Saturday, April 03, 2010

Thank God for Government in the Sunshine

These are the sort of James-Agee Let Us Now Praise Famous Men children that Candy Olson's poor districts contain; she pretends not to know about them. She pretends to represent only well-off South Tampa's children. If Emmet Negrete, her only opponent so far in the school-board race for District 2, will acknowledge and promise to serve these forgotten people, talk to them and make them understand that their vote counts, he can beat Candy in the race. He would be a jewel on the School Board compared to the feckless, snooty Candy. Any replacement of Candy would be to the betterment of the schools and to the community--including the poor districts--that she is supposed to serve. lee

Linda, I would like to review the files of the Whitehead case. I can come in the morning from the beach on a board day to review them. Let me know when you have them available. The public-records law says these files must be available to the public.

I also want you to correct me if I have been wrong. I have said that Susan Valdez spent $50,000 in one year on board travel; Mr. Schmidt, who attacks her and April Griffin on his blog for political peccadilloes, says Susan spent $50,000 in 2 and one-half years.

Which is right? I want to be accurate when I can. If I can't get information via public information from your office, I am entitled in this and in all things to make negative inferences or to make an informed guess.

I recall that board members had an ugly, undignified podium fight over travel expenses with mutual recriminations of extravagance. That and the possibilty that the legislature would lower their pay were the only things they got disturbed about. They never get riled up by the policies they rubber-stamp for Ms. Elia that disinfranchises teachers and students. With the board, it's always me, me, me.

Where is the Web board notes on that meeting? Give me the URL. Let it be noted for the record that the board fights never for citizens' rights nor student rights nor teacher rights but only for its own parochial privileges to piss away tax money to indulge themselves.

Fetch-and-Tote Hegarty told me at the April 1 board meeting that I could not comment on a board item for which I had signed up online because of "board policy." The item with other board items had a box by it for sign-up comment. I want a copy of the written policy that Fetch-'n-Tote Hegarty invokes so that I can determine how it coincides with the board's claim of Free Speech.

If the board does not allow audience comment on items labeled for audience comment on the Web agenda, why does it indulge in such faux Free Speech show on the site by Hillsborough County School Board Free- Speech scofflaws? This situation is a duplicitous practice that equates to false advertising of free speech that does not exist in practice.

One expects the three board candidates up for re-election--Griffin, Olson, and Falliero-- to explain to voters how the board pretends to allow free speech on its Web site but shuts it down at board meetings.

I hope some relevant authority requires a deposition from fetch-'n-tote Hegarty, former SPTimes reporter for the HC schools who wrote puff pieces on the schools' administration and board and who thus got his head-of-community-services job paying over one hundreed thousand a year when he can't handle grammar and punctuation in a school system charged with teaching the same and in addition absent cited experience credentials. Elia put the unqualified Hegarty at the head of the line because she thought as a former reporter he could get her good press.

Step-and-Fetchit Hegarty told me recently that he "got out just in time" from his previous reporter newspaper job with the SPTimes, the which statement made me call him a rat deserting a drowning ship.

I request to see as well Ms. Elia's conflict-of-interest filing for her using a school attorney to intimidate her residential neighbors into shutting up opposition to her zone violation of beginning a major renovation project without permit: the installation of a God's Little Acre tin roof that the neighbors decried on the basis of aesthetics and devaluing their neighborhood and then Elia's getting an abatement by the roll-over member majority of the City Council. Elia then used a school attorney to prevent her neighbors from deploring the God's -Little-Acre tin roof, an instance of muffling free speech that Elia called "bullying" her. Elia used a school government lawyer to perform the anti-Constitutional deed of intimidating the objecting neighbors' free-speech rights to object to their neighborhood's being devalued by an inhabitant with no taste because La Elia is used to the dictatorial powers her superintendent job gives her with no board intervention, she being one with no scruples about using a government attorney to intimidate the objecting neighbors into silence in violation of their free-speech privilege.

This action by Elia is parallel with the demotion and cut in pay that David Schmidt experienced recently when Board Member April Griffin retaliated against him by lying and saying "a person" had informed her that Mr. Schmidt had employed his step-son to construct a Web site for his school program of instructing legal immigrants in the English language, a program that Schmidt had run previous to Griffin's retaliatory action. Schmidt says nobody told him of a conflict-of-interest statement's requirement when he signed numerous papers setting up the program. There is every reason for up-for-re-election Griffin's lying to punish this guy because he exercised his free-speech rights to criticize her and Susan Valdez on his Web site. There is every reason as well to suspect that Elia authorized a fishing expedition in Schmidt's records to eke out a gnat to hang Schmidt's punishment on.

Elia and April Griffin performed the same danse de cruelte that Elia and the despicable Linda Kipley of the see-through-plastic shoes enacted on Bart Birdsall because he, a gay school employee, criticized the county's shutting down gay library privileges from his home email in the wake of the Storms County ordinance punishing gays with a diminution of

Griffin and Elia demonstrated their weakness in realpolitik by merely demoting and reducing Schmitt's salary. Elia and Griffin lacked the cajones to fire Schmidt outright. If you are going to use Hitler ethics, you must not flinch; you must belly up to the bar and to full-throttle savagery.

One infers that Elia got her buddy Pat Bean of the Hillsborough County Commission hierarchy, the job of whom is in terminal jeopardy, to team up with her so that Elia could strut her dictatorial power stuff in the Birdsall frame-up shortly after she got the superintendent job with the collusion of the School Board despite Elia's lack of credentials. The board hiring committee reduced the Ph.D. requirement to Elia's master's degree and sent out a $35,000 broadly disseminated-- paid for by unsuspecting taxpayers--ad for the job to validate the board's faux "equal-opportunity" credentials and to throw fairy dust in voters' eyes to discern that board rascals were recruiting an on-site candidate with pitiful experience and no upper academic bona fides for the job.

Elia got the superintendent job from a sub rosa understanding that she would not disturb School Board perquisites such as gadding around the country by air and staying at flossy hotel room-service accommodations at taxpayer expense. A Ph.D. from Columbia might have displayed more ethical rigor in board depredations on tax monies.

Thank you for helping this citizen take advantage of the state's Government-in the-Sunshine law. I await your reply.


lee drury de cesare

15316 Gulf Boulevard 802

Madeira Beach, FL 33708

All members Hillsborough County Commission

All members Tampa City Council

All members Hillsborough legislative delegation

All members Hillsborough County School Board

Dr. Smith, Florida Secretary of Education

General McCollum

Governor Crist

Mark Rubio

Angie and Patrick Manteiga, Co publisher and publisher of La Gaceta

Friday, April 02, 2010

Always Expect the Worst: the Board and Administration Will Never Disappoint You

Reported on

Ms. Elia: No one mentioned this case reported in
Wright's Law on the podium so that the public could know about it. I copy it below. Nobody said the files were open for viewing in the Public Affairs office. This is not government in the sunshine; it is the board-and- administration usual cover-up to keep citizens ignorant soas to keep board and administration power intact.

Where are these court files for citizen viewing? Law says they should be available, and don't let Mr. Gonzalez tell you any different. Where are the secret OCR files this attorney-writer says the administration keeps? Citizens deserve to know about this case and to see all files--none should be secret in a state such as Florida with public-records laws.

It seems that the school board and administration cover up anything that they think detracts from their image. Neither wants the public to know the foul deeds both engage in out of the sunshine to continue in power.

But hiding public information is illegal. The Florida sunshine law prevents you and the board from shutting out the public from such lawsuits; the one under discussion so far has cost the public $600,000 plus attorneys fees. The public has a right to know that you, the board. and administration conduct the care of special-needs children in such a non-caring way that it risks both the child's
wellbeing and the public's right to know that such things go on in the public schools. Paying such astronomical fees for your illegal cover-up of the lack of care the child in the lawsuit recounted below is the public's business. And knowing this fact, you hid the civil rights file and stowed it out of the sunshine.

This case echoes and augments complaints about the special-ed children's lack of a suitable class room in the case of "child-abuse against teacher Kemp, not against the special-ed supervisor Smiley as it should have been. The abuse wasn't Kemp's it was Mr.
Smiley's and yours for supporting his feckless, cruel treatment of special-needs children by putting them in a junk classroom with the walls covered with loose furniture that they could pull down on themselves. Mr. Smiley also did nothing about the bus restraint one child wore despite the Florida restraint laws that say a special-needs child should not wear this restraint in the classroom. Smiley was too engaged in framing Kemp and paving his, Smiley's, way up the administrative level into the ROSSAC corridors of power to notice this violation of the restraint law by someone besides teacher Kemp.

You and Smiley were eager to trap Mr. Kemp into a felony child-abuse Political Standards accusation to kick him out of his job because he has a blog, and the board and you do not want teachers to have blogs because they may let the cat out of the bag about your administrative and board
skullduggeries. The Political Standards office Gestapo is how you keep teachers terrified of saying anything because disputing your cover-ups risks their jobs. You want the citizens to remain in the dark about how you misrun the schools so that you can continue in power, hire friends and sycophants at lofty salaries-- billing the taxpayers for deadwood--and preen around town as a powerful, important person who can get City Council to rezone her South Tampa property to erect a tacky God's Little Acre tin roof to appall the neighbors and afterwards menace these disgruntled neighbors with a school attorney as legal gunslinger if they display unwillingness to have your gauche taste devalue their property. Next you will scatter rusting hulks of decaying car engines as lawn ornaments. The neighbors rebellion nonpluses you because you are accustomed to being the dictator of the school system.

One hopes that you have filed the conflict-of- interest document on your using a school attorney for personal legal work. Isn't that the scam that April Griffith used to trap Mr. Schmidt and to have you demote him and lower his pay? April lied that somebody alerted her to the special-interest violation of Mr. Schmidt. Nobody knew there was such a thing. When he criticized April and Susan on his blog, April went
crybabying to you to tag him with some charge to make him afraid to criticize her. I hate to think of all the staff hours spent on crybaby April's bad-sport conduct.

What was the role of board lawyer Tom Gonzalez in this case that has a
$600,000 judgment? Did he advise you and the board that you could hide the particulars of the case away and evade the sunshine law? He has a history of distorting the law to suit the board's and administration's convenience. So I would have a care about his advice. In fact, I would fire him and get an honest, skillful attorney.

Did you tell the Florida Children's Board that this case was extant when I filed charges against the board and administration for mistreating special-needs children in the schools? Did George Sheldon of the Florida Children's Board know about this case? Did he have enough sense to ask if there were special-needs cases extant before he ran away from my charge like a startled rabbit? Did you let the local
Hillsborough County Children's Board fellow who is Florida Children's Board station chief know about this case? Not that he would care, but he should have known about your losing a court case in mistreating a special-needs child and covering it up. The twerp said that the Florida Children's division didn't do that kind of work.

I want you to have a board session on this cover-up in this case and let citizens interested in the crooked way y'all outback mafia run things. Let the audience ask all the questions they want to ask and see all the case's files so far.

One sees with dismay that the Florida Department of Education under Dr. Smith plays
pattycake with unethical boards like you once again and allows you to conduct the schools in any way that can keep the public from knowing what is going on. Dr. Smith is a slacker and should not have the top job in the Board of Education. He comes out of the administrative school bureaucracy and is showing his origins in the slipshod way he does his job.

Announce the date of the board hearing on this case. I for one will be there.

Drury De Cesare
15316 Gulf Boulevard 802
Madeira Be4
ach, Fl 33798

C: All Members of the School Board
All members of the
Hillsborough County Legislative Delegation
All Members of the County Children's Board
All members Tampa City Council
All members
Hillsborough County Commission
Dr. Smith, Department of Education
Whiteside, esq.
Patrick and Angie
Manteiga, Publisher and Co-publisher of La Gaceta

Inside Story of the $600,000 Verdict in Florida Retaliation Case
by Laura
Whiteside, Esq.
Print this page
You asked me to write an article about the jury trial that resulted in a $600,000 verdict in the Andrew Whitehead case.

On April 3, 1998, an eight-member jury awarded Keith and
Nikole Whitehead $300,000.00 each to compensate them for actual damages resulting from retaliation by Hillsborough, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Because the court disallowed the parents’ request for punitive damages, this request was not submitted to the jury for their consideration.

Unfortunately, the jury was not provided with an instruction that defined discrimination under Section 504, so they could not find that the school district engaged in acts of intentional discrimination against young Andrew Whitehead.

A hearing has not yet been scheduled on the parents’ claim that the district’s system of administering the IDEA is discriminatory, in that it fails to provide rights and procedural remedies, as required under Section 504. In claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief under Section 504, the element of intent is not required.

As you might expect, several important events occurred since the jury rendered their verdict on April 3.

Hillsborough School Board Requests New Trial or Reduction in Damages Awarded

On April 21, 1998, the
Hillsborough School Board requested a new trial or a reduction of the damages awarded by the jury. Although the jury had decided for Andrew's parents, the Hillsborough School Board asked the court to enter a judgment in its favor. The School Board also asked the Court an order to make Andrew's parents responsible for the School Board's costs in defending the intentional discrimination issues (an amount in excess of $17,000.00).

As you know, Andrew's parents are entitled to be reimbursed for the fees and costs they incurred during the 1994 administrative hearing - the hearing where they prevailed. Still pending are the parents’ requests for fees related to the litigation under 42 U.S.C. and Section 1983. This litigation was necessary to enforce the administrative order by the Hearing Officer, and was related to their damages claims under Section 504.
Initial Problems
Parents Requested Speech/Language Therapy for Andrew

In the fall of 1992, Keith and
Nikole Whitehead sought one hour of one-on-one a week of speech/language therapy for their son, Andrew, who has Down Syndrome.

After making this request, the parents experienced years of grief trying to secure help for their child. The School Board of
Hillsborough County is the nation's twelfth largest school district.
School District Discontinued Services Without Parents' Knowledge or Consent; Child Regresses

Initially, this case involved the school district’s failure to provide Andrew with the services in his
IEP in 1992, when he entered the district’s kindergarten program. Without providing his parents with any notice, the district stopped providing the one-one-one speech/language services in Andrew’s IEP. Andrew's parents did not know the school stopped providing these services until Andrew started losing language skills. At that point, the parents discovered that the school was not providing the agreed-upon services.

School District Reneged on Agreement to Provide Compensatory Services

The parents tried, without success, to resolve these problems with the school district. When they were unable to negotiate with the district, the parents asked the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to intervene. At that point, the district agreed to an early resolution process and began providing the speech language therapy.

The district promised to consider providing Andrew with compensatory education.

School District Evaluated, Decided Child No Longer Needs Services

Instead of meeting to develop a plan to deal with Andrew' lost skills, as directed by OCR, the district convened an meeting to review Andrew’s
IEP. At the IEP meeting, the district representatives claimed that new testing showed that Andrew did not need one-on-one services after all!
The parents asked to see this new testing, which was done without their knowledge or consent. The school district ignored their request. The school district also refused to consider information from a private sector evaluation provided by the parents.

School District Refused to Accept Evidence from Their Testing that Child's Skills Regressed

Both the school evaluation and the private evaluation showed that Andrew's language skills had regressed. Although Andrew had regressed, the school staff rewrote his
IEP, removed the one-on-one speech language therapy, then refused to provide Andrew with compensatory education.

School District Failed to Provide Parents with Notice

The district also failed to provide the parents with Notice about state complaint procedures and administrative procedures that are available under Section 504. The district also failed to provide the parents with any written explanation or Notice about the refusal to provide Andrew with compensatory education services.

Parents Requested Due Process Hearing

During the summer of 1993, Andrew's parents asked for a due process hearing, as required by the IDEA. The due process hearing was held in September, 1993. The Florida Division of Administrative Hearings ("
DOAH") assigned an impartial hearing officer to hear evidence in the case.

On January 11, 1994, the Hearing Officer entered an administrative order in favor of the parents. He made the following award:
Andrew would have individual speech/language services for the next academic year; Andrew would have a year of compensatory education services; Andrew's parents would be reimbursed for the expenses they incurred for evaluations and substitute educational services.
Hearing Officer Found Multiple Violations of IDEA, School Retaliated Against Parents

In his Final Order, the Hearing Officer determined that the district violated the IDEA in 17 ways, acted in bad faith, and retaliated against the parents. These violations included the School Board’s failure to honor the "stay put" provision of IDEA and the board's failure to make Andrew’s records available to his parents. The hearing officer also awarded attorney’s fees and costs. Fifteen months later, a substitute hearing officer rescinded this award of fees and costs.

School District's "Unwritten Practice" of Not Writing Individual Services in

In defending against the parents' request that Andrew’s
IEP specify the services he needed and would receive, the district claimed that it had an unwritten, "implemented practice" that precluded them from writing individual services in students’ IEPs.

The school district also claimed that no child in the State of Florida had individual services written into his or her
IEP. The school district insisted that decisions about the child’s need for one-on-one speech/language therapy is up to the discretion of the speech therapist (who may or may not be experienced, or licensed, or meet the state’s qualifications as a speech pathologist). The school district submitted a proposed order approving their own unwritten policy.

On January 11, 1994, the hearing officer issued an Order that rejected the School Board’s claim because their policy violated the IDEA.

School District Appeals Award of Attorneys' Fees

Although the school district asked the hearing officer to deny reimbursement to the parents (and provided no notice about the procedure for recovering fees), the district filed an appeal in a state appellate court to challenge the hearing officer’s authority to rule on attorney's fees. In this appeal, the school district claimed that the parents were barred from recovering fees because they did not plead them in their initial request for the due process hearing. Although the administrative proceeding was a local educational agency (LEA) proceeding under state law, the school district filed an appeal in state court, and did not seek administrative review from the Department of Education (the SEA)

The only portion of the Final Order challenged by the School Board was the award of fees.

Five months later, in June, 1994, the school district resumed its unlawful practice at the annual review of Andrew’s
IEP. The parents requested that the Final Order be enforced - their request was denied. Apparently, the Court accepted the school district’s contention that, although the administrative order had not been challenged by the aggrieved party, it was not "preclusive" in subsequent court proceedings. The school district asserted that the parents had to prove their claims in federal court, before they could give effect to the administrative findings and decision.

The parents amended their complaint to seek enforcement of the administrative order pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sect; 1983.

On February 25, 1998, 49 ½ months after the Final Order (and just two weeks before the damages trial), the District Court entered an order declaring that the administrative order was final and enforceable.

School District Maintained "Private Files"

During the trial, school district representatives testified that decisions about the child’s need for individual services is up to the discretion of the school’s speech language therapist. Although the Hearing Officer determined that the School Board illegally denied the parents access to their son's educational records, the jury learned that the School Board continued to maintain "private files" of correspondence about OCR complaints.

The jury was presented with the "private file." This private file showed that the district misrepresented events to OCR about providing Andrew with compensatory educational services.

On February 25, 1998, the District Court entered an order that the unchallenged administrative order entered four years earlier was final.

Court Issues Injunction to Prohibit School from Refusing to Specify Services in

On May 24, 1998, an injunction was entered that prohibits the School Board from failing to specify the special education and related services in Andrew's
IEP - services that his IEP Team decides he needs.

Additional proceedings will be scheduled on the parents' request for
injunctive and declaratory relief to address systemic violations, including the policy that permits the School Board to refuse to specify special education and related services on the IEPs of the 30,000 children with disabilities in the school district.

Throughout the process, the parents sought the assistance from administrative agencies, particularly the Florida Department of Education.

Florida DOE Refused to Monitor Compliance or Respond to Parents' Requests for Help

The Florida Department of Education claimed that they could not help - their hands were tied until the parents' litigation was resolved. The
FDOE did not require the school district to cease it's unlawful policy against the 30,000 children with disabilities. The FDOE made no distinction between the pending litigation— which involved a question of the enforcement of an unchallenged administrative order—and litigation to challenge the outcome of the administrative proceeding (which had not been brought by either party).

After the
FDOE refused to monitor the school district’s compliance with the IDEA and the Final Order, the Whiteheads brought an action in the District Court against the FDOE, to require FDOE to fulfill its duties under IDEA. The parents charged that the FDOE employed methods of administering IDEA that are inconsistent with the purpose of the program.

The parents claim that:
(1) the
FDOE continues funding local educational agencies, despite uncorrected policies that deprive children of a free appropriate public education;
(2) nowhere in Florida law are children with disabilities assured the right to a free appropriate public education;
(3) the state law permitting appeal to a state appellate court infringes on the parties’ rights to offer additional evidence, to receive a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence, and to receive all appropriate relief from the court reviewing an administrative decision;
(4) the
FDOE failed to provide a forum for state educational agency review of local educational agencies’ due process proceedings, resulting in unnecessarily difficult, expensive and ad hoc judicial decisions interpreting state special education laws without the benefit of the state educational agency’s hearing or review; and
(5) the FDOE failed to provide notice to parents of the state complaint procedure.
In response to the parents' lawsuit, the FDOE claimed that the Whiteheads failed to exhaust available state administrative remedies. In February, 1996, the District Court granted the FDOE’s motion to dismiss on these grounds.

Florida DOE Fails to Provide Parents with Notice

Because the Whiteheads’ claims challenged the efficacy of the state system of procedural safeguards, and because they could find no provision in state law that provided administrative remedies for their claims of systemic noncompliance with federal law, they requested the FDOE to provide them with whatever proceedings it alluded to in its successful motion to dismiss the federal district court action. They requested notice of the laws, regulations and rules that would apply in that proceeding.

Legal counsel to the Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida submitted the matter to the DOAH for an administrative hearing. The FDOE failed to provide the Whiteheads with notice of state laws that applied to the proceeding. Subsequently, the DOAH hearing officer requested briefing of his legal authority. Again, the FDOE failed to provide specific notice of applicable state laws or of the rights and responsibilities of the hearing officer or of the parties to the proceeding. It asserted that DOAH did not have authority to declare state law inconsistent with federal law. Nonetheless, the DOAH failed to dismiss the action.

Because FDOE’s made numerous requests for continuance of the hearing, the administrative hearing officer determined that the Whiteheads’ claims were not subject to the 45-day deadline for claims cognizable under the IDEA, even though the FDOE had obtained dismissal from the district court based on IDEA administrative exhaustion requirements. The matter was scheduled for hearing eight (8) months after the Whiteheads’ request.

Florida DOE Hired Private, Out of State Counsel

Weeks before the hearing, the FDOE hired private, out of state counsel, to represent them in substitution for the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Florida. Pending at that time was the Whiteheads’ assertion that the hearing officer lacked authority to conduct the hearing.

The FDOE, through its new counsel, agreed that the hearing officer did not have authority to entertain the Whiteheads’ claims. Although the FDOE requested the DOAH proceeding, it claimed that the Whiteheads had requested the wrong kind of administrative proceeding and that the parents must still exhaust administrative remedies. It asserted that the Whiteheads must file a complaint with the FDOE itself pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 300.660 - 300.662 (State Complaint Procedures), before they could present their challenge to a court.

The hearing officer recommended that the FDOE dismiss the administrative proceeding. The FDOE failed to act on this recommendation.

The parents have asked the District Court to reinstate their lawsuit against the FDOE and to conclude that exhaustion is excused or has occurred. In a limited appearance for the FDOE, the new out of state counsel reasserted that the parents must file a state complaint with the FDOE before their claims that the FDOE’s system of administering the IDEA are cognizable in a court of law. These matters are pending in the district court.

The Whiteheads continue to pursue their claims that the futility of administrative proceedings created and procured by the FDOE and the School Board for Hillsborough County deny parents the due process of law and access to the courts.

I have represented the Whiteheads since 1993, shortly before they requested the due process heaing . For trial, the Whiteheads retained co-counsel services of Mitchell D. Franks, Esquire, and Dabney L. Conner,

I hope this article provides you and your readers with the "inside story" of Andrew Whitehead's jury trial.

Laura L. Whiteside, Esquire
318 South Edison Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33606- 2112
(813) 251-0456
To Top
Created: 06/06/98
Revised: 11/10/06

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Never Underestimate a Member of the Valkyrie Black Belt Ta-Tarinies

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Her Marbles Keep Falling Out

Lee Decesare, the priggish Pinellas popinjay maintains her status as the district’s chief pain in the patoot.

Recently, she requested the entire email history of Linda Kipley, MaryEllen Elia, and Don Quixote

Decesare is still steamed that Sam Erwin( aka Doug Erwin) was screwed by the district, that Jim Hamilton is paid as a part-time lobbyist for the district, that Ms. Elia does not have a doctorate, and that Martians haven’t show her much interest.

The district’s response…a great one….is, “We’ll be happy to comply with your request. Simply be prepared to pay the costs of all staff salaries, benefits, and office supplies as a result of your requests.”

Freedom of information ain’t cheap.

I will admit that Ms. Decesare has one redeeming value: We can all use her as a benchmark for our own sanity. If you think her thoughts have value, you probably have canaries leaking out of your birdcage.

Somebody once wrote that my rantings here are similar to hers. Well, no. First, she has much more energy than me. If I write five words, she’ll write five hundred. Second, I’ve never addressed a school board meeting flashing my ta-tas.

Mr. Shultz, on my first visit to your blog after defending your free-speech rights today at the board meeting, I find that I am the subject of a keen piece knocking me to hell and back.

Crude but lively, sir.

Pray allow me to respond.

I take exception to nothing except the questionable diction of your last paragraph. What, pray, is standard English for "ta-tas," as in "flashing ...[her-De Cesare's ] ta-tas" at a board meeting?

If "ta-tas" mean "breasts," then I must say you are not a gentleman. No gentleman refers to a woman's ta-tas if she has passed her seventieth year. I have.

That ta-ta term of denigration of women's breasts bespeaks obsession, ingratitude, and sexism.

Had not women in the Darwinian stream of humanity in the descent of the species offered their prehistoric ta-tas to the babies, none of us would be here today.

Men are markedly ambivalent about ta-tas.In fact, men's obsession with ta-tas has made ta-tas front and center in all pornography publications, a billion-dollar industry consumed by mixed-up men who both jeer at and worship women's ta-tas.

Another dimension of the ta-ta locution involves its leering sexism. When men are not staring at women's ta-tas, they are jeering at us of the ta-ta phylum for our supposed ta-ta-related frailties.

We radical feminists of the ta-ta sisterhood, however, don't stand mute at insults to our sex's anatomy and physiology.

We riposte.

A guy using the ta-ta putdown is likely get the sneer from us ta-taettes that he is one of the stuffed-crotch brigands who parade around macho poseur such as President Bush did in his stuffed-crotch pilot outfit on the deck of the ship when he announced that shock and awe and magnificent stuffed-crotch offense had won the Iraq war in 24 hours several years ago. We are still there, however, with stuffed-crotch padding littering the Iraqi streets.

Women also speculate in the beauty parlor about which guys are on IV Viagra and which are Viagra-lozenge suckers 24-7. These are the guys who perpetually intone, "Baby, baby, don't get hooked on me." Such fakers do not get good press in the beauty parlor. They get hoots and peals of soprano laughter.

We women are also likely to post on powder room walls the lousy skills of the ta-ta name callers in bed or sell the occasional ejaculatio praecox story to the National Inquirer.

One of Jesse James's strip-club paramours said that very thing about the old bloviator: that he is a dud in bed. One is sure it crushed him. Men can't hold up their heads or anything else when women out their sexual inadequacies. That would be women with ta-tas we're talking about. Along with ta-tas goes a reliable talent for viciousness. Ask any biogenicist.

I want to make the acquaintance of that young woman with the splendid ta-tas that could feed sextuplets who dissed Jesse James's in-bed maneuvers. I shall nominate her for a Nobel in putting the old stuffed-crotch poseur to shame.

"Well done, my dear, " I shall say. "Keep up the good work until men learn to treat women as human beings and stop reducing them to their secondary sexual characteristics such as the bearers of ta-tas."

One notes from skimming your blog that only two board members get your wrath: Valdes and Griffith. The others are swell in your book. That review shows that you lack depth of analytic probity--probably because you can't keep your mind off ta-tas. Kurdell and Olson are paragons in your book. Not mine. They both participated in or covered up the thuggery in which the board and administration tried to fire Mr. Erwin because he discovered ROSSAC graft and theft. These fiends also schemed to deprive him of his pension, but they are just swell according to you. Your head's messed up if you think so. That's the fate of men with ta-ta fetishism: their synapses burn out on them.

Hail and farewell, Mr. Schmidt. I wish you well in your partial board attacks. All of the board members and upper administration need a thrashing in my view and then a kicking out.

None of the board members deserve re-election. They run the schools like a small-time crime syndicate in the Bronx.

If you have any quarrel with the comments in this missive, pray meet me in the parking lot--any parking lot--and I will clean your clock, sir. Some of us elderly ta-ta carriers are black-belt Valkyries.

Have a nice day.

lee Ta-Ta de cesare

Ethics Charge Against Board Member Griffin

Dave Schmidt has left a new comment on your post "Putting the Screws to Free Speech":

Mrs. Decesare: Thank you for your kind words. Yes, April Griffin did indeed seek revenge for my blog and she indeed had me "thugged."

While you and I go about business differently in our blogs, we both have First Amendment rights which our politicians must accept. April did not and I paid a price.

But, this matter is still unresolved and Ms. Griffin must campaign for another term this spring and summer. She has five other candidates to face and I believe she can and will be defeated. Her vengeance against me is the tip of the iceberg.

Next week, I will file a Florida Ethics Commission complaint against her in another matter. Certainly, I will post that information on my blog at

Again, thank you for your interest and support.

Dave Schmidt

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by Dave Schmidt to Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch at 2

Mr. Schmidt: Don't ever forget that this punishment you got is about free speech. The administration and board lay in wait to trap Steve Kemp with a bogus charge because he had a blog.

They can't stand anybody's telling the truth about how vile is their behavior in running the schools. They don't want to have the information get out unexpurgated by the Community Affairs office and are scared to death of blogs because bloggers may let the cat out of the bag. That's my goal:to let the cat out of the bag and let the public know that crooks are running the schools.

I hope you do file an ethics charge against April. She ran on a platform of cleaning up the schools and within weeks of her election she was one of the ROSSAC gang: she did a complete roll-over capitulation. She lacks courage and civic spirit. I pray one of her challengers beats her. I don't think anyone could be worse than April.

Don't forget my offer to leaflet. I have spent some of the best times of my life on the picket line.

Fight on, and let me know what I can do. I learned my tactics in the Women's Movement. We were up against a behemoth of prejudice and learned to use sharp elbows with the best of them.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the administration, April, and other board members will use ethical maneuvers. It's gutter from start to finish with them. lee

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

No Funding for Board and Administration Fascism

Our only son, Leo, is a NASA engineer. So we get rocket pictures. lee

Secretary Arne Duncan

LBJ Education Building, 7W233

Washington, DC 8044


Dear Secretary of Education Duncan:

Florida lost out in the first round of federal grant money because, one infers, teacher unions opposed the grants.

The unions should have. The emphasis is always on teachers' performance as the problem.

What about administrative and board performance?

In Hillsborough County, the school administration has bloated salaries while teachers

must work second jobs in many cases to make ends meet.

Superintendent Elia gets $300,000 a year while beginning teachers get $32,000.

Administrators who can't make their subjects and verbs agree get $150,000.

When there is a problem in the administration, usually due to low IQ and habitual dithering, the board rubberstamps consultant big bucks for these fixers to come in and teach with flash cards the obtuse administrators how to do their jobs.

Ms. Elia runs a jobs racket perquisite ceded her by a complicit board in which she is free to hire buddies, sycophants, and hangers on. Ms. Elia got her own job by the board's incestuous actions of lowering the Ph.D. requirement to Elia's master's and counting as valid her on-site supervisory experience in which she overbuilt classrooms and didn't see a real-estate scam going on under her nose that a SPTimes reporter walked in off the street, spotted, and wrote a series on it. The complicit board wanted a political buddy superintendent who would not disturb their board perquisites such as gadding around the country at taxpayer expense. One board member, Susan Valdes, spent $50,000 in one year playing around from airport to airport while the poor children of the county couldn't participate in class work because their parents couldn't buy the supplies they needed.

Ms. Valdes's motto is that she is "going to save every penny of tax money."

The Gates Foundation

knuckleheads gave this school district a pile of money to improve the schools. To the board and administration, improving the schools always means figuring out ways to kick out teachers. The Hillsborough County board and administration have cooked up a "mentoring" program to improve teachers, and board members now have settled on a five percent reduction in teachers by catching them in the trap of class performance.

The administration does not like teachers; it wants to keep them quiet about what's wrong with the schools and uses the Professional Standards office to cook up charges against teachers and staff so that the administration can fire, demote, or humiliate teachers and staff at will. Their latest blitzkreig was to find a gnat in a guy's files that gave the excuse to demote him and reduce his salary. His real flaw was that he has a blog.

Nobody polices the administration. In the early Nineties one Mr. Erwin filed and won a Whistleblower lawsuit against the board. His settlement was $165,000 for administration crimes against him plus $34,000 for Tom Gonzalez's firm's fee for unsuccessfully defending the board's and administration's criminal actions against Erwin to prove him crazy when he accused the administration of committing crimes and implicitly taking payoffs.

When the administration and board failed in making people believe Erwin was crazy, they launched a campaign led by superintendent Earl Lennard to fire Erwin and take away his pension.

Gonzalez as board attorney participated in the putsch against Mr. Erwin. Gonzalez has the privilege of freelancing with no contract and other clients. He clocks in his unsupervised fees as $275,000 a year from the tax kitty; he is the highest-paid board lawyer in the state and does not read the backup material for the areas he give advice on apparently. Plus his professional manners lack: he swills cola and munches chips on the board podium during board sessions. The board rubberstamps this outrageous waste of tax money to a lazy, slovenly guy with meagre legal skills who cannot write for beans. Why is the mystery. I think it's because he twists laws to say what board members want the laws to say, such as his bowing to Board Member Olson's pressure to declare the state bullying law not applicable to teachers and staff because admitting that it does apply to teachers and staff will give them a tool to repel administrative and board bullying of them.

Bottom line: No grant money for Florida, Mr. Secretary, unless its provisions say both teachers and administrators are subject to review and correction.


Lee Drury De Cesare

15316 Gulf Boulevard 802

Madeira Beach, FL 33708i