SCHWARTZ LAW GROUP, LLC MONROE CENTRE AT FORSGA TE 12 CENTRE DRIVE MONROE TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY 08831 ROBERT M. SCH Telephone: 609) 860-9100 schwartzlawgroupiic. com Facsimile: (609) 860-2 777 ANDREW . Admitted in NJ com Admitted in NY NJ March 22, 2017 Nathanya Simon, Esq. Schwartz, Simon, Edestein Celso . .100 South Jefferson Road Whippany, NJ 07981 Re: Vernon Township School District Dear Ms. Simon: I am writing on behalf of the Vernon administrators regarding concerns that have been raised having to do with aetions and statements made by the superintendent that (1) have placed students and staff at risk; (2) have placed the district 1n legal jeopardy; and (3) have created a hostile work environment. The following incidents are not inclusive, but indicative of the concerns of Vernon?s administrators, which they submit warrant the Board?s reView and action. I Student Safety I 1 On or about March 2016, a student in - Middle School was referred as suspected of being under the in?uence. The student? 3 behavior was noted as unusual, as he was making inappropriate remarks instead of answering questions, and in addition, he was nodding off 1n class 1nterm1ttently The teacher referred the student based on his that he may have been under the - in?uence and the nurse agreed that the student seemed ?eff. The student? 3 uncle (and guardian) was contacted Upset with the referral made by the teacher and the conclus1on of the nurse, the nude contacted the Sn ermtendent The superintendent then came to and Spoke With the student and his uncle. When told by the uncle that the student toOk medication, the superintendent allowed the student to go home without the medical evaluation required by statute and without any the drug test required by the Board?s policy. . On or about April 15, 2016 a teacher at the high school referred a student suspected of being under the in?uence to administration. Vice Principal Lepresti was in the process of making arrangements to have the student sent home to undergo a medical examination in accordance N.J.S.A.. and in accordance with school policy, to have the student undergo a urinalysis. When he learned of the situation Superintendent DiBenedetto directed the vice principal to not to send out the student because he didn?t believe the student was under the in?uence. Not comfortable with the directive, Vice Principal LoPresti consulted with the then Principal, Tim Dunnigan. Principal Dunnigan insisted that both the statutory and policy requirements be followed. As a result, Ms. LoPresti called the student?s parents, informed them of the teacher?s suspicion, and instructed them to have the student undergo a medical examination, which per the policy was to include a drug test. The parents and the student complied with the requirements. . On or about November 1, 2016 Principal Krause and Assistant Principal Trusa received noti?cation that a freshman tuition student had been referred for SUSpicion of being under the in?uence. The student was advised by the principal and the assistant principal that he was to go to the nurse immediately, after. which his parents would be contacted, and that he would have to undergo a medical evaluation which would include a drug test. .J.S.A. When the student refused to comply, the superintendent was contacted. The superintendent?s reSponse was that he would take care of it. However, as it turned out the superintendent did not require the student to undergo a medical examination or a drug test as required by Board policy. Instead, the superintendent advised the student that all he had-to do was go to the nurse, ?get his Vitals checked and that would be the end of it.? Clearly, this did not comply with the requirements in However, even that didn?t happen the student never went to the nurse. Instead, the superintendent took the student to the cafeteria to get some food and then sent. him home. The principal and the assistant principal, both of whom spoke to the SRO and tried to contact the student?s parents, voiced their concerns that the student should have been required to undergo a medical examination, including a drug test, and (2) that the student should not have been sent home before contact was made with his parents. Following the student?s refusal to comply with the requirement of Vernon?s policies and the statutory requirement that he undergo a medical examination by a physician, and after the student was sent home, assistant principals Trusa and LoPresti contacted the student?s probation of?cer as he was already on probation for another matter. The probation officer had the student tested. Subsequently, the same student was again reported for suspicion of being under the in?uence and again the student refused to comply with requests made by administration This time a relative came to the school, had the student undergo a medical examination, which included a positive drug test. After some negotiations with the student was removed from Vernon?s student rolls. Fortunately, nothing further happened with this student while under Vernon?s authority. However, that the superintendent willfully did not comply with the Board?s policies and with statute, put the student atrisk, the District in legal jeOpardy and constitutes conduct unbecoming a staff member, much less a superintendent of schools. 1. On or about March 2, 2017 Principal Krause and Assistant Principal LoPresti received a report that a student who had had prior anger {management issues, had at the close of the previous day?- March 1, 2017 stated that he hated all human beings and that if he could, he would ?pull the trigger; end it all, and take everyone with him.? Assistant Principal also received another report that the same student had referred to his English class as ?cancerous,? left-theclassroom, and put himself in all day detention. Assistant Principal LoPresti contacted the school and two other teacher witnesses and asked that they conduct a risk assessment of the student. There was consensus following the 45 minute risk assessment that the student needed to be sent out for a formal evaluation. After the superintendent was contacted regarding this recommendation, the superintendent went - to the detention room, spoke to the student for a few minutes and then, apparently because the student appeared to be calm at the moment, the superintendent sent him back to his class with no follow-up evaluation, notwithstanding that this was the recommendation of the and the high school administration, and that the teachers involved expressed concern for their own safety. Again, fortunately there were no ramifications. However, given today?s environment, and administrative requirements, the recommendation of professional staff should not have been ignored and the student should not have been sent back to the classroom. The superintendent?s action put the student at risk, staff at risk and the Vernon School District in legal jeopardy. Conduct Unbecoming 1. In March of 2016, referring to the prior superintendent, Dr. Maranzano, the superintendent said him, I will punch him in the face.? 2. On or about April 19, 2016, apparently not happy about having to meet with the Vernon Instrumental and Band parents, in addition to using the word multiple times, Mr. DiBenedetto then said, am going to put?fw- -ing face on my punching bag.? On or about December 13, 20-16 the high sch'001 administration received an email from the superintendent asking for a meeting With the three high school administrators. The meeting folloWed art-incident concerning a high school student who was disciplined for persistent bad behavior related to vulgarity towards female students and female teachers, as well as physical threats and HIB concerns. At the meeting, which took place at 7 am the following morning in the high school principal?s office, the superintendent admonished all three members of the high schoOl . administration because the student?s mother had complained to him that the student was being targeted. He then went on about the fact that he had just approved a voucher for $9,000 for legal fees, and that he didn?t want to waste any more money on ?f?ing attorneys.? He then removed Ms. LoPresti from the student?s case and placed Mr. Trusa in charge, notwithstanding that Mr. Trusa said that the meeting "with the student and the mother that had taken place the previous day was handled professionally. His response was that he wasn?t interested in Mr. Trusa?s account or Ms. LoPresti?s account. He said that don?t want to hear it? and then, directing his comments specifically to Ms. LoPresti, he said that she should ?grow the up.? When Ms. LoPresti was leaving the meeting, insulted by the way the superintendent had spoken to her, the superintendent stated loud enough for everyone to hear, that if Ms. LoPresti kept this up, he ?will transfer her ass.? Further, as the superintendent left the meeting and entered the main office he was overheard .referring to all three administrators as ?shitheads.? 4. On or about February 6, 2017 at a meeting of the principals and supervisors at which the superintendent Spoke about a proposed reconfiguration of schools, he told the administrators present that if there were people who did not support the preposal then ?we can choose to be enemies.? 5. On or about February 10, 2017 the superintendent opened a principal?s meeting by stating ?how can I have a f??-ing principals? meeting without all the principals being present?? Two principals were not present one because of illness and the other who was busy Opening the middle school because of a delayed opening that morning. 6. On or about February 24, 2017 in response to an inquiry? made by an elementary principal regarding plans for a district pre-school the follOwing year, after stating that plans had not yet been ?nalized, the superintendent wrote warn all that there will be signi?cant discomfort if I get the impression that anyone is to pit people against each other, (2) not being supportive of the initiative, and trying to be the proverbial? wise ass. This is a promise.? Discriminatory conduct 7. On or about October 15, 2015 at a district with the district administration and district teaching staff present, the superintendent said, "We have an aging administration and we need young blood." 8. On or about January 4, 2016 the superintendent said, "We are going to push for retirements. 9. The superintendent has engaged in a practice of making inappropriate comments to female administrators and/or conducting himself inappropriately. The following serve as examples of the inappropriate comments/actions exhibited by the superintendent: a. The superintendent initiated a conversation with regarding the fact that she attended Catholic school. He inquired about the uniform skirt she had to wear, it len h, and whether it needed to be pinned to keep it closed. When? reaponded and said that there was such a pin, the superintendent replied that as a can man this really ?did it for him.? This remark made uncomfortable as it was seen as a sexual reference. She did not respond or object at the time for fear of retaliation. b. The superintendent kisses females? hands and blows kisses at them. Female administrators who stopped this practice have quickly fallen out of favor of the superintendent. c. This is all part of gender specific conduct that has resulted in a pattern of male staff members given promotions and higher level positions, the most recent examples of which pertain to the titles of Assistant Principal, Social Studies Supervisor, and Director of Special Projects, none of which were posted, and all of which were awarded to males. These incidents even viewed individually raise serious concerns, any one of which would warrant disciplinary action. But, when viewed collectively they demonstrate a complete lack of respect for Vernon?s administrators and more generally its staff members (2) a disregard for Board'policy and statutory requirements, (3) a disregard for student safety, and (4) an environment of intimidation and hostility that IS indicative of both gender and age discrimination. - The superintendent is the Board?s chief administrator for the district-The manner in which he conducts himself should represent the values held by Vernon?s Board members, and more generally what is acceptable professionally. This is all the more reason why the examples of the superintendent?s conduct as set forth herein are so troubling. In addition to the behavior being abusive, discriminatory, and in violation of ?Board policy and statute, they are a poor re?ection, and do not represent the values of theJVernon Township Schools. - If any administrator exhibited conduct remotely similar to what is described in this correspondence, there is no doubt that the response would be to impose some form of serious disciplinary action. There should be no exception for the superintendent. Accordingly, by way of this correspondence, I am requesting immediate action in the form of an independent outside investigation of the superintendent?s conduct and its impact on the Vernon School District?s staff, which based on just the examples raised ?in this correspondence, warrant the superintendent?s removal from of?ce. Lastly, we fully expect that there will be no retribution whatsoever as a result of the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you. .Very truly yours, Robert M. Schwartz I cc: Vernon Administrators