Esto es una bomba!
Ethics complaints against BoE members are so confidential, that School Board Trustees are precluded from any discussion about them before they are settled. They cannot even be OPRAed.
But when ethics complaints are frivolous, vindictive and politically-motivated, word gets out; sometimes "hints" get dropped online from Secaucus or a Texas Turdblossom.
So, if you read the Hoboken Reporter this week did you wonder:
- Why those 4 particular Reformers on the school board were chosen for the ethics complaint?
- What was the alleged ethics charge?
- Why Peter Biancamano, Britney Montgomery and John Madigan voted "NO" to indemnify their Board colleagues from paying for their own defense?
- Why Peter Biancamano and John Madigan prolonged the public debate then, according to witnesses, Biancamano huddled with the HR reporter in attendance?
Me, too.
Well, Hoboken District Board members wouldn't talk about it to GA. Nada.
But, like I said, the word gets out. And so, here we go: yet another example of courts being used as battlefields for political and personal vendettas through the filimg of frivolous charges.
Here are answers to the above.
1. The complaint was filed against sitting Hoboken District Board members who donated their own money to pay the District's legal expenses. Reform coalition Trustee Sharon Angley did not contribute, so was not named in the "ethics" complaint.
Note: Board members received the advice and consent of the Board attorney prior to making private donations.
2. GA believes the ethics complaint is about punishing Hoboken District Board members personally, politically and financially.
One nefarious benefit might be that HoLa plans to use the "ethics complaint" at the Appellate hearing, while omitting it was retribution against the Appellant.
Another nefarious benefit might be that a sitting member of the Hoboken District School Board who aspires to run against Reform as an "At-Large" candidate, is on the "ethics complaint" Team to advantage himself politically (by smearing Reform).
3. Trustees Biancamano, Montgomery the Mute, and John Madigan voted "NO" to indemnifying the Board members which means they have to use their own resources for their legal defense.
Biancamano voted "NO" in 2017, yet in 2015, the Board majority voted "YES" to indemnify him from his ethics defense costs.
4. GA believes that Trustees Biancamano and Madigan prolonged the live debate about indemnifying board members to ensure press coverage by the reporter in attendance. They got it.
Folks, GA will get to the bottom of this disgusting effort to hurt unpaid Hoboken District Board Trustees who are being punished for trying to save the District money by using their own.
In the meantime, that's what this is all about. Who signed their name to the ethics complaint is irrelevant- GA doesn't know. We all understand the game, and it is.
Folks, GA will get to the bottom of this disgusting effort to hurt unpaid Hoboken District Board Trustees who are being punished for trying to save the District money by using their own.
In the meantime, that's what this is all about. Who signed their name to the ethics complaint is irrelevant- GA doesn't know. We all understand the game, and it is.
I suspect the people behind this frivolous ethics complaint have no ethics. Complete scum. The worst of the worst. I cannot wait for the full story to come out and blow up in their faces. Please keep us up to speed as you can.
ReplyDeleteBiancamano is such a piece of crap. No wonder Petro loves him. Craps of a feather, or whatever the applicable expression.
ReplyDeleteJust a guess... but I suspect that if Hola brings up the ethics complaint then the judges are whip-ass smart enough to see through that tactic and see which side is playing the dirty retribution card. Good luck, hombres!
ReplyDeleteHoLa has no ethics. Come on, one founder got a cushy job there and the other only wanted to set the school up to avoid paying for private school. No integrity what so ever. The whole place is so ethically challenged it is beyond belief. Only a used car salesman would willingly send their kids to school there if they knew how screwed up the place was.
DeleteHOLA is a cesspool. The Board members of HOLA (notably Poopie)are the sanitation workers that muck the shit out of the cesspool. The parents are the poo flotsam that creates the muck in the cesspool. The whole lot of them stink. The stink of this petty low down trick will stick to them and will not be forgotten.
DeleteWhy would it be unethical for Board members to donate money for a lawsuit? Can you file an ethics complaint against someone for filing a frivolous ethics complaint?
ReplyDeleteIt is really the opposite. The board's obligation is to serve the interests of the BOE - so what they did was perfectly in keeping with that obligation. The whole purpose of the complaint is to harass the members and the scum on the BOE board who blocked paying for the attorneys are trying to financially punish the members. This is basically a play out of the Team Scumbag playbook.
DeleteIt's very honorable. Much more than you have a right to expect when you vote for these people to do the right thing for your kids.
DeleteThey went the extra step of reaching into their own pockets as unpaid board members. No hope of remuneration, just trying to do the right thing.
And getting shanked by 3 people, colleagues and fellow board members, who NEVER do the right thing, trying to make sure they have to pay for their own representation. This after the scumbag Biancamano thought nothing of spending $450 of the kids' money per hour to uphold his right to tell ugly lies about the schools in a political campaign. And they thought nothing of ensuring he didn't have to dig in his own pocket for counsel. Maybe they should have. But they're not like that.
I don't know how Petro and Biancamano and Romano live with themselves. No class and no honor.
How do I live with myself, 4:47? Simple. After trying to hand the schools back over to my friends, trying to make sure BOE members are punished for using their own money to fight the HOLA expansion that will inevitably hurt the public school kids, I go on facebook and burnish my credentials as a liberal do-gooder. I'm anti-Trump, anti-wall, anti-Ryan and pro-screwing up anything that Kids First wants or might reflect positively on them.
DeleteThere's 2 things you people don't understand.
1) Tribalism is more important than moral consistency. Kids First or whatever they call themselves these days are not part of my tribe and never will be. Enemies for life, capisce?
2) Talk is cheap. I can talk all day about being a good person. But If you actually want me to do anything good for the kids in Hoboken - see #1 above.
Biancamano and his ilk are despicable. The reform board members put up their own cash to defend the children of the public school district. It's a noble thing to do. Biancamano has been whining about legal spending, then turned around and shopped for the most expensive attorney he could find to defend himself. It didn't work out too well for him, the lying doofus.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Biancamano, Montegomery, and Madigan voted "NO" in 2017 because the amount was not identified in the motion. Recall, the Board majority did vote "YES" to indemnify Petet from his defense costs but the final costs were clearly stated and enumerated for all to see so therr would be no surprises. And, the vote was not unanimous but rather 5-2-2.
ReplyDeleteOh bullcrap. You are making excuses.
DeleteWRONG. Peter was indemnified by the board BEFORE he hired an attorney, then in 2015 against the $7500 bill.
DeleteThe board NEVER voted against Biancamano to indemnify him from legal costs. Probably why he shopped for the most expensive lawyer he could find at $450 per hour.
Wrong on the final vote. It was 6 YES /1 NO/ 2 ABSTAIN
Peter - Britney- Madigan's "NO" vote and theatrics at the meeting was political scumbaggery at its lowest.
I honestly expect no less from people who cannot win an honest election. Those three puppets know who pulls their strings - the same scumbags that elected them.
DeleteSeems if the four Hoboken District Board Trustees who were trying to save the District money by using their own funds likely also have the finanical resources to fund their own legal defense. dont worry-the courts wll decide if the issue is frivilous. With the 4 members conflicted from voting- they only need 3 votes for reimbursement.
ReplyDelete5:34- You are an idiot beyond compare.
DeleteSIX (6) Trustees can vote to indemnify: Sheillah, Sharon, Mark, Peter B, Britney and John. 3-3 is a split vote, and the motion does NOT pass. They need 4 "YES" votes.
Peter, Britney and John voted NO- so it did NOT pass. Peter, Britney and John WANT their board colleagues to be HURT financially.
Of course the "ethics" charges for donating private money to the district are frivolous. The HoLa board is a disgrace. The HoLa Board is in cahoots with Biancamano to punish the BoE. Everyone knows that the HoLa Board- Raia and Petro, are behind this "ethics" complaint. Disgusting.
I think it is time people filed ethics complaints about certain board members not representing the best interests of the BOE. Those conspiring w/ HoLa have no business being on the BOE board.
Delete7:49- good point about votes needed and number who are conflicted.
DeleteI admire Trustees who put out their own $$$ for the district. None of them are rich. They all have families. This is ugly and it's nasty and it's personal.
ReplyDeleteI would also argue it is evil and motivated by greed. It really is disgusting the lengths some people will go to "get what's theirs".
DeleteWonder who they suckered to file? The vote buyers know how to get signatures.
ReplyDeleteWhat if district parents were sick and tired of reading Petro's lies and his edited graphs that purposefully tarnished the great progress that the district has made. Could they file ethic charges against him?
ReplyDeleteNobody reads them, only GA. So I ask you, who's the bigger fool?
DeleteBut that's not what your graphs say. Your graphs say readership is expanding constantly and you thank them for it.
DeleteIt's the division of labor you have agreed to. Your OG friends are good at shining flashlights in the eyes of opponents at a debate, verbally abusing mothers in front of their children, buying votes, that sort of knuckle-dragging thing.
But someone needs to turn all that into "the right thing to do" and "what's best for the kids." Like a graph that focuses on the size of Biancamano's 'victory' and omits all reference to the outrageous HHA vbm haul. That's your job. That's what makes you the biggest scumbag in the bunch. Because you know better and you could do better. You just don't and won't.
Even Romano freely calls you a jerk. So who are you doing it for? Pissing your life away on tribalism for a tribe that considers you an embarrassment.
You ask who the bigger fool is. You already know. It's you.
I have to correct you, 6:14; the term of endearment Romano used for Anthony Petrosino to Kids First current/former members- and to me separately- was "asshole" not "jerk".
DeleteOtherwise- perfect!
Almost perfect GA, except where you forgot to point out that 1:02 isn't Petrosino at all, as inferred by 6:14. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, you certainly wouldn't want to mislead your group.
Delete11:28- I have no idea who posted at 1:02, do you?
DeleteFolks come in on proxies or are undetected all the time. How do I know about undetected? (I am anticipating your next snotty question) Answer: Blogger counts all visits.
Do I have a "group"? That might be your fertile imagination.
11:28, you forgot to point out what part of 6:14 isn't spot-on about Petrosino.
DeleteYou also forgot to consider the ramifications of insisting you know which anons are Petro and which aren't. Not too bright.
No wonder Petro's education blog doesn't allow comments. Interaction with independent thinkers is not a strong suit.