Post date: October 14, 2018
On June 26, 2018 the School Ethics Commission denied Frank Quatrone’s motion to dismiss:
On June 26, 2018 the School Ethics Commission denied Frank Quatrone’s motion to dismiss:
Some more past posts on the subject:
https://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/2018/04/response-to-motion-to-dismiss-by.html
The SEC placed complaint C10-18 on its August 28, 2018 regular meeting agenda for a “Probable Cause Review”.
https://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/2018/04/response-to-motion-to-dismiss-by.html
The SEC placed complaint C10-18 on its August 28, 2018 regular meeting agenda for a “Probable Cause Review”.
The SEC called a special meeting on September 5, 2018 for
the same complaint.
At the end of September, I was notified that Frank
Quatrone was dropped from the complaint and that a hearing would be scheduled in
the OAL court for the remaining board members. The remaining board members stated that they
approved Scorzetti’s girlfriend on the recommendation of Quatrone. It made no sense. The notice was at complete odds with the SEC's denying of Quatrone’s
motion to dismiss just a few months prior.
Unlike other Probable Cause Notices, this one didn’t
address the overwhelming evidence I submitted.
It was based solely on Mr. Quatrone’s dishonest statements that 1) Mr. Quatrone had no knowledge that the
person he recommended was in a relationship with BOE Trustee/Police Chief
Donald Scorzetti and 2) Mr. Quatrone had no involvement with the selection of
Donald Scorzetti’s girlfriend.
Overwhelming evidence was submitted that Mr. Quatrone
knew he was recommending Scorzettti’s girlfriend and that he gave her special
advantages.
The School Ethics Commission held a regular meeting on
September 25th. Minutes for
prior meetings are usually posted within three days. No minutes were posted for weeks. On Friday, the minutes for August 28th
and September 5th were finally posted.
Action was taken on August 28th
pertaining to C10-18 only to be rescinded a few days later at a special meeting where only five
commission members participated, all by telephone.
A new decision was approved the same day.
What decision was reached on August 28th that was to be drafted? Why was a special meeting called just days
later where C10-18 was the only complaint reviewed and acted upon? Why was the action taken on August 28th
rescinded? Why did only 5 members
participate, all by telephone? What was the urgency? Two fifths of the
members that participated by telephone on September 5th are superintendents. One superintendent has the same board attorney that Lodi recently hired. The other superintendent was in a bunch of articles for being the highest paid superintendent in Middlesex County. Both were clearly protecting Quatrone.
The School Ethics Commission owes the residents of
Lodi an explanation. Everyone can see
that their actions are contradictory and make no sense.
From the August 28th minutes:
From the September 5th minutes:
