Friday, February 22, 2008


Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:51:11 PM
Subject: FW: Charge for violation of professional standards

Ms. Kipley,

Heaven's, this is a fast response. I think you have achieved an overnight turnaround of a complaint.

I have questions.

First, is a public employee of the school board allowed to make up rules for a member of the public that do not coincide with the written description of the punishment for disrupting the board? The rule says that the rowdy person is to leave the board room; it does not say that he or she must leave the premises.

Cite me the policy which says I should have left the premises. I asked Mr. Friedberg for it, and he said he did not have to show it to me. He did not know the rules he is supposed to enforce. I am a teacher. I know when a student knows the rules and doesn't. Mr. Friedberg must go to study hall for review of the board-room eviction rules and pass a pop quiz on it from me when I next visit the school board and pass through his cave of winds in the lobby, where he lurks like a cyborg to menace little old ladies.

Didn't you yourself read the rule before you made this hasty judgment? This is just the sort of rush to judgment that teachers complain about when they discuss your conduct of Professional Standards. You should at least be master of the rule which you said I broke. And the lobby cyborg should be too.

And I question the arbitrary application of "exceeding the time limits" as basis for the chair's gaveling me out of order with the penalty of being kicked out of the school-board room. If that were the criterion for removal from the board room, people who were in mid-sentence when appearing before the board would be kicked out of the board room at a high rate indeed.

Could you give me the number of people kicked out of the board room for exceeding the time limits by finishing their sentences? How many words is the cut-off time that guarantees the person's getting kicked out of the board room? Is it more than one? What about more than two? Three? Four? Five? Six? You must keep those statistics as a function of your office. I would appreciate a catalog of these for the last year.

When you talked to Mr. Gonzalez on this issue, did he mention that the bizarre procedures invoked to keep citizen comment at a minimum abridge free speech and violate the First Amendment? Did Mr. Gonzalez admit that he doesn't care about the First Amendment but cares about keeping no-bid contracts as the going practice since he has one of these himself?

I suggest my getting kicked out of the board room by the chair was her retaliating against me for revealing that she had an affair on school property, broke up the man's family, caused his divorce, sat by while he was fired for the false charge of alcoholism, and worst of all, inflicted severe psychological suffering on his two young children, which suffering will soon if not already be physical as well since their father could not get a job the last time I talked to him.

I expect you have had a number of cases in your office of Professional Standards that punished people in the ROSSAC building for knowing about the adulterous affair and not reporting it promptly to the Office of Professional Standards. Don't tell me that exceeding the word limit in the board room is a violation of board rules but adultery of a board member is not. How many of those cases have you presided over in which people who knew about the adultery didn't come forward and complain?

And if there is not a school policy of punishing the goliath Chief of Securitiy for menacing visitors, there should be. There should also be a policy added to the books immediately for a chief not to be so dumb as to let the resident board adulteress make him a conspirator in kicking out a citizen from the board room to get back at her for revealing the gavel-drunk chair committed adultery on school grounds, I demand that the powers that be immediately add it to the official kicking-out rules. And as long as we are at it, there definitely should be a rule posted in the lobby of ROSSAC making school-grounds adultery an offense for being kicked off the board, out of the building, down the street, over the river, through woods, and across the bridge to the next county if not out of the state. Be there no one fluent enough, I will help draft this rule.

In your text to me, (1) put a comma after "2008" for the conventional-material comma rule. (2) "Upon reviewing your concerns with Thomas M. Gonzalez" is a dangling modifier. Revise it to "Upon reviewing your concerns with Thomas M. Gonzales, I (or Ms. Elia or somebody) deterimined…" (3) "Chief Friedberg" should be "Chief Friedberg's": one uses the possessive before a gerund.

Such basic errors lend support to my contention that you do not have the educational background for a job making $127,000. The taxpayers have a right to expect such bloated salaries to require at least basic literacy. Your salary would pay over three teachers, all literate. I also suggest that the judgement you show in this email is deficient. I have recommended that a person with a psychology, criminal justice, or philosophy degree head the Professinal Standards office. Your home-economics (an oxymoron) degree is not sufficient for making the ethical decisions that the head of the Professional Standards Office must make.

One puzzles about how Chief Friedberg got to be chief when he doesn't even know the rules he is supposed to carry out. Citizens have a right to expect that the chief know at least the simple the rules. That's why we pay him. His being eight feet tall is not sufficient replacement for intelligence. Cite me where the rules say he is supposed to order a person from the premises when the rules say the person is merely to leave the board room. Ask Chief Friedborg if the board Jezebel dazzled him into mistaking his duty and exceeded it to please our board-chair adulteress and vindictive La Belle Dame sans Merci. Tell him he has flunked Rules 101 and must hand in his badge until he passes the essay test that I have left in the board room under the 2nd chair to the left of the semicircle of the gods who occupy the podium.

Lee Drury De Cesare

Aggrieved Citizen of Miscarriage of Justice on School Property

From: Linda Kipley []
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:21 PM
To: lee de cesare
Cc: Jennifer Faliero; Candy Olson; Doretha Edgecomb; April Griffin; Susan Valdes; Jack Lamb; Carol Kurdell; MaryEllen Elia; Dan Valdez; David Friedberg;
Subject: Re: Charge for violation of professional standards

Dear Ms. DeCesare:

I am in receipt of your email dated February 21, 2008 regarding charges for violation of professional standards. Upon reviewing your concerns with Thomas M. Gonzalez, School Board Attorney, it has been determined that the Office of Professional Standards does not have jurisdiction to investigate the action of the School Board, an individual Board member, or the Board's attorney.

Your complaint regarding Chief Friedberg informing you that you were to leave the School Board's premises or you would be arrested for trespassing, did not violate any School Board policy. In your complaint, you admitted to having violated the three-minute rule regarding the limits on public speakers, and as a result, Chief Friedberg acted appropriately when he asked you to leave the premises.

Based on the review of your complaints outlined in your email, there is no matter stated which can be investigated by the Office of Professional Standards.

Linda A. Kipley
General Manager of Professional Standards

Always on Duty to Kick You Off the Premises
for Using Too Many Words at the Baord-room

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Then Chief Friedberg needs to escort about half the speakers each time off the property if he is going to treat everyone fairly. About half the speakers go over the time allotted. This is another example of how the school board and this Kipley person makes the rules up as they go along.