LONG & DiPIETRO, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 118 Deroy Street Maa rdngancom ICHAEL 3, LONG “TeLErHone crn 49-0021 ROSAANDIIETHO. PACSLE (31/7801 May 4, 2016 VIA EMAIL babtistet@arps.org Mr. Trevor Baptiste, Chair Amherst-Pelham Regional School District Committee Re: Violations of Maria Geryk’s Rights & Public Records Request Dear Mr. Baptiste: T am writing to you in your capacity as an individual who happens to be a member of the Pelham School Committee, I am also writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the ‘Amherst-Pelham Regional School District Committee. These entities are legally distinct and have different scopes of authority, This correspondence is in response to your email to me of Monday, April 25, 2016, which purported to address concems I had raised in correspondence to a local reporter who had asked Ms. Geryk for a comment on business related to the Pelham School District. My letter spoke to a situation in which the Amberst-Pelham Regional School District Committee, an independent educational body with no jurisdiction over the operation of the Pelham Elementary School, posted and convened an open public meeting at which you allowed public complaints or allegations to be heard against my client conceming her administration of the Pelham Public Schools. The topic was not on the agenda. To state the obvious, since these complaints were registered against Ms. Geryk in her capacity as the Superintendent of the Pelham schools, and not in her capacity as the Superintendent of the regional entity, the Regional School District had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The convening of a public session by the Regional Committee at which the Regional Committee discussed the complaints at length, and received public comment on her performance as the Superintendent in Pelham constitutes interference with the favorable contractual relations she has with the Pelham Public Schools. In regard to the regional meeting, the hypocrisy of your April 25" email is mind boggling. ‘There you state “Since publicly airing grievances between the superintendent and the 1committee that evaluates her is a detriment to the vision we have tasked her to carry out”, and then you criticized my comments to the press. You, sir, are the party who engendered and encouraged the public airing of grievances about the Superintendent, and you did so as an agent of an entity, the Region, which has no jurisdiction over the complaints or Ms. Geryk’s behavior in connection therewith. Your request that I “cease and desist any further public accusations against” the Regional Committee is additional evidence of your lack of understanding of your role on two distinct entities and Ms, Geryk’s constitutional rights to representation. Your April 25, 2016 email is narcissistic and self-aggrandizing on a scale that I have not seen in some time. Since you suggest we be specific about our complaints about you, please be advised we are considering filing a complaint with the State Ethics Commission relative to potential violations of Section 23B of M.G.L. ¢. 268B. We believe that your relationship with the complaining party, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that your actions as a member of the Regional School Committee and as a member of the Pelham Committee in relation to Ms. Geryk’s employment can be influenced as a result of said relationship. Please be advised violations of Section 23B may resuit in the imposition of significant financiai penalties. Second, we believe that by your actions you led the Regional School District Committee into a violation of Ms. Geryk’s rights under the Public Records statute, M.G.L. c. 66, §10 (a)-(c), and M.G.L. c. 4, §7, el. 26, which prohibits publication of personnel information or other information the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Ms. Geryk’s has a privacy right protected by M.G.L ¢. 214 §1B. Third, we believe that you caused the Amherst- Pelham Regional School District Committee to violate the Open Meeting Law, not only in considering matters outside the scope of their jurisdiction, but in the conduct in convening of this meeting, accompanied by a release of this information to the public. Fourth, we believe that you personally violated the provisions of 42 USC §1985(c), to wit that you have engaged in a conspiracy with other individuals to violate Ms. Geryk’s civil rights. Fifth, we believe that Ms. Geryk’s right to due process, protected by 42 USC §1983, has also been violated by your actions in leading the Amherst-Pelham Regional School District Committee into an open inquiry about matters over which the Committee has no jurisdiction. Sixth, while it should have been obvious, I also point out that the action of soliciting public input on these allegations constitutes a breach of Ms. Geryk’s employment contract relative to evaluation procedures. Ms. Geryk has not agreed to and the contract does not contain a process for the Committee to solicit public input concerning her performance. As you know, evaluation goals or objectives are developed annually after careful review, Evaluation goals and objectives are not developed on an ad hoe basis dependent on one parental complaint about alleged mishandling of Seventh, your action in leading the Amherst-Pelham Regional School Distriet Committee into a public discussion about complaints about Superintendent Geryk not only lacked jurisdiction, but violated specific Committee policy which prohibits the Committee from hearing in public session “personal complaints about school personnel... either by name or by reference to position.” [ am sure that had you consulted counsel, counsel would have told you that your actions at the Amherst-Pelham Regional School District Committee meeting were inappropriate and violative of your own policy. That you apparently undertook this public discussion without the benefit of counsel and with a complete disregard for your own policy is shocking but not surprising. You acknowledged that this matter was outside the scope of your jurisdiction at themeeting by referencing it was a Pelham matter, but allowed it to continue for your own political advantage. You were simply grandstanding ‘As will be clear to any objective person who reads Superintendent's Geryk’s chronology, to be submitted to the Committee prior to and at the Thursday, May 5" meeting, this dispute arose out of disagreement with the conclusion of a building level investigation of allegations of student bullying The parental concerns did not allege or focus any allegations on racial discrimination until months after the bullying incident was investigated and resolved, albeit not to satisfaction. The stay away order in question was issued on March 15, 2016, again months after a series of needlessly belligerent and contentious confrontations, all initiated by The conflation of these issues by and your facilitation of that conflation is a blatant attempt to manipulate emotion and redirect attention from objectionable behavior to a larger societal issue. ‘This attempt at blame shifting to redirect public focus away from objectively unreasonably and beliigerent conduct wili not be suffered by Mis. Geryis. Finally, please consider this correspondence a publie records request pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66, §10(a)-(c) for any and all documents, including emails, text messages, screenshots and/or other written or electronically transmitted communications of any kind, and transmitted by any medium or means, between you and or between you and any other individual made or transmitted between the dates of September 1, 2015 and May 3, 2016 relating to complaints, charges or allegations of bullying against her child, or relating anyway to interaction with any employee of the Pelham Public Schools, or with regard to M Geryk’s employment with the Amberst Pelham Regional School district or the Pelham Public Schools. If there is a to be charge imposed consistent with regulation, for segregating these materials, please let me know. An electronic copy of these materials is acceptable. ‘ery truly your, Theo Michael J. Leng. cc: Maria Geryk ‘Thomas Seott Attorney Regina Williams-Tate ‘Tara Luce, Chair, Pelham School CommitteeLONG & DiPIETRO, LLP smuCHAEL3,LONO ‘TELEPHONE gs) 140-011 [ROSANN DIPIETRO FACSIBILE (0) 14-101, Rey T-CONzALEZ naiginesnenm HESLIEC CAREY 308871 LONG. April 15,2016 VIA EMAIL adrane@gazettenet.com Ms. Amanda Drane, Staff Writer Daily Hampshire Gazette Re: Maria Geryk Deer Ms. Drane: We represent the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents of which Maria Geryk, the Superintendent of the Amherst Public Schools, Pelham Public Schools, and the Amberst-Pelham Regional School District, is a member. Ihave been asked to correspond on Ms. Geryk’s behalf in response to your Thursday, April 14, 2016 email. First, this is a matter for the Pelham School District, not the Amberst-Pelham Regional School District. The Regional School District has overstepped its bounds and violated Ms. Geryk’s rights under the Open Meeting Law, and her privacy rights, by addressing e matter that is outside its jurisdiction. Iam attempting to schedule a meeting with officials so that the matter ccan be discussed in the appropriate forum with recognition for Ms. Geryk’s rights. Ms. Geryk’s issuance of a stay away order is well within her authority as Superintendent of Schools. The United States Federal Court for the District of Massachusetts has recognized that a school superintendent may issue a stay away order, even against school committee members. See Tyrell v. Wholley, 567 F. Sup. 2d (D. Mass.. 2008). Ms. Geryk would be pleased to release the details leading up to the issuance of the stay away order. But, as the details relate to a student and a parent, the Superintendent will only do so when the parent signs a virtten release authorizing her to publicize all background materials. We would hope that your readers would understand that, should the parent decline to issue a full release so that the entire story may be told, the parent's version of the events should be viewed skeptically. Further,throughout the course of this matter; Ms. Geryk has worked very closely with School District Counsel Attomey Regina Williams-Tate, of the very highly regarded law firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, and with police officials from the towns of Pelham and Amberst. Ms. Geryk’s decisions in this matter have been very carefully guided by these officials, Any attempt to castor insinuate that the Superintendent's actions are racially motivated is simply misdirection not supported by the facts. In closing, Ms. Geryk welcomes the opportunity 10 speak openly and freely about the ‘matter if the parent is genuinely interested in disclosing all the facts. In the absence of a parental agreement authorizing fall disclosure of all the fects, Ms. Geryk camnot release the background informetion which you have requested. I know you understand that she has been advised by counsel in this regard. Very truly yours, Michael J. Long cc: Maia Geryk Superintendent of Schools Attorney Regina Williams-Tate Katherine Appy, Chair of Amherst School Committee Trevor Batiste, Chair of the Regional School Committee Tara Luce, Chair of Pelham School District ‘Thomas Scott, Executive Secretary, M.A.S.S.Denise Kilrain Mike Long Monday, May 2, 2016 3:28 PM ‘Office’ FW: Matia Geryk d- pls print From: Trevor Baptiste [malto:baptistet@arps.ora] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:06 AM To: i Cex TLuce SchoolComm; Gin! Tate; Katherine Appy; Maria Geryk ‘Subject: Maria Geryk ‘Via Email: ‘wlong@lotig-lavicomn Attention: Michael J. Long Re: Maria Geryk Dear Mr. Long: Ithas recently been brought to my attention that you corresponded with a reporter named Mr, Drane from the Daily Hampshire Gazette on behalf of our Superintendent. Tie Amherst-Pelham Regional school committee did not violate Open meeting law, or the privacy of our superintendent as you allege. Since publicly tiring grievances between the superintendent and the committee that evaluates her is a detriment to the vision wwe have tasked her to carry out, your actions are not helpful. Please cease and desist any further publie accusations against our committee. If you suspect Maria Geryks rights have been violated or that there is otherwise some dispute about an express term of a specific provision in the contract between Maria Geryk and the Regional school committee have Maria inform our lawyer of record that her intention is for you to represent her and we can schedule arbitration on the matter. This is the prescribed method that ensures the school committee can be effective as outlined in the contract between the committee and the superintendent, Each member of the Amherst Pelham regional committee takes his or her responsibility to dictate the direction of our School system seriously. This is done thru deliberations on finance, policy and the evaluation of our superintendent, Maria Geryk. Do not continue to hamper our efforts. In service to my community ‘Trevor BaptisteChair Amherst Pelham Regional Schoo! Committee cc Maria Geryk, Superintendent of Schools ‘Tara luce Chair, Pelham School District Katherine Appy, Chair Amherst school District Attomey Regina Williams-Tate Glenn Koocher, Executive director, M.A.S.S.