Last year, a special meeting was called just so the
Lodi Board of Education can get Licata an attorney for an ethics complaint against him. When I opra-ed the
minutes to that special meeting, I received one page which is posted
below. The meeting was strictly for
authorizing the claim. That must have
been very important.
Recently, a claim was filed with the insurance
provider to retain an attorney for Miller, Carafa, and Nardino. The board never authorized it. Some trustees were never notified.
But there was an email trail from Mr. Miller to Mr.
Capizzi to Ms. Dichiara to Mr. Quatrone.
Ms. Dichiara advised: “It is my opinion that Mr. Quatrone should authorize Mr. Capizzi to
forward this matter to New Jersey School Boards Insurance Company immediately
since the responses to the complaint are time sensitive.”
Mr. Quatrone is the
superintendent. He deals with our
schools and academics. It is not his
responsibility to deal with ethics complaints against board members in matters
that don’t involve him.
What is Ms. Dichiara’s “opinion”
based on this year? What was her “opinion”
based on last year when a special meeting was called and the board’s vote was
required?
Why so inconsistent? Should “employees” that don’t live in Lodi
and were never elected be usurping the authority of board trustees? Doesn’t this disallow for any form of checks
and balance?
Side Note: Many board
members throughout New Jersey answer ethics complaints without attorneys
because they have some regard for the taxpayers of the communities in which they
serve. Every ethics case is
different. Some may require legal
advice, others don’t. Answering a
question about a vote to remove the Mayor’s son definitely does not require an
attorney. It could be answered in one
simple sentence: “The Board Attorney advised us that we can vote so we did.
Period.”
Before the vote took place,
Trustee Mastrofilipo warned of a possible ethics violation with the voting and
made it known that we don’t want tax dollars spent defending it. If people want to use bad judgment and
baseless opinions, they should use their own money or resign their seats to
avoid an additional cost. It is not “reasonable”
to spend thousands of tax dollars on something so ridiculous. I don’t believe $5,000 is a “reasonable”
counsel fee. It’s excessive. It’s an abuse. It’s unauthorized.
