Post Date: March 30, 2018
From Page 4:
In order to credit the allegation of a violation of N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(b), the Commission must find evidence that Respondent used or
attempted to use his official position to secure an unwarranted privilege, advantage
or employment for himself, a member of his immediate family, or others. By using the Board’s attorney to draft his
ethics complaint, and subsequently billing the Board and the taxpayers for this
work, Complainant asserts that Respondent received an unwarranted privilege. In his Answer, Respondent simply denies, or
neither admits nor denies, Complainants’ contentions. After review, and because the record indicates that Respondent, in his
capacity as Board President, asked and/or solicited the Board attorney to draft
a complaint that was unrelated to Board business, and then the Board and the taxpayers
were billed for the work performed, the Commission finds probable cause to
credit the allegation that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).
From
Page 5:
As set forth in N.J.S.A. 6A:28-6.4(a)(4),
factual evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) shall
include, but not be limited to, evidence that Respondent gave a direct order to
school personnel or became directly involved in activities or functions that
are the responsibility of school personnel or the day-to-day administration of
the school district. Complainant
contends that because the Business Administrator and the Superintendent are the
only individuals who are authorized to request legal services and/or advice
from the Board attorney, Respondent’s solicitation of work from the Board
attorney was tantamount to administering the schools. In his Answer, Respondent blanketly denies,
or neither admits nor denies, Complainant’s allegations. After review, and because the record indicates
that Respondent did not, in fact, have the power or authority to request, or
receive, the legal services provided by the Board attorney, Respondent’s
actions may have usurped a function that is delegated to others, namely the
Business Administrator and the Superintendent.
Accordingly, the Commission finds probable cause to credit the
allegation that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d).
The
Most Serious (Also on Page 5):
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 6A:28-6.4(a)(5), factual
evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) shall include
evidence that Respondent made personal promises or took action beyond the scope
of his or her duties such that, by its nature, had the potential to compromise
the Board. Complainant alleges that
because Respondent used the Board attorney for a personal use, and then lied
about it when asked, his actions compromised the Board because he caused other members
of the Board to approve bills that resulted in misappropriation of public tax
dollars. In his Answer, Respondent
simply denies, or either admits or denies, Complainant’s assertions. After review, and because the record indicates that Respondent expended
public tax dollars for a private purpose, and then was less than forthcoming
when confronted, there is reasonable ground to find that his actions resulted,
or could have resulted, in the Board, as a whole, misappropriating public tax
dollars. Consequently, the Commission finds
probable cause to credit the allegation that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e).
From
Page 6:
Additionally, Complainant shall no longer be a party
to the Complaint. Where the Commission
finds a probable cause and transmits a Complaint to the OAL, the attorney for
the Commission shall prosecute those allegations in the Complaint which the
Commission found probable cause to credit.
N.J.S.A. 6A:28-10.7(b)(1).
Link to the Probable Cause Notice dated March 27,
2018:
Link to the Ethics Complaint filed against me by
Dominic Miller (Miller used Board attorney Anthony Sciarrillo to draft the complaint
against me and then billed the Lodi taxpayers for the work performed):
Link to Ethics Complaint filed against Dominic Miller:
Dominic Miller is off the Board but will still have to
answer for his actions. Unfortunately,
the two people that pulled his strings are still running the show and cashing
in for themselves. They used Miller and
then threw him under the bus. I guess they can feel better about themselves knowing that Miller was promoted in the police department before they threw him under the bus.
I don’t enjoy filing ethics complaints. They are time consuming. I have received no assistance from any
lawyers or anyone else. I had to pay a
lot out of pocket for printing and postage.
I filed the complaints because I felt it was the only
recourse I had to protect the Lodi taxpayers from unethical behavior, public
corruption, and the misappropriation of tax dollars.
I wish that we can be discussing education. I want the Board to focus on the students.
I hope that the Board refocuses its attention to where
it matters. Off the chart salaries,
unwarranted raises, and other costly giveaways for Capizzi and Quatrone should
not be our top priorities right now or ever.
