Sunday, May 29, 2016

Merit goal completed before it was introduced...





On Jamie Ciofalo’s since edited Linkedin page, he listed:  "Founder/Lead Presenter of the Educators Training Institute (January 2014)".


On Joe Licata’s Motion to Dismiss, he stated that he and Ciofalo developed the program “in or about 2014” to raise funds for Club.  He stated that Lodi educators can attend the workshops at no cost to the Lodi BOE and other Boards of Education would pay a fee.


According to them, the program was already established and used by the Lodi BOE during the 2013-14 school year.


Yet, on August 26, 2014, Joe Licata voted to set the merit goal posted above. 




He voted to affirm that Mr. Quatrone attained that goal on May 27, 2015.




How can the Board President set a goal that had already been completed during the prior school year?


In Licata’s Motion to Dismiss, he stated the following:  “It is my understanding that Mr. Ciofalo was given permission to use a professional development day when giving a workshop at the Boys & Girls Club by the Superintendent.  The Lodi Board of Education did not vote on this matter as we were advised that no board action was required.”


Licata’s Attorney wrote:  “Mr. Ciofalo was given permission to use a professional development day when giving a workshop at the Boys & Girls Club by the Superintendent.  The Board of Education did not vote on this matter.”


Joe Licata and his attorney are placing all responsibility on Mr. Quatrone (who just happened to get $4,187.50 out of the deal).   


Joe Licata never stated who advised him that no board action was required.

Friday, May 27, 2016

Joe Licata’s “motion to dismiss”…DENIED.





Today, I was notified that the School Ethics Commission denied Licata’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and 4.  Count 1 involves the most serious abuse.


The Lodi Board of Education voted to get Licata an attorney and pay her with Lodi tax dollars.  The taxpayers of Lodi should be outraged.


Licata and his attorney submitted a large packet arguing for the dismissal of all four counts. 


I replied with a responsive brief arguing against the dismissal of Counts 1, 2, and 4.  Count 3 was a clear ethics violation but I acknowledge that it did not fall with the 180 days of my filing.


I am disappointed that Count 2 was dismissed as “untimely” because I clearly showed that Licata was in violation for 2016 as well as 2015.  Why have financial disclosure statements if they don’t count?


I believe in transparency.  The public has the right to know what is before the Commission.  Below is the responsive brief I provided.  Showing is page 1, followed by a link to the entire brief.  Click on the link below page 1: