Lawsuits upon Lawsuits: A look at the lawsuits pending in East Ramapo
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Lawsuits upon Lawsuits: A look at the lawsuits pending in East Ramapo

on

  • 564 views

Lawsuits involving the East Ramapo Central School District have popped up over the last few years. Here’s a look at some of the current ones pending.

Lawsuits involving the East Ramapo Central School District have popped up over the last few years. Here’s a look at some of the current ones pending.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
564
Views on SlideShare
361
Embed Views
203

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 203

http://www.michaelroppolo.com 203

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Lawsuits upon Lawsuits: A look at the lawsuits pending in East Ramapo Lawsuits upon Lawsuits: A look at the lawsuits pending in East Ramapo Presentation Transcript

  • Lawsuits upon Lawsuits: Understanding the legal disputes Lawsuits involving the East Ramapo Central School District have popped up over the last several years. Here’s a look at some of the current ones pending.
  • East Ramapo School District vs. the Board of Education Plaintiffs Defendants There are currently close to 400 plaintiffs which include the parents, students and residents of East Ramapo. • Daniel Schwartz, former president of BoE • Yehuda Weissmandl, current President of BoE • Moses Friedman, Member • Moshe Hopstein, Member • Eliyahu Solomon, Member • Nathan Rothschild, former Member • Aron Wieder, former President of BoE/current member • Morris Kohn, former President of BoE • Richard Stone, former Member • Albert D’agostino, Esq., District lawyer • Joel Klein, Superintendent of Schools • Eliezer Wizman, former ERSD Administrator
  • East Ramapo School District vs. the Board of Education (cont.) • Charges: • The plaintiffs allege the ERCSD Board of Education was perpetrating segregation within the district. • The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are using both Title I and Title III funds for religious purposes. Title I funds must be used for secular, neutral religious purposes. Title III funds must be used to help limited English speakers attain proficiency. However, the plaintiffs allege that this is not the case. • Plaintiffs also state that auditors found that the district did not maintain adequate records of how per pupil amount for Title I funding was calculated. There were no documentation as to allocation of funds. • Plaintiffs allege that afterschool remedial services were created for private schools, using Title I funds. Court documents specify that these remedial programs were longer and received more funding than public schools. • State auditors found questionable expenditures under Title I and questionable placements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
  • East Ramapo School District vs. the Board of Education (cont.) • Charges (cont.): • Plaintiffs allege that Board of Education has bypassed the Special Education process to provide a publicly funded private education. Court documents say that 24 of 27 student records reviewed were incomplete and lacked components required by the NYS Commissioner of Education. • The approved placement process is as follows: • The IDEA requires that a Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is drawn up by a Committee on Special Education (CSE) should a child be required special education services. • If a student requires special placement in a private school, the CSE must approve the placement. • If approved, federal, state, and school district money may be used to reimburse the district for the child’s tuition. • However, if not approved, the district may pay the tuition without reimbursement from state or federal funds.
  • East Ramapo School District vs. the Board of Education (cont.) • Ruling: • Filed in 2012, this case is still pending. In October 2013, Judge Cathy Seibel allowed key parts of the lawsuit to continue, but dismissed the other charges of racial discrimination. • These key charges include: • Placement of Hasidic and Orthodox students in private special education schools at the public’s expense. • Using government funding to purchase religious textbooks • Selling unused District property at below-market value to religious developers • Conspiring to hiring attorney Albert D’Agostino as a means to place religious students in a special education private school in a manner that allows for the District to forfeit state reimbursements
  • East Ramapo School District vs. State Education Department Plaintiffs East Ramapo Central School District Defendants • James P. Delorenzo, NYS Assistant Commissioner of Education • John B. King, Jr., NYS Commissioner of Education • State Education Department of the University of New York State
  • East Ramapo School District vs. State Education Department (cont.) • Charges: • Repeated actions of noncompliance to requests to correct the District’s special education process, resulting in unsatisfactory IEPs and CSEs. • The district then filed a lawsuit, requesting a “declaratory judgment that the IDEA provides the District with broad discretion to fashion mutually agreeable settlements to parental challenges.” • The district also wanted to make changes in the process of designating special education placements. This includes allowing one person to conduct a IEP resolution meeting; settling disputes by allowing for a placement to be made in the district’s best financial interests; and settling parental challenges to CSE placement recognition without the CSE’s approval.
  • East Ramapo School District vs. State Education Department (cont.) • Ruling: • The judge ultimately ruled that the case be dismissed, citing the the NYSED’s argument that the guarantee of state sovereign immunity provided by the 11th Amendment. • The judge also ruled that the District was incorrect in its interpretation of the IDEA, in that it afforded the district no new rights and the law was meant to protect students with disabilities and their parents.