against her by MSD

By Carolyn James

     When the Massapequa School Board voted suddenly in June to suspend Dr. Maureen Flaherty, the community was shocked. There had been little or no indication that the school board and its recently hired superintendent of schools were embroiled in a bitter power struggle, though rumors of lesser problems circulated. Since then, both sides have been silent on the case as it moves through the legal process, but this week, Flaherty broke her silence saying she is bitter over the district’s handling of her case and for delaying her opportunity for justice.

     “They continue to drag their feet on this because they know they cannot prove a single allegation,” Flaherty told the Post this week. “I am being denied my day in court.”

     The district lodged 45 charges against the superintendent, accusing her of attempting to influence the vote of board members, insubordination and “creating a hostile work environment.”

     In one instance, the board alleges that the superintendent suggested that the district so something illegal. It is based on an incident in which a school board member, whose name does not appear in the records, brought a school instrument their child had damaged for repairs and instructed the store to bill the district for the work. The bill was flagged by Alan Adock, the district’s business superintendent, as inappropriate and Flaherty said she made several suggestions on how the issue could be handled, including the possibility that the trustee could purchase an insurance policy on the instrument and then submit the claim.

     District officials would not comment specifically on any of the charges filed against Flaherty, but the district’s attorney, Greg Guercio was adamant that Flaherty’s claims that the district was stalling the hearings by asking for adjournments was “absolutely false.

     “The district has been prepared to go forward with the charges against Dr. Flaherty since they were filed in June and the hearing has not moved forward at the request of Dr. Flaherty’s through her attorneys,” said Guercio.

     Steven Bluth, the arbitrator for the case said that he could not recall who had made the request for postponements in the case but that he knows they were “mutually agreed upon.”

     Guercio said he agreed to the postponements out of courtesy to Flaherty’s attorney’s who made the requests initially. Additionally, he said he drew up a letter explaining this each time the case was postponed. “I wanted to avoid her voicing these very allegations she is now making, blaming the district for delays and wanted to be prepared,” he said. “We remain prepared.

     The charges against Flaherty by the district are as follows:

1-The Superintendent has injected herself into the process of Board officerships in attempting to influence the board’s selection of its president.

     2-The superintendent has inappropriately injected herself into the Board of Education election process by offering the opinion to staff members that the board president’s defeat in a recent election was deserved because “She’s a power freak.”

     3-The superintendent has attempted to circumvent board policy by counseling the entire board to attend a Massapequa Federation of Teachers’ dinner at district expense.

     4-The superintendent has attempted to influence individual board members as to their votes on specific agenda items.

     5-The superintendent has failed to obtain board approval prior to announcing the intention to hire new staff.

     6-The superintendent has failed to inform the board in advance of issues/problems that the Superintendent is aware may arise at the public meeting of the board.

     7-The superintendent has attempted to pit one board member against another by providing data, reports and information to some members of the board of education while excluding others.

     8-The superintendent has attempted to obtain board approval of contracts without prior referral to the district attorney in accordance with board policy and/or practice.

     9-The superintendent has evidenced disrespect for individual board members via the use of vulgarity, hanging up on a board member, intentionally ignoring board members at district functions.

     10-After the board rejected the superintendent’s proposal to include within its budget funds for a new reading director, the superintendent suggested that the money be hidden within the district’s budget for reconsideration by the board after the budget had been passed by the community.

     11-The superintendent has directed the distribution of school lunch funds to the Parent Teacher Association without board authorization.

     12-The superintendent suggested to the board that additional interscholastic teams be created in an effort to influence the reelection of a candidate at the outset of his term of office.

     13-The superintendent attempted to introduce an atmosphere of politics into the central office-board of education decision-making process by currying favor with members of parents/community groups, political figures and potential board candidates without regard to the appropriate chain of command.

     14-The superintendent failed to provide the board with accurate staffing reports in a timely manner within the context of the budget development process.

     15-The superintendent failed to inform the board of education in a timely manner of the need for voter approval in connection with EXCEL aid.

     16-The superintendent failed to demonstrate the appropriate leadership and ownership of the budgets, which she presented to the board for approval.

     17-The superintendent failed to follow a specific directive of the board to write a letter in a timely manner to community members regarding the naming of a baseball field.

     18-The superintendent failed to follow a specific directive of the board to prepare a plan of action with an assessment component with regard to central office.

     19-The superintendent has repeatedly omitted from board packets information essential to decision-making process at a public board meeting.

     20-The superintendent has repeatedly and unilaterally sought grants without input from the board or central administration.

     21-The superintendent has repeatedly an in appropriately addressed particular issues with the Massapequa Federation of Teachers without consultation with or input from the board or central administration.

     22- The superintendent improperly attempted to obtain a review of the district’s code of conduct without placing the matter on a board agenda for a public hearing as required.

     23- The superintendent has overturned a suspension of a student imposed in accordance with the district’s code of conduct in order to appease a community member/parent.

     24-In the aftermath of an incident involving the destruction of a student’s musical instrument while under the custody and control of district personnel, the superintendent suggested that a policy of insurance be purchased that a claim be made thereon.

     25. In violation of district policy and/or practice and relevant state law, during the 06/07 school year, the superintendent inappropriately criticized a building principal for discharging his legal obligation to property investigate and report to Child Protective Services in connection with an allegation of child abuse.

     26- The superintendent failed to properly support and protect staff from unruly and abusive parents at evening concerts at Fairfield School and Birch Lane School, which occurred in her presence.

     27- The superintendent has created a hostile work environment in that she berated staff on Superintendent’s Conference Day, inappropriately admonished a specific employee in front of his peers and threatened teachers by alleging, in substance, that their jobs were “in the palm of her hand.”

     28- The superintendent has created a hostile work environment for her staff by repeated use of offensive, vulgar and overtly sexual language, including but not limited to cursing, threats to “rip (an employee a new one,” allegations that a staff member “has balls’ or “doesn’t have balls.”

     29- The superintendent has created a hostile work environment by repeatedly using threatening language and mannerisms at leadership meetings claiming to read “the riot act,” instructing an employee that “ you better” perform a particular task while pointing a threatening finger in the employee’s direction.

     30- The superintendent has created a hostile work environment when she publicly scolds and threatens staff members when they seek clarification of instructions that are incomprehensible.

     31- The superintendent has created a hostile work environment when she repeatedly and without warning enters the offices of building principals for the purpose of scolding/threatening in connection with particular actions.

     32- The superintendent has created a hostile work environment when she inappropriately threatened to terminate the employment of teachers within particular departments without valid reason or excuse by threatening to excess positions and reassign tasks to classroom teachers.

     33- The superintendent has created a hostile work environment in that she is discourteous and abusive to central office often ignoring their very presence, refusing to engage in the most elementary courtesies.

     34- The superintendent has repeatedly scheduled leadership meetings only to cancel said meetings without appropriate reason or excuse.

     35- Not withstanding her representations at the time of hiring, the superintendent has not supported the team concept at central office. Instead, she works alone, neither consulting with nor property informing members of central office as to her intended action.

     36- The superintendent has failed to develop an appropriate working relationship with her administrative staff and has repeatedly dealt with subordinate employees without properly informing or otherwise consulting with her administrative team.

     37- The superintendent fails to seek input from central office. Meetings are called and cancelled without consultation. Central administrators are not permitted to request that items be placed on meeting agendas, nor does the superintendent share her agenda with district administrators in advance.

     38- The superintendent interacts with and addresses issues raised by parents and community members without information or involving central administration or building administration.

     39- The superintendent repeatedly presents herself at buildings to engage with staff members/students/parents without reporting her presence to the building principal or debriefing the principal as to the actions, which occurred in his/her building.

     40- The superintendent repeatedly injects herself into the operation of buildings/departments making unilateral decisions without reference to the chain of command and without receiving input from the appropriate supervisor.

41- The superintendent has repeatedly pitted the district’s psychologist and building administrators against the special education director regarding 504 and CSE referrals without regard to the appropriate administrative process.

     42- On Feb. 14, 2007, the superintendent directed the high school principal to arrange for buses to take home approximately 1,800 students in the middle of a severe winter storm, which had cut power to the high school facility. Said action would have severely jeopardized the health and safety of students. The superintendent only countermanded her order after being reminded of its potential danger to students and assured that students could be successfully sheltered in the high school until power was restored.

     43- During the month of April, 207, the superintendent attempted to influence a decision in connection with a residency hearing in a misguided effort to assist in the election of board member.

     44- The superintendent failed to treat community members with dignity and respect within the context of public meetings including, but not limited to, a specific reference to a community member as a “used car dealer” at a public meeting of the board and threatening to discontinue after-school activities in response to public concerns regarding the absence of administrators.