presenting actual facts here and informing the people of Amherst about the actions of their officials. He should be a good little subject and simply repeat what they choose to tell him. Finding out information on his own and making it public is probably racist or something.

Anonymous said...

I guess the million dollar question would be - by pleading ignorance of school bullying-Geryk acted only to escalate the rhetoric and potential abuse to all students - is this what the Umass School of Ed turns out- like Bill Cosby- role model exemplar- my foot !! Do we pay almost $200k a year to be informed by a " Professional " that bullying is NOT a egregious civil rights educational deterrent !!!!

Mommy, are you in denial? said...

Hey can I have my job back?



-Squeaky Squeaks



p.s. Oh wait, drooling Amherst hasn't learned ~anything~ from this.

FFFFFFFFFFFFck that.

Anonymous said...

Oh, well if you can assure us, Larry, then I guess it's all good. Why didn't you say that from the beginning. As a matter of fact, why don't you just assure us from here on out so we can all sleep a little better at night.

Don't worry gang! Larry's here and he has figured it all out for us. Gee whiz this is super news.

Anonymous said...

Maria deserved twice as much for all the grief she got from everybody.

Anonymous said...

No Squeaky you can't.

Anonymous said...

In Mr. Kelley's latest fantasy, the first thing a Belchertown District Court judge would say is "Ms. Geryk, what are you doing here?". The second thing would be "what is the legal basis for me to issue a District Court order here?" The answer would have to be "we've got none." Then the judge would say "You, Ms. Geryk, have the power here and you are the only one who can issue a stay-away order to this parent." Despite Mr. Kelley's belief to the contrary, there is no drive-up window for miscellaneous court orders at Belchertown District Court. As Anon 4:11 p.m. and Anon 4:15 p.m. aptly pointed out, there are Abuse Prevention Orders (aka "restraining orders")involving the potential in a marital or dating relationship for future domestic abuse.

The police experience this on a daily basis: there are some times when there is nobody to fall back on, nobody to hide behind, for the person who has THE duty of care for other people in a particular jurisdiction, whether it's cops, prosecutors, or school superintendents. That person has to make the call, and take the responsibility for it....alone. Of course, then they are subject to being criticized and second-guessed by the armchair quarterbacks, the overgrown teenagers, the sucker punchers like Mr. Kelley, and his anonymous friends on this blog.

In the past, Mr. Kelley has expressed his respect for the people in the community with such burdens, but here his complete disdain for Ms. Geryk has really taken over.

Rich Morse

Anonymous said...

Sooooo-There we have it- Morse was the " atomic wedgie jock "- you know- only time homecoming queen batted an eyelash ... it's always on HBO !!!?&&@

Dr. Ed said...

Enough!

Geryk could "legally" ban Hiza from the property because she was Black -- this actually would be lawful and the police would be obligated to enforce it.

Let's stop thinking that what Geryk did was legitimate merely because she did it.

Oh, and folks, Amherst is also liable for Geryk's actions.

Anonymous said...

Coherent much, Anon 10:15?

Anonymous said...

I am glad that Mr.Kelley is covering this story. Ms. Geryk has misled the public from the beginning about the issuance of the stay away order and the conversation with the Amherst and Pelham police departments. According to Ms. Geryk, the police recommended that a stay away order be issued and this has been reported in the media countless times. However, according to correspondence with the Amherst and Pelham police chiefs, they made no such recommendation. It is also telling that Ms. Geryk was not even present at the meeting between the ARPS administration and the police, so why has she been so adamant about what was said there. Perhaps whichever ARPS administrator(s) were at the meeting did not fully, accurately report what the police chiefs said at the meeting. If that is the case, it's an issue with ARPS, not with reporters such as Mr. Kelley that are just trying to get to the truth and share what really happened.

Anonymous said...

The reality is that people were out to get Ms. Geryk and they found the issue to bring her down. Did she deserve it? Not in my opinion. She was using her authority to protect the children and staff at the Pelham school. Didn't matter because the lynch mob was out to get her and they did.

Anonymous said...

In Mr. Morse's leather boots fantasy, Ms. Geryk has unchecked gestapo-like powers to act based on an angry whim to issue stay-away orders against women of color like Ms. Hiza who dare to speak up against school bullying in Amherst. Fortunately for Ms. Hiza, a federal judge and not Mr. Morse will pass judgement on Ms. Geryk's cruel, discriminatory, civil-rights-violating stay-away order on Ms. Hiza!

Thanks to Larry for your most excellent reporting on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:52 am:
This issue was not created by people out to get Geryk, but by Geryk herself whose preference is, and has always been to have her decisions and her decision-making process never scrutinized or criticized or questioned in any way by others: not by the school committee (who is technically her boss), not by the teachers/staff who have sometimes come to School Committee meetings to speak their mind, for example on budget cuts or other issues, and then been chastised for doing so, and certainly not by parents who have experienced issues with the Amherst schools' treatment of their child(ren) and who are trying to advocate on their kids' behalf.

Anonymous said...

If the police didn't recommend the stay away order, Ms. Geryk's and the Gazette's statements insinuating the police recommended the stay-away order, are all BOLD FACED LIES!

Anonymous said...

Larry:
Maybe Donald Trump will hire you to get 33,000 deleted emails from Hillary!

Anonymous said...

Let's get a grip. We hire the superintendent to manage our school district. The power to call off school for a snow day, or to issue a stay-away order is not some "Gestapo-like" power. It's just the authority we have authorized. The buck has to stop somewhere and in this case we have hire the superintendent to have that authority.

Anonymous said...

This was turned into a racial issue without one shred of evidence ever being presented to support that position. Nothing in this email provides any evidence that it was anything but a response to an escalating situation that the superintendent was forced to deal with. No wonder she was prepared to sue.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes. We all hate money. Especially lots of money. It really must suck to have a lot of money.

Anonymous said...

No Massachusetts statue gives a school superintendent the authority to issue a stay away order against the custodial mother of a first grader without reason or just cause. Only law enforcement can determine whether there exists a credible threat to school safety.

If either Amherst or Pelham Police Deptartments determined Ms. Hiza's conduct to be a credible threat to school safety, the former superintendent would have been required to immediately provide Ms. Hiza (fair and impartial) due process to determine whether the stay away order was an erroneous deprivation of Ms. Hiza's and daughter's rights.

But, we now know Ms. Geryk never had reason or just cause to issue the stay away order; the police never found Ms. Hiza to be a credible threat to school safety and Ms. Geryk never provided any due process to Ms. Hiza...case closed!

Anonymous said...

There was just cause, and if Ms Hiza sues, that cause will come out.
That is the reason she won't sue

Anonymous said...

No,there are lots of other legitimate reasons not to sue your friends & neighbirs for something they didn't do.

Anonymous said...

Oh c'mon, give us a hint. Better yet, just tell us.

Anonymous said...

The police simply said that they only deal with crimes after they happen. It's the superintendent that had the authority to try and prevent something bad from happening. Glad she did.

Anonymous said...

11:54: "If either Amherst or Pelham Police Departments determined Ms. Hiza's conduct to be a credible threat to school safety, the former superintendent would have been required to immediately provide Ms. Hiza (fair and impartial) due process to determine whether the stay away order was an erroneous deprivation of Ms. Hiza's and daughter's rights."

You're just making this stuff up. Nowhere do we have evidence that the police did NOT determine Hiza's conduct to be a credible threat. The police aren't in the business of recommending these things because it's the job of the Super. Yet they "agreed a stay away order could be issued". Sounds like in their opinion there was credible threat. And what exactly requires the Super to provide "due process" in such a situation?

"But, we now know Ms. Geryk never had reason or just cause to issue the stay away order; the police never found Ms. Hiza to be a credible threat to school safety and Ms. Geryk never provided any due process to Ms. Hiza...case closed! "

Huh? It sounds very much as if she did have just cause. Among other things, Hiza "made statements to and about Ms. Desjarlais that raised safety concerns." Just because we don't know the content of these statements doesn't mean they weren't a threat.

And let's talk about motive. Do you really posit that Maria Geryk somehow had it out for this woman because she's black? Really? Geryk was clearly forced to make an extremely difficult decision when levying that order; one that she must have known would incur accusations of racism, but she nonetheless had to do her job and keep people safe. Surely if she felt like capriciously wielding her power to discriminate she'd do it in a more subtle way? The discrimination argument makes no sense whatsoever.

I say the school staff felt threatened by Hiza not because she is black, but because she threatened them with real actual threats.

Rene said...

@ Anon2:15

"I say the school staff felt threatened by Hiza not because she is black, but because she threatened them with real actual threats."

Neither you nor I know what was actually said or how it was said. However, we do know there's a lot of research showing that white people tend to perceive backs as threatening just because they are black. Here's a couple of examples:

http://cholbrook01.bol.ucla.edu/Holbrook_Fessler_Navarrete_Status_Threat_Size_EHB.pdf

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/bernd.wittenbrink/research/pdf/dcw08.pdf

Anonymous said...

I don't deny this phenomenon, but isn't it just possible that the stay away order was issued because actual threats were made against staff? As you say, we do not know what was said by Hiza. But a person who DOES know what was said and who was paid to keep people safe found what was said to be a threat. So here we have a person whose job it was to issue a stay away order if necessary, issuing a stay away order based on actual words. Why, in the absence of any factual evidence suggesting otherwise, wouldn't we assume the decision was based on real safety issues?

Additionally, school staff held a meeting with police and recounted to them what was said, and the police agreed an order could be issued. The police could not have been experiencing "black-danger associations" since they weren't dealing with Hiza face to face. They were considering the actual words, and they still seemed to deem the words a credible threat.

Without any proof of racial discrimination, none at all, people are somehow outraged about overt racism in this case. Assuming racism and jumping to conclusions without proof does nothing to reduce actual racism or raise awareness; it just cheapens the cause. Racism is a profound problem that needs to be taken seriously, so let's all do exactly that.

Anonymous said...

Replying to anon 2:15: Did you not read Chief Livingstone's email or Larry's blog? His headlines reads: "APD Did Not Recommend Stay Away Order" According to Chief Livingstone, the Amherst Police never "agreed a stay away order could be issued." The police never suggested Ms. Hiza "was a credible threat".

You also make unsupported racially divisive accusations: "I say the school staff felt threatened by Hiza not because she is black, but because she threatened them with real actual threats."

If, as you insinuate, there was evidence to show Ms. Hiza "was a credible threat" to the safety and well-being of the Pelham Principal, why didn't the Amherst or Pelham Police arrest Ms. Hiza and charge her with criminal harassment?

Respectfully, I disagree with you 2:15. I think Maria issued the stay away order because the former superintendent is incompetent and unqualified to lead, not because she is a racist!

Anonymous said...

Yes, 4:04, I read it. I never claimed the police recommended the order. But it should also be noted that they didn't recommend against it either, because that is not their role. What Chief Livingstone ACTUALLY said in his email was "Based on all the information that was told to Capt. Young by school officials in attendance Detective Lt. Young and Chief Thormann agreed that a stay away order could be issued." To me that implies credible threat. Why else "agree that a stay away order be issued"? If no credible threat was found, wouldn't they have disagreed?

How is my statement "I say the school staff felt threatened by Hiza not because she is black, but because she threatened them with real actual threats." racially divisive? In this case all the evidence we have points to Geryk imposing the order because there was a threat, and no evidence there wasn't a threat, and no evidence it had anything to do with race.

"why didn't the Amherst or Pelham Police arrest Ms. Hiza and charge her with criminal harassment?" Great question, but I'm fairly sure one needs more than a verbal threat to be "arrested for criminal harassment". A verbal threat, in the absence of previous physical abuse, is rarely enough to even get a restraining order, let alone an arrest.

Geryk may be unqualified to lead. But assuming there was a real impression of threat and the police "agreed a stay away order could be issued", I think she made the right call this time. One of the tools available to a Superintendent is issuance of a stay away order. Perhaps she wanted to use that tool instead of letting the threats escalate to the point where the police would indeed need to step in?

Anonymous said...

There you go again 5:01. The police did not agree a stay away order should be issued in Ms. Hiza's case. Yes, "a stay away order could be issued." But no credible threat was found in this case.

Ms. Geryk and her school cronies were fully responsible for escalating the threats in this case. Let's see what the federal judge or U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz says about the matter.

Anonymous said...

I haven't posted in a while. Any superintendent can issue a stay away order for any reason. They can but should they... That is S Livingstone's point. The police didn't advise her to do so. Basically what was said issue an order if you want to that is your right and your call. I hope she is saving her payout because she will have to give it to Aisha!

Anonymous said...

Rich Morse and Anon. 2:15 seem on point. Concerns were great enough for police to be contacted. Police agreed a stay-away order could be issued. Police presence was ramped up (which doesn't happen for no reason). During the Pelham SC executive session, apparently Mr. Baptiste found the decision reasonable (although he didn't express that later in his public remarks). The Superintendent is charged with keeping students, staff and school safe, even if it requires tough decisions that bring up a lot of opposition from the community.

RKA45 said...

As long as you consider the rantings of a disgruntled bipolar X as credible..

Anonymous said...

How do red people perceive blacks? How do blacks perceive brown people? How do yellow people perceive black people? And so on and so forth.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you hope that when Obama got elected that race relations would omprove? What a joke that notion turned out to be.

Dr. Ed said...

Folks, Police are being contacted because of concerns about clowns...

Clowns that competent police departments - nationally -- can't even find...

yes, Anon8:46, police presence is ramped up after each of these hysterical reports, but do you think the cops really think they'll find Pennywise?

Really????



Anonymous said...

Ms. Geryk is completely vindicated. The emails show that she was responding to documented incidents. They show she dispassionately took steps to deal with it with no indication of any motive other than protecting children and staff. They also show that she consulted with the police as she had claimed.

Anonymous said...

If this was so serious why couldn't she be bothered to show up in person? Wasn't this a serious matter worthy of her full, undivided, attention? I'm sure everyone would agree a stay-away order is a very serious action and responsibility of the SI. Why not show up?

Rick Hood said...

“Rich Morse and Anon. 2:15 seem on point.”

Yes they do. There is way too much focus on why the “stay away order” was issued, when the proper focus should be on why it seemed to take a long time to resolve things enough to lift it (which may be both "sides" fault, who knows). Google “no trespass school Massachusetts” and you will find that it is not uncommon, and you will find that a Superintendent's authority to issue a "stay away" (normally called "no trespass") is clear.

But you will also find this:

”No one questions schools’ authority to regulate access to school grounds in order to ensure a safe and productive educational environment.  The ACLU’s brief in this case explains why a school cannot simply banish a parent from her child’s school indefinitely without any opportunity for a hearing to challenge the allegation that was causing a disruption.”

https://aclu-wa.org/blog/aclu-dont-ban-parents-school-grounds-without-due-process

In related news: reading over those emails was interesting. There was a lot of stuff Geryk was dealing with besides the issue this post is about. Reading those, I’m thinking there were lots of reasons to want to quit, not just this issue and not just relations with the school committee.

I am disappointed with Geryk and the SC about her quitting. But if it was not only about Super-SC relations (which is a really dumb reason to quit) then I feel a lot better about it. It's a rewarding job and a crappy job at the same time. Burn-out is understandable.

Complain all you want about Geryk, she tried to do the right thing. Succeeded sometimes, and sometimes did not. It’s kind of ironic that an “equity” issue seemed to be the last straw, since when I started on the committee back in 2010, it was mainly the “excellence” folks who were against her. Geryk was always firmly in the equity camp. So was I, though we both thought there was no reason why we could not have both, and generally (not always) we do.

“..I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is 'So it goes.'”

PS:

I also have to say that Baptiste has gotten a really bad rap in this. Yeah his choice of words is not always the best, and he was not a good chair in terms of speaking too much himself, as opposed to controlling the meetings. But in the years I was on the committee with him, he absolutely was not against Geryk. I personally watched him defend Geryk in a room full of angry people during the Carolyn Gardner affair, and he was always supportive of Geryk in my discussions with him. It was only at the very end when he got fed up that he started talking about firing her (from the exec session minutes).

And go watch the April 12 meeting where according to the demand letter Baptiste “led the regional committee in a discussion of the Superintendent's actions”. No he did not. At 32:50 in the video, a letter is read in support of Hiza. After that, at 37:40, he says that this committee has no jurisdiction and tried to stop comment on it. Lots of people weighed in on that. Seven minutes later, at 44:35 he finally gave up. There is no real restriction on topics people can comment on, it does not have to be on the agenda. And I remember a past meeting where a different chair was criticized for curtailing public comment, including an editorial in the Gazette. There were lots of comments at the April 12 meeting about issues other than Hiza.

At 55:10 there was a discussion about whether or not the SC has or should have a policy on stay away orders and it was decided it would go on an agenda for a future meeting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a discussion about whether a policy should exist or not.

https://amherstmedia.org/content/amherst-pelham-regional-school-committee-04-12-16 (pubic comment starts at 25:20)

Anonymous said...

Ms. Geryk is completely vindicated?! In what universe? The evidence shows clearly that she misled the School Committee from the beginning when she said (in emails and otherwise) that the police had recommended a stay-away order against Ms. Hiza.

I do hope that the Gazette will give as much high profile coverage to this reality as they did last week to Geryk's email which stated that the police had recommended a stay-away order. Just because someone writes something in an email, it doesn't make it true.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Rick Hood. I appreciate your words and facts. The references to public documents and your personal experiences provide clarity. Let's get behind this effort heal the situation.

Anonymous said...

Vindicated. Vindicated. Vindicated. This became a racial issue without any evidence. Some fanned those flames and all they got for it was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money in a buy-out. There will be no lawsuit because in a lawsuit you would have to produce some shred of evidence showing discrimination, and there is no evidence because none occurred. There is no mention of race in these emails, only the unacceptable behaviour, and there are plenty of people who would testify as to why that behaviour provoked fear in them.

Larry Kelley said...

All of them white no doubt.

Anonymous said...

Paul Wiley?

Anonymous said...

It's not about color. It's about telling the truth.

Anonymous said...

12:32: There is an abundance of evidence proving discrimination and violations of civil rights by the former superintendent and inner circle. Make no mistake. There will be a settlement like in the C. Gardner matter to compensate Ms. Hiza and the community of color for the harm people like you and Ms. Geryk have been causing way too long.

People like you 12:32, Geryk, Trump and Clinton are way too easily provoked by persons of color speaking truth to power. Should you fail to open your own heart to the suffering of our brothers and sisters, your own irrational fears will consume you...All my relations!

Anonymous said...

The emails are a unique look at the life of a Superintendent. She is pressured and bullied by parents, Town Meeting members, "opt out" advocates, and maverick School Committee members. She responds calmly, fairly, and completely to everyone. There are continuous threats by the bullies to "go the to the press".
Good grief.
Who would want to be Superintendent?

Larry Kelley said...

Even worse, who would want to be an Amherst School Committee member?

Well, in spite of all the controversy and a certain "toxic blog" we have SIX who want the job (that pays zero, unlike the Superintendent position which is the highest paid job in town).

Anonymous said...

And, because of highest paid town official Geryk's relentless use of force, threats, abuse, intimidation and aggressive domination of Dylan and Steve Akalis, Ms. Gardner and many other teachers, Ms. Hiza, former SC members Dr. Shabazz and Mr. Robb, and current SC members Dr. Baptiste and Ms. Cage, most of us SC members and parents experience the former superintendent to be the meanest bully in town!

Mommy, Grammy, how come nobody likes you? said...

"Vindicated. Vindicated. Vindicated. This became a racial issue without any evidence. Some fanned those flames and all they got for it was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money in a buy-out. There will be no lawsuit because in a lawsuit you would have to produce some shred of evidence showing discrimination, and there is no evidence because none occurred. There is no mention of race in these emails, only the unacceptable behaviour, and there are plenty of people who would testify as to why that behaviour provoked fear in them."




I'm sorry, wut's zat?


I can't hear a friggan thing you're saying.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTwSF-FawSc



-Squeaky Squeaks


p.s. Now, if we could only get you to clean your dentures.

Anonymous said...

Sure, Squeeky, sure. Nutjob.

Dr. Ed said...

Sorry, 12:32, there will be only one question asked at trial: "And how many White mothers did you trespass from the schools."

When you don't even have a policy to follow, let alone aren't following it, you have no way to argue that this was anything other than a subjective decision.

Reality 101, Aisha Hiza is going to win any discrimination complaint and/or lawsuit she files, and any legitimate reason Geryk may have had will not even be considered. It's like "racial profiling", the only thing that saved the NJ State Police was being able to prove that Black motorists were speeding at an even higher percentage than the NJSP was ticketing them at.

So you have no policy, the only mother you did this to is Black, and your ex-supt threatened to sue a Black SC member for permitting community members to complain about it. Throw in Gardner, along with the general presumption that racism is the cause of everything -- and you're going to try to defend this?

Personally, I think this was more fascism than racism,but that's irrelevant.

Dr. Ed said...

4:03, you misunderstand Trump.

Anonymous said...

The fact that Maria Geryk is gone - just says it all - Amen

Anonymous said...

I was never a believer in Geryk, I thought she was unqualified for the position (she was unqualified for the position), I watched her grievously mishandle the Gardner, Akalis, and Terrell incidents, and I always marveled at her obfuscatory, deliberate Ed School jargon fog. She was not committed to excellence for all but rather pandered to the equity interest groups, forsaking others who lacked PC-sanctioned victimhood status. She was a fraud and a failure but exactly the type of fraud and failure that Amherst richly deserves.

However, from the evidence it appears she handled the Hiza case responsibly, by the book, and appropriately. Her mistake: engaging with a misbehaver who is a minority. Because Hiza is black, she was inoculated against judgment no matter how awful or threatening her behavior. Geryk of all people should have known that one cannot win when wrestling with the tar baby of Pioneer Valley social justice.

How rich that the Hiza case is the one thing that Maria handled correctly in her administration, and for it she was bought out and sent packing. And THAT right there, Amherst friends, is . . . "Social Justice!"

Anonymous said...

anon@11:52 "However, from the evidence it appears she handled the Hiza case responsibly, by the book, and appropriately." I think we just don't know all the facts. You could be right (or wrong). However, I think that it is possible that she handled it poorly, ie. there appeared to be no description of how or when the order could be lifted, and the non-custodial parent was given access at the school. These alone should be examined (so we can learn from her mistakes). These appear to have been errors or, if not errors, then poor standard operating practice. If Ms Geryk had previously applied stay-away orders then she must have (or should have) been aware of deficiencies in the policy (ie how to provide the parent/guardian with critical info). If she never before applied stay-away orders, then that opens a whole nother set of questions...we await the judgement of an judicial official.

Dr. Ed said...

However, from the evidence it appears she handled the Hiza case responsibly, by the book, and appropriately.

No, not "by the book", and not for the reason people think.

The first question you always ask involves custody -- who is/are the custodial parent(s) -- everything must be done with/through the custodial parent. All if the FERPA (Buckley Ammd) stuff applies only to the custodial parent(s) -- it gets complicated but as a general rule, everything has to ONLY go through the custodial parent.

In fact, you have to worry about parental kidnapping -- this is real, it happens -- very few children are kidnapped by strangers, it usually is a family member or relative.

Now while Little Miss Muffett had the legal authority to ban Aisha Hiza from the property, Geryk did NOT have the authority to assign the rights of a custodial parent to someone else! NB: Do not confuse this with where a married couple share custody, that's like a joint checking account where either can sign the checks.

What Geryk essentially did was give someone else permission to sign Aisha's checks, and you can't do that.... Bluntly, in the K-12 world, what Geryk did was as bad as sleeping with a student -- or covering up the fact that one of your teachers did. Everyone involved (Maria, Lisa, etc) can (and should) lose their certificates for this -- it's a really serious thing, particularly when you are talking about a 1st Grader.

It's called "child endangerment", a crime, and everyone in the PES who had knowledge of this ought to have filed a 51A. Remember that this is the schools obligation to the child and to the child's custodial parent.

Like I said, this is as serious as sleeping with a student, one of the absolute "thou shalt nots" in K-12.

For a lot of reasons, what Geryk did is a textbook example of how NOT to handle a situation like this.

Anonymous said...

She is suing. She has a lawyer. She is one of the two pending Sean M mentioned in his notes at the SC meeting.

Anonymous said...

Completely agree Ed. The other real easily provable for the lawsuit will be banning from school committee access. This is why Cyrs won in VT. That piece alone.. not counting the reassignment of parent ts rights is going cost at least 200,000. Pelham pd is in trouble to for investigating without having ever talking with Ms Hiza directly. If she was a,real danger she never would have been allowed on or off property at MG's whim. Lisa wouldn't have been passing for the ban to be lifted. Legal threats different from physical ones. Crazy X factor..for reliable info... is nuts.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Maria Geryk's hegemony WAS the REAL threat ... maybe that's why she' a bye bye ...maybe bullies are not all " good jock sportspersons" ...maybe poor sport assaults should not be tolerated at all ... just maybe bullies could stand to use " a good education" ..just maybe .....

Anonymous said...

So if I understand right, a superintendent does have the right/responsibility to protect school staff by issuing a stay away order to a parent except when the parent is a POC.

Dr. Ed said...

So if I understand right, a superintendent does have the right/responsibility to protect school staff by issuing a stay away order to a parent except when the parent is a POC.

No, only that a POC has ready access to public interest law firms and hence has the ability to actually do something when her civil rights are violated.

I still say Geryk's certificate should be yanked.

Anonymous said...

The latest Daily Hampshire Gazette story on this from last week states "Former Superintendent Maria Geryk issued a stay-away order to a student’s mother on the advice of police officials."

Amherst and Pelham police officials themselves, in their own words, say that they never advised or recommended any such thing.

Why is the Gazette continuing to present the truth as told to it by Geryk and her people. Just because someone says something 100x or more, and writes it in an email, doesn't make it true. The Gazette should know better.

Anonymous said...

Or the cops are lying.

Sad to say, we have no way of knowing they aren't.