Saturday, August 15, 2009

Call the Law!

Linda: I will check. Is this a regular practice of the Professional Standards office to redact, or is this the first time a redaction has been done? Where in the manual does it define and circumscribe this practice?

Tom has made an enemy of that reporter, I bet. Not smart. I learned when I did PR for the Women's Movement that you don't question a reporter's accuracy. It is the one major vanity of the press that it does not make mistakes in facts. A person who has no better sense than to challenge an article's accuracy has made himself a press foe. And the press has a long memory and paid research staff. Smart people don't make enemies of the people who buy ink by the barrel. lee

Mr. Gradebook Solochek:

I went combing through your site for the column on the Professional Standards redaction of the Sheriff's Child Protection summary sent to the Board after the case was closed. I can't find it. Please send me the article.

I noted that you have a veritable festival of teacher-student sex articles. But you did not have the guts to report the Board Member Jennifer Faliero's haunting of Marc Hart's Public Affairs Office until she seduced him, catalyzed his divorce, and made his two little children suffer from the divorce the fool got from his wife: the little boy's one's grade's plummeted, the girl's illness exacerbated.

The administration fired Hart on a trumped-up charge of drunkenness; the board made Falliero its chair.

Even after Hart had showed me the divorce deposition that proved Falliera had an affair with him so I could expose the affair, the press tippytoed away from the story. You were too busy cataloging teacher sex. Teacher sex the press is not prissy about: just board sex. Administrator and Board Member sex is too hot for the traditional press to handle. Teacher misconduct is the template misconduct press piece. Reason: no guts.

lee drury de cesare

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Cobbe []
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:06 AM
To: lee
Subject: Re: Inquiry to Sheriff Gee

Lee, you got some facts wrong. I don't have the report-in-question with me, but no one made any changes to the CPI report. The original and "corrected" documents both say at the top that they are professional standards documents. I believe there is a link to both on the Times Gradebook blog.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device


Dear Sheriff Gee:

After the children's protection division of your department investigated a case of an administrator's cracking five pubescent boys' toes at King High School behind closed door in his office, your child-protection agency issued a report that said that there were "some indications of abuse." (The report was closed with "Some indicators of abuse, neglect, or abandonment.")

Tom Gonzalez, Board attorney, lied or misread the report for on the board dais in his official position he asserted that the report said there was no abuse. You can see his presentation on the education channel. He told a few of us citizens in the lobby after his statement on the board dais that the Times was wrong when it said the final report of the Sheriff's children's protection department said there were "some indications of abuse."

Mr. Marshall, Times reporter covering the issue, stood by his story and added more details in a subsequent column that showed Professional Standards went revised the report's original words to cover up the lawyer's lie or incompetence. This redaction Ms. Kipley called a "correction" did not say it came from the Professional Standards office, not reissued from the children's division of the Sheriff's office.

The Board never punishes administrators for professional breaches such as lying and redacting an official document from the Sheriff's child-abuse division; it saves punishment only for teachers' minor or made-up offenses to scare them about losing their jobs because Ms. Elia and the board cannot bear criticism.

The most severe punishment goes to teachers who speak out against administrative and board misdeeds or teachers who have a blog commenting on educational issues. If the Board Professional Standards criteria applied to administrators, both Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Kipley would be charged with offenses that would merit dismissal in any agency which applies standards to all personnel.

The Times reporter re-investigated and found that the Professional Standards Office had redacted the Sheriff's report to cover Mr. Gonzalez's lie or mess-up concerning the wording of the Sheriff's Children's Protection services' report on the "some-indications-of-abuse" summary.

The Professional Standards revision neglected to say that the "corrected" report did not come from the child-protective department of the Sheriff's office. The Professional Standards office via Ms. Kipley made the corrections to fuzz-up the lawyer's lie and exonerate him.

Please tell me if you allow the employees of the places investigated by the Sheriff's Child-protection Services to correct the wording of the official report to cover up a lie or a stumble by one of the principals of the investigated agency, the Board lawyer in this case.


Lee Drury De Cesare

15316 Gulf Boulevard 802

Madeira Beach, Fl 33708

My God, Look at That Outfit!

Ms. Valdez and Mr. Otero:

You are hereby appointed to the post of Fashion Police for the board and administration, being as you two are the best dressers in an ill-dressed administrative outfit.

See what you can do to subdue the egregious fashion-mode of Board member Candy, effulgent fashion displays' being her bete noire.

Linda Kipley, foot-fetishist bimbette, requires your astringent scrutiny and corrective action as well.
Do not be nice.

And do not forefend to take the aesthetic measure of the whole administrative group, none of whom, alas, demonstrates the fashion excellence that one would expect from people with minimal credentials in academic requisites but hypertrophied salaries in administrative ripoffs that could purchase classy duds if they were able to recognize them.

Alas, the adminsitrative fashion dummies demonstrate the shibboleth that you can bump up an aesthetic dumbasses's pay grade, but you can't correct his or her bad taste either in duds or in ethics.

Ms. Valdez, rely on Mr. Otero to take notes and offer support as long as he thinks no one on the board notices him. Men never have and will never have an understanding of the importance of clothes in signaling authority.

Pray publish this as a Board of Hillsborough-County-citizen commentary to lay bare the administration's and board's fashion deficiencies, which rival their ethical deficiencies, so help you God.

Lee Drury De Cesare, South-west Florida Aesthetics and Fashion Guardian Extraordinaire

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Fun Was Had by All

First comment on the below board post: Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Fun Was Had by All":

You have their numbers!

Candy Olson is always out of line. I believe that everyone in the audience and watching on tv could see through her scheme to brown nose with the Superintendent and bash April Griffin in the process. She thought she was being smart, but she was displaying the behavior most employees can't stand about her. You can ask almost any employee in the district about her, and they will all roll their eyes. She talks incessantly at board meetings boring everyone to tears, but if Susan Valdes or April Griffin speak more than five minutes Olson pipes up with how things need to be speeded up. She has no problem with slowing things down to listen to herself speak, but she doesn't want anyone else to do the same. She is the epitome of a hypocrite. Most employees refer to her as "C*&%nty Olson."

Tom Gonzalez sounds so ridiculous. I thought lawyers knew how to handle pressure. He does have a pear shaped body. Instead of eating and drinking he better go to the gym.

Publish this comment.

Here's the excerpt from the Sheriff's report that proves Tom Gonzalez wrong when he said that the Sheriff's report said there was no further danger of harm to the boys whom the King Administrator toe-cracked:

On 61n109, writer spoke with CPl Auza. He advised that he closed his case with Some

Indicators for threatened harm.

Board Meeting August 11 Act I: Sludgeville; Act II; Lobby: Sprightly Agitprop

Minions of the Light, herein my report on August 11 Board meeting:

The main board meeting comprised the usual dais sludge of exchanged compliments and cover-up of board-and-administration skulduggery.

The Elia evaluation commentary raised a little head butting. The superintendent got a B minus, I infer, and Kurdell writhed in obeisance to the greatest leader since Queen Elizabeth, who governed a somewhat larger and more complex populace with an infinitely better hand on the buttons of power.

Kurdell piled it on deep and dense with superlatives about the Leader's manifest virtues and blah, blah, blah.

I have not been able to find the Elia evaluation on the Web, but apparently April Griffin had made a comment in her part of the evaluation that did not accord with Candy Olson's zeig-heil ideas of conformity with the universal praise she believed the Elia evaluation mandated.

So La Candy registered objection that pointed at Griffin's not-one-hundred percent adulatory comment.

Griffin has smartened up and grown tougher since she stormed out early in her board career, slamming the door on Jennifer Homewrecker Fallairo's advice to her to quit unless she could toe the administration line.

Griffin told La Candy that she would prefer to discuss the issue off the board dais.

Undeterred, Candy, the Obtuse, said she would rephrase her question and couched it in the same way for another go at Griffin's lack of Elia-praise orthodoxy.

La Candy revealed that not only do citizens not have free speech before the board but that the elected members do not have free speech on the board either if she can help it.

I laid out the political situation to my husband, 12-year mayor of our little beach town. He said Olson was out of line, that an elected official had the backing of all citizens of the district to speak her piece without making it coincident with the opinions of other members of the board.

But nuance has never been La Candy's strong suit. Outré fashion has been. She adorned herself for the August 11 meeting with a jacket of questionable tailoring that featured giant flowers on a black background that reminded one of a painting by Dali on a bender. The Candy couture amped up the dead-watch guy's template excess.

Contemplating the jacket made one's eyes cross and recross.

Toward the end of the meeting, her too-frequent loquacity urge smote Ms. Candy so as to prick her to drone on for a full twenty minutes about utter twaddle. She told us how capacious and catholic were her reading habits.

Such was news to people who have capacious and catholic reading habits. I never heard Ms. Candy quote Thucydides or even Foucault. All I have heard is her nattering concerns about this and that tremendous trifle of school-board lore probably gleaned from board publications that land in her mailbox from the hills and dales of school systems in the outback of education around the country.

These incestuous morsels should serve as banter in the board rec room, not as download on the long-suffering general public, bored out of its mind with lower-quartile board palaver. If La Candy discussed the criminal deportment of the Professional Standards office of her girlfriend La Kipley, that would grab attention. She claims Kipley's home-ec certificate is just dandy for judging teachers' behavior and ethics and cooking up cases against them. That I suggested a philosophy degree as a credible one for the Kipley sinecure enraged Candy at a past meeting, to which I point out that Aristotle and his chums across the intellectual heavens don't need Candy's support.

Fashion semblable to Candy, girlfriend Kipley affected a bizarre choice of on-the-job shoeware. As a change from the red stiletto bedroom slippers she has been known to wear that slap her heels audibly when she minces hither and yon in the board room, on the 11th Kipley wore a pair of plastic see-through Dolly-Parton high heels that showed her foot, corns not excluded.

Perhaps this was in tribute to the King High foot fetishist toe-cracker of hapless students in the closed environs of his office-psychosexual-acting-out lair.

By far the liveliest of the board commentary came at Citizens' Comment time at back-door end of the festivities. I gave the lot hell on the failure to protect students from a probable foot fetishist and order him to psychiatric evaluation. Then, half facing board and audience, Goader gave his maiden presentation, citing the invidious comparison of the way board and administration kept him in lockdown for a year for a child-abuse accusation by Morris and Smiley that the Sheriff's office threw out the same day Judas Smiley skulked down to file it in his bucking-for-a-promotion campaign to the sacred halls of ROSSAC's demons of teacher bashing.

Finally, Bart Birdsal did his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger buck and wing on his "Let's-all-just-get-along" motif. Bart reigns a practiced guilt inducer who should give seminars on the skill.

Stung by my aside to him when I spoke that it was about time he earned his money for adorning the board dais as the putative attorney by commenting on things such as the psychiatric referral of the King High administrative toe-cracker of male youth, Tom Gonzalez delivered a windy soliloquy in which he gave the truth a drubbing on the twin cases of Goader's faux child-abuse charge, cooked up by Smiley, Morris, and Kipley for fun and profit, and the Toe-Cracker whitewash for the apparently psychologically deviant guy preying on pubescent boys at King High behind the closed door of his office of authority and not referred to a psychiatrist for evaluation by the board, Ms. Elia, or any of the demons that inhabit the inner recesses of the ROSSAC administrative psyche in their airless hellhole of malignity.

But things waxed lively in the Lobby Agitprop that unfolded at the end of the board meeting.

I exited after listening to Le Gonzalez's Parthion tissue of misinformation and abuse of truth and the English language. I had to get home to the beach to cook dinner for my grumpy old man of almost 53 years like all liberated women do.

Goader accompanied me through the swinging doors from the board room to the lobby.

There stood Ms. Griffin and Mr. Gonzales in lively colloquy.

They engaged in heated tête-à-tête on some disputed subject. The beauteous Tom Gonzalez apparently undertook energetic rebuttal of what Griffin said. He monopolized the exchange and was visibly upset with whatever Griffin had said to him. He was in tense hyper defense mode, a posture he has seldom had to assume before with a somnolent board for the 37-plus years of his company's bid-free franchise on the tax gravy train the board gives him despite his louche service.

As Le Gonzalez wheeled away from Griffin in a fury, Goader thrust the newspaper statement, pointing out that in the Toe-cracking Caper the newspaper said that there were unresolved issues of abuse according to the Sheriff's Toe-cracker Report just as there were in the Goader child-abuse accusation. Le Gonzalez had lied about this fact in his podium windbaggery.

Counselor Gonzalez snapped, "The paper is wrong," whereupon Goader said in disbelief, "Does that mean the paper printed misinformation?'

Not answering, Counselor Gonzalez sped past him but swam into my orbit, where I began, "Tom...", which prompted him to ejaculate," "I am not talking to YOU!" in one of those spittle-sprayed hisses that make you fear you may have contracted attorney-borne diseases of disrepute and incurability.

"But Tom," I called to his departing back as he headed for the safety beyond the swinging doors of the board room, his pear-shaped body assuming a semi-crouch of purpose to escape us, "YOU'RE LYING!"

The which comment made him wheel on his heel to stalk up to me, belly foremost, and bellow, "Don't you ever call me a liar again Nobody calls me that!"

He turned on his heel and again headed for the board doors.

"But Tom," I called after him, "you are lying." As he wheeled to face me, I said, "So punch me in the nose."

At this invitation, he twirled and sped through the board doors to safety, spatting over his shoulder, "I am not going to punch an old woman"; or maybe he said, "I am going to punch an old woman." I preferred the latter both rhetorically and actually. My ten grandchildren would be enchanted if a board attorney punched their granny in the nose and she lodged assault-and- battery charges against the legal firebrand. That punch would have assured my place in family legend for centuries to come. And it would have ended the Gonzalez firm's franchise on the board-attorney job.

Think of the fun to be had from the School Board attorney's

punching in the nose a woman the age of his mother. His sexist, ageist remark put all old ladies in the contemptible pile of women who had borne society's children, raised them, and sent them into the world to make it a better place. I wonder if his wife knows what contempt he has for old women, including her when she gets old. Such men turn to women closer their age in the teenage steno pool and desert the old wife.

Mr. Gonzalez spat out his contempt for all of us old women, who, he implied, should just roll over and die and not rebuke him for lying about two Professional Standards cases in the corrupt system of the ROSSAC characters bent on holding on to their power no matter the means, including the dicey counsel of Attorney Gonzalez, who plays fast and loose with the truth.

Tom probably drowned his rage in the chips and cola he regularly wolfs down on the podium during board discussions, objective correlative to his contempt for his job.

I may have to rat him out to Mother Gonzalez. No mother wants a son to act in such a contemptible, uncontrolled manner in the pursuit of his job in public.

In his board soliloquy of half-truths and outright lies, Tom tried to terrify Goader by pulling the rug out from under his reinstatement, saying Goader did not have to accept the Board's offer, that he could always demand a hearing before the board, meanwhile Gonzalez's never having delivered the summary statement of Goader's case that Ms. Cobbe, of Public Affairs, said he was authoring.

One wonders what takes the reluctant author so long on this page-long epistle. It is not The Divine Comedy.

I wish Goader would demand that hearing. It would be SRO. I would bring a bedroll. And then for a Cinderlla ending, Goader should mount a big, gaudy lawsuit against Gonzalez and the board.

The jury would make short shrift of Gonzalez and his board clients as the jury did in the Erwin whistle-blowing case. Average people know liars on the witness stand when they see them. The jury would catch on fast to the corrupt display of the foul behavior of the administration, board, and Special-ed imps of evil, not to mention the mendacious board attorney. The board and administration would be stripped of their prequisites of threatening to fire anybody who opposed them for being the vile malefactors they are in abusing their role as the guardians of the community's precious children.

Whatever happens, there is one old woman who lives on the Gulf of Mexico who will trundle over in her ancient Mercedes to the board meetings to give these small-minded, power-obsessed crooks hell and will continue to work for Mr. Gonzalez's dismissal and the advertisement of the job so that the board can get a lawyer with more respect for the truth and more reluctance to crafting a false tale on board matters to cover his and the board's gluteals to disguise their guilt and his cover-ups in board affairs so as to keep his job.

This August 11 display was coincident with Gonzalez's obscene method in the crucifixion of Mr. Irwin, whose court records show that Gonzalez played a major part in the Dr.- Lennard-and -thugs torture of Erwin, attempting to fire him and deprive him of his pension.

Beating up on the truth is still this board attorney's mode. He is too old and too small-minded to change.

The question is whether the current board members care or not that their attorney tells lies in constructing the board record for the community's bafflement, not its enlightenment, and whether he tries to blackmail a savaged teacher, one Steve Kemp aka Goader, in whose torture Gonzalez has played a major part.


Tuesday, August 11, 2009


Council-of-Trent-School-Board Mafia Listens to Steve Kemp's Riposte as the Worm Turns

Red Alert! Lee said, "Bart, if you have time, point out that the sheriff dismissed Steve's case days after Smiley filed it...."

Goader Comments: Wrong! The sheriff dismissed my case the same day [Judas] Smiley reported it. [In fact], The Sheriff's office dismissed the charge within a couple of hours after its report.

Today at five p.m. in the foul crooks-at-work chamber of the School Board, Goader, who spent over a year in suspension for a charge the sheriff dismissed the same day La Ross sent Judas Supervisor Smiley to file it at the sheriff's office, addresses the board and the public on the gross disparity of the Professional Standards' treatment of his sheriff-dismissed case compared to the case of the psychosexually perverse foot fondling administrator at King High School. lee

Monday, August 10, 2009

Rally Round the Flag; Lock and Load


Chairperson Kurdell:

I have signed up for the 8/11 meeting to comment on two items in the agenda listed for citizen comment besides the general citizen comment at the end.

You have evolved a suppression of my right to free speech by first filibustering to drown out my comments on the board's unfair hiring practices when I was at the mike--the hiring, for example, of Linda Kipley's husband to an accounting position for which he had no experience and only a high school degree compared to three candidates who had bachelor's accounting degrees and experience.

You then amped up your resistance to my free speech by interrupting me constantly about whether my comments were confined to the subject.

Finally, you and Steve Hegarty, Community Affairs, teamed up for Steve to confiscate my sign-ups to speak and for this sycophantic twerp to come tell me in the audience that "they" had decided that I didn't know what I was talking about" and "made no sense."

Where in the Constitution does it say a citizen must "make sense" when she approaches elected officials for redress of grievances?

This attack on me is a version of your attack on Mr. Erwin by spreading the rumor he was crazy when he tried to get Dr. Lennard and the board to do something about the crime on campus. In my case, you imply I am in throes of Alzheimer's because I am old. In the Erwin case, the group of administrators and board members who were profiting from the crooked doings labeled Mr. Erwin crazy because they didn't want the payoffs to them to stop. In my case you want to continue your crooked hiring to secure power within the crooked system you and others have crafted over the years.

If you pull any deals with that forlorn twerp Hegarty as your message boy at the 8/11 board meeting to suppress my free-speech rights, I will summon the help of the ACLU, the Attorney General, and the Governor to begin with. Then I move up, into, and across the highways and byways of the school authority apparatus to make your un-American activities widely known.

I would be a bad citizen if I did not oppose a school board bent on retaining its years of unquestioned corruption of power if I allowed you to trash the First Amendment to keep a citizen from criticizing your thuggish leadership. I will resist your attack on American democracy as a good citizen should. We can't keep democracy as our form of government if we let corrupt small-bore pols lurking on school boards destroy it without our protests. I will fight for our way of life.

Lee Drury De Cesare

15216 Gulf Boulevard 802

Madeira Beach, FL 333708

c: ACLU, Tampa

Sunday, August 09, 2009

I Bet This Riles Up the Blogaroos

Ms. Creamcheese is our original blogger celebrity. One could call La
Creamcheese the ur-blogger for the schools' teachers. She blogged first.

I don't quite understand if this is SCreamcheese's sentiments or if she is alluding to someone else's opinion. I am already having comments piling up. They will eventually appear at the bottom of the page.

Freedom of speech, remember, is the right to disagree.


Suzie Creamcheese has left a new comment on your post "A Call for Vox to Mount Up and Ride His Very Own B...":

It may be hard to "google" those words because they have been "interpreted".

"I’d certainly never deny anyone else the right to use fertilization.

Or would I?

When people suggest that income levels or the fact that the couple already has children or maybe even marital status should be taken into account when determining a candidate for IVF - it sounds reasonable to me. I’ve said before that IN THEORY not only should poor people not breed, but neither should people who are ill (mentally or physically), developmentally delayed, or have a host of other problems that would prevent them from being responsible parents.

Of course, I’d prefer these were choices such people made and not anything legislated, but doctors should play a part in the process. They should be concerned with helping reasonable people bring children into this world, but also should help protect the world by turning some patients away."

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by Suzie Creamcheese to Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch at 11:27 AM


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Call for Vox to Mount Up and Ride His Very Own B...":

ask wayne garcia. It's in creative loafing. A group of disabled people with children called to raise hell about it and were treated very rudely by kate's 'editor'.. certainly it's in the online copy. It's definitely in the paper copy. I READ IT. She scribbled it there under wayne's byline.

Lee, I only wanted you to publish the comment in the comments. LOL. Where it says publish or email?
I'll give some consideration to opening a blog. You can also reference other bloggers for kate's infamy of encouraging plastic surgery. sticks of fire for one.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by Anonymous to Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch at 5:13 PM

A Call for Vox to Mount Up and Ride His Very Own Blog

See, Vox, you already have one reader, and I am a second. You know about things that I don't. So you owe it to your public to mount a blog "Vox Populi" to spread the word.

I tried the phrase the reader inquired about in the search engines. No luck. lee

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Urgent Message from Vox Populi: Faites Attention!":

Vox, can you or Lee please provide a link to the "only the rich and undisabled should have children" quote? I'm having trouble finding it.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by Anonymous to Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch at 5:35 AM

Dear Ms. Obama:

Frank Rich's column in the NYT this Sunday "Is Obama Punking Us?" deeply disturbed me.

How could the president cut a deal with those wicked drug companies to limit their losses in a new health-care plan? Are these people in the industrial giant world more powerful than the president?

Why does a person run for president if he is not going to serve the people but the industrial robber barons?

lee drury de cesare
15316 Gulf Boulevard 802
Madeira Beach, FL 33708