Press Releases Flying Around Everywhere!
by SCRGadmin on Mar.27, 2010, under Our School System
PRESS RELEASE:
Complaints made against Stow Citizens for Responsible Government (SCRG) were settled by the Ohio Elections Commission in Columbus on March 18, 2010. The complaints were filed in a sworn affidavit by Stow-Munroe Falls Superintendent Russ Jones on behalf of the district’s levy committee (complete documentation of these complaints will be posted to this website shortly).
Of the 20 complaints filed, 16 were dismissed by the commission. The four remaining dealt with the cost of snow days, reference to a levy as permanent and two procedural accounting errors. These inaccuracies have been corrected and a minor public reprimand was addressed. No fines were imposed and no further discipinary actions were taken against SCRG.
According to figures supplied by District Tresurer, Catherine Bulgrin (Stow Sentry, February 14, 2010), the district paid $20,496 in legal fees to pursue this issue in 2009. That amount does not include fees for depositons, fees for compiling and executing a formal resolution in which the Board of Education became a participant in the actions, and any additional fees incurred in 2010 as a result of this filing.
Further details on the above release and the documentation that will be posted on the SCRG website may be obtained by contacting:
Don Bettio, Stow Citizens for Responsible Government, 330-688-8297
16 Comments for this entry
-
Welcome to the new Stow Citizens For Responsible Government website!
Click here for Website Navigation Help
Please note as of the most recent post's date, NO ONE has stepped forward to challenge any fact presented on this website. The easiest way to stay updated is to subscribe to our RSS feed, send us a message, or join us on our Facebook page!
Loading ...
We use Digsby to manage our social networks.
What do you use?
We use 1&1 for our hosting!
March 28th, 2010 on 1:02 am
So …. our illustrious school district paid $20,496 in just legal fees to pursue some Mickey Mouse complaints against Stow Citizens for Responsible Government (SCRG).
This does not surprise me. Our school district appears frightened to have an independent group — that is a group outside the education establishment –looking over its shoulder. Heavens know what might be uncovered!
Such scrutiny is not the way the administration and its stooges think things are suppose to work. To them, taxpayers exist merely to pour money into the schools, not to question how that money is spent by the so-called education ‘professionals.’
One has to wonder if the complaint to the Ohio Elections Commission is anything other than a crass attempt to try and stifle and/or intimidate critics of the school district.
But I think all this backfired. From what I can see, Don Bettio has not been cowed. In fact, he may have been strengthen & energized.
Also, Stow Citizens for Responsible Government learned a valuable lesson. It has to be extra careful in the future. Every “t” has to be crossed and every “i” dotted; such is the sorry nature of the ‘public servants’ that SCRG is dealing with.
IMHO, Stow and Munroe Fall will need SCRG more than ever down the road as the negotiations get serious on the new teachers contract.
Specifically, will the BOE & administration try to give away the store again??? We’ll see, for that’ll be when a push for a big tax-increasing levy will be made in earnest. And maybe the complaint to the election commission was an attempt to help clear the way for this tax hike.
March 29th, 2010 on 5:50 pm
In settling these complaints, Superintendent Jones states, “I’m very pleased with the agreement and we stand firm…that information given to the public is accurate.”
Jones based these charges on his claim that SCRG was largely responsible for two failed levy appeals (Aug. & Nov. 2008). He seems content to minimize the fact that this fledgling group was hardly a threat – a few homemade signs, a hurriedly constructed website and one public meeting. That meeting, by the way, was monopolized by the staff, administration and board members, all attending courtesy of a request by Board President Denny Mariola.
What Jones fails to realize is that SCRG owes much of its celebrity to him and his puppet school board. Did he ever contact this group with his complaints to try a cooperative approach? Or did he think that the threat of high-priced lawyers would be enough to disband the renegades?
As far as we know the district has spent $20,496 on legal fees for these complaints in 2009. Repeated requests to the treasurer have failed to uncover costs for 2010. I guess we’re supposed to believe that day-long depositions, composing a lengthy board resolution and representing the district at the hearing with the Ohio Elections Commission were all done pro bono.
The administration and school board have been laboring for over a year with small “community engagement” meetings. In that time all they have come up with a list of cuts(suggested by attendees) that they are asking the community to prioritize. That way, if the next levy fails, they won’t need to listen to the residents complain, the community will be responsible for picking the cuts. SCRG can rest easy, there is a new scapegoat.
This “accuracy” thing Jones is so pleased with must be a one-way street (but the next time a levy is unsuccessful – look in the mirror).
March 29th, 2010 on 7:05 pm
Well I see that Dr. Jones is back to his game. I hope or pray that this Mr. Bettio keeps up his good work.
We the residents are tired of Attorney fees and back talk.
This game cost us tax payers $20,496 when is it going to STOP? When is the SCHOOL BOARD going to wake up?
March 30th, 2010 on 4:02 pm
I could not believe the board president and superintendent had the guts to say that they respect the First Amendment Rights of citizens. What a bunch of bunk.
Why then has this board dropped 2 of the 3 areas on their agenda for audience participation that had been in place since 2000 but ended in 2008 when the new people were seated on the board?
Why now have they incorporated a consent agenda rather than voting on each issue separately? This should only be used if there has been public discussion by board members at a previous meeting. Consent implies they all agree, are there no questions from members to the administration about anything? The superintendent and treasurer know exactly what they are doing even if the board does not.
Why is the public repeatedly told after asking questions during any meeting, that they will get back to them or put into writing and submit it to the treasurers office as a public record request?
To cite but one example: a question asked last year by a citizen at a meeting “if anyone on the board had a relative working within the school district?” Instead of immediately responding YES, TREASURER BULGRIN IS THE FIRST COUSIN of BOARD MEMBER KAREN WRIGHT they all turned beet red, jaws dropped and members Matthews and Wright actually started yelling that the question was out of order and member Marriola simply said NO. All five sat there along with the treasurer and superintendent, heard Marriola not tell the truth and did absolutely nothing. If they aren’t honest about something so simple how can we be expected to believe what they say?
After disemboweling their own district finance committee which had acted autonomously for 6 years, it does now appear that they did in fact systematically set their sights on the Stow Citizens for Responsible Government, another group of people who don’t blindly follow. I suspect that anyone who dares to ask questions, which is our right, this group of seven people will stop at nothing to further their cause, THEMSELVES, at our expense.
I do hope that the SCRG will put all the facts pertaining to the complaint on this site. Only then will we be able to find out for ourselves whether the superintendent, treasurer and the board members have wasted citizens money yet again.
April 2nd, 2010 on 12:54 pm
Thank you to Stow Citizens for Responsible Government for continuing to question and research actions of the superintendent, treasurer and school board.
Anyone who wants the best for Stow and the children in our school district should be grateful that SCRG is taking their time to work at keeping us informed.
It appears that obtaining factual information from the treasurer, superintendent and BOE requires superhuman efforts because they have removed opportunities for citizens to ask questions or comment at meetings. They have made it a difficult process to request simple records. They have put attorneys in the middle to confuse and intimidate citizens. They have shortened meetings, thrown in comments without putting them on the BOE agenda, and created a new nonprofit group without publicly announcing it and its purpose.
It appears that the complaints against SCRG regarding school levies were not done in isolation. What about the information on this site concerning the Golf Outing where it appears the superintendent and those whose names appeared on the registration form raised money, put the money through the PTA treasury, and had the money paid to the levy committee? The levy committee had to return the money to the PTA who gave part of it to the school district. The school district treasure returned it to the PTA. What was that all about? It was all about levies and it appears it was all directed by the superintendent. Is this how our citizens want our district to operate?
If it all looks funny to you, then you should demand more accountability from our district employees who are paid with our tax money. Why do we allow them to circumvent parliamentary procedure and throw up roadblocks to make their actions much less than transparent?
Keep up the good work SCRG!
April 2nd, 2010 on 11:41 pm
Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with most posters on here.
Peter: It is not “Mickey Mouse.” If a group such as this is going to make false statements, then they need to be held accountable. Nothing peeves me more — and I find it extremely irresponsible — when a group/organization makes false statements. You lose all (or most) credibility. How difficult is it to ENSURE what you’re posting is, in fact, factual? It shouldn’t take long. I hope this site DID learn a lesson.
Reva — this has nothing to do with First Amendment right (and nothing ticks me off more than when people cite then when they don’t know what they’re citing — READ The Bill Of Rights, will ya?). The First Amendment has no relevance here. None of us have Freedom of Speech (again, if you knew the Bill of Rights and the laws, you’d know this. In fact, an attorney this group has retained in the past is finding out as well by being sued for defamation).
I see the same couple of people constantly complaining to the Stow Sentry and making baseless and/or uneducated accusations and assumptions. It’s quite embarrassing and pathetic for those people because they’d rather show their ignorance than actually educate themselves. I HATE that about people. While people are complaining about the school, city and everything else “wasting” money, this website is responsible for that as well. Again, I’m all about accountability for ANYONE who publicly and knowingly makes false statements. This group got held accountable (although the district could’ve pushed to have the owners pay the fees…and rightfully so).
I realize the school board’s behavior is suspicious (understatement), but how about being better than that and making sure everything you post IS fact-based. It’s one thing if one of US (posters) makes an assumption — but a PAC has to be careful because law allows you to be reprimanded. I just came across this site a few weeks or so ago and I hope that more due diligence is taken to ensure what’s posted is FACT.
You guys (this site) can REALLY make a difference in this city. Not trying to rail…but again, can’t stand people who make false statements behind a cover. That’s all.
April 3rd, 2010 on 8:13 pm
Sorry JJinStow, but from my viewpoint I’ve found over 90% of what SCRG complained about to be true. There were some mistakes (minor ones that did not affect the school district) but the vast majority of what was stated is true. I hope the listing of the complaints and their results will be posted soon as promised by SCRG. I have also learned that there are other much more serious problems that are being worked on but, from what I understand, the documentation is not ready for presentation. The news stories certainly did make the SCRG look a little foolish, but that is the difference between a committee with no money and an organization with an unlimited supply of money. So far, I think the SCRG has them on the run.
April 5th, 2010 on 1:28 pm
JJinStow: One could be hopeful that readers would notice that only two “facts” out of more than 18 were found to be incorrect. Not perfect, but certainly worth questioning why the district went to all the trouble to file complaints at the taxpayers’ expense.
So you are satisfied that SCRG is being held accountable for two “facts” that were incorrect. It is good that the public is reading. It would be better if the public did some questioning and research without the “same couple of people” doing it for them. Why aren’t more people concerned about the actions of the superintendent, treasurer and BOE?
Is it really factual to say that these same couple of people are innacurate and ignorant?
So much could be said here…..What about the majority of the information posted which was not be found to be innaccurate? If the postings here that were found to be innacurate by the commission are worthy of “HATE”, certainly the postings that ARE accurate should arouse more than “suspicion.”
This is a good opportunity to discuss just what is accurate and what is not. Let’s get down to the details. What do you think of the district spending over $20,000 for attorneys fees before the BOE voted to do so?
April 5th, 2010 on 7:18 pm
To JJ in Stow: Unless the COUNSTITUTION has changed in the past year, the first Amendment states FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGION AND OR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, or the right of the people to assemble peacefully, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances. It may do YOU some good to read the CONSTITUTION (Of the United States). You see, the Superintendent by law is given 30 days to correct his mistake, but this SCRG group, in its efforts to educate the public as to what and why this superintendent and board members are doing DOESN’T HAVE THAT LUXURY. I see this SCRG group has been in existence for over a year and the superintendent is now questioning their website??? MAYBE SCRG IS HITTING THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, or maybe the Superintendent and the School Board have been exposed and don’t like it. I suggest you take a more active part in School Board meetings and maybe you will be MORE PRO STOW LIKE THIS GROUP. Maybe you ought to join this group in it’s efforts, as I may.
April 5th, 2010 on 11:56 pm
Calm down, JJ – “HATE…rail…nothing peeves me more…nothing ticks me off more”. Seems like most of the posters here hit a nerve with you. Too bad “None of us have Freedom of Speech” – you might actually learn something.
I wish you held the school administration to the same lofty standards you do this citizens group. You seem to find the superintendent’s “facts” very palatable.
I’m glad SCRG gives people of varying opinions the opportunity to post here. I’ll bet they don’t even HATE you for it. They probably won’t even call you “irresponsible, baseless, uneducated, embarrassing or pathetic.”
April 6th, 2010 on 8:33 pm
JJ in Stow seems to be too full of HATE (her words) and not enough with respect for the right to free speech to see clearly.
That our school district is so senstitive to criticism that it has to resort to bully tactics is a clear indication of just out of touch it is from the community it is suppose to serve.
And I’m not just speaking about the Mickey Mouse complaints against the Stow Citizens for Responsible Government (SCRG), but also the near habitual reluctence to be forthcoming with requested information, etc.
I can’t wait to see how the administration and its stooges in the community will act when information is pried out of them on the uncoming teachers union contract talks. Left to their own devices, I have the feeling that the Russ Jones administration and the sorry excuse we have for a BOE would like nothing better than to give away the store again.
What angers them …. and what generates their HATE … is that it won’t be as easy to do it this time as it was last.
April 10th, 2010 on 4:56 pm
Oh Peter, stop. You and your “hate” stuff. Yeah, I HATE when people knowingly state stuff that is false. I’ve always hated it. It’s called being RESPONSIBLE (something many people — esp. the usual complainers to the Stow Sentry — know nothing about).
And please don’t cite the Constitution to me. I know what the Bill of Rights are and what your Freedom of Speech says. But you do not have the right to say whatever you want, without consequences. You can not defame, libel or slander someone/thing. Freedom of Speech does NOT give you that protection. I work in a specific industry that deals with this type of freedom everyday. So, spare me your citations as an attempt to think you know what you’re talking about.
It doesn’t matter how many were found to be factual. Taking a claim to the whatever OFFICIAL agency they did is no different than filing a lawsuit. One can make all the claims they want, but it is a matter of PROVING them. Just because most of their claims were unfounded, does not mean that the ones that were hold no merit or their complaint was a joke. Some of you seem to be missing the point because you’re so hellbent on “only” being found guilty of a few misstatements. That’s not the point.
Since you know the school has you on your radar, up the ante. Since you know this is the BS they’re going to go through, BEAT THEM at their own game! I am not defending the BOE in the least. But do NOT give them a reason to do this again. I DO question what they are doing. I stated this before. Heck, I would love to see them recalled and tossed, but that costs money and, quite honestly, is not very effective. But the TRUTH is effective. Misstatements are not. I would have no problem being a member of a group. But c’mon folks. I also stated previously this group can really have a voice. Just be responsible with what you publicly post. That includes writing — using your names — to the Letters to the Editors in the Stow Sentry. I am not a member of any part of the school district or board, but I will have a child going to the school in the next year.
I also hate (oops) when school levies come up because people vote “NO”, but it really hurts the kids, when people are taking their anger out on the Administration. When levies get shot down, the KIDS feel the hurt. We live here for a reason. We send/sent/about to send our kids to this district for a reason. I would vote for a levy if it was on the ballot because it affect US and the kids (although there are some changes I would like to see made that would save the school $$ — and I am not talking teachers salaries).
I’m just saying folks. Like I said, I’m not ripping you — but please — time to move on. Really. I’m going to start attending these board meetings when my schedule permits.
April 11th, 2010 on 1:45 pm
” …although there are some changes I would like to see made that would save the school $$ — and I am not talking teachers salaries).”
Why not? The over compensation given to terachers is where most of the bloat is.
And I’m glad you’re learning to curb your HATE. It is not becoming.
+++
“Since you know the school has you on your radar, up the ante.”
Now this is true, but isn’t it ironic that a servant of the community (the schools) dares to put its critics in the community of the radar? This is backwards. It is something you’d expect to find in totalitarian countries, not America.
April 11th, 2010 on 3:26 pm
JJ has finally made a point that citizens use the ballot box to voice their displeasure rather than address problems before a levy appears on the ballot.
This is exactly why I and others are taking the school administration to task. Citizens can work towards keeping the superintendent, treasurer and BOE accountable before voting day. It takes an incredible amount of commitment and time …time one could spend on happier things.
Agreed that SCRG made 4 errors. They do not dispute this. But, they are trying to make the point that this administration used unnecessary means to achieve community support.
Why doesn’t this administration opt for transparency of their affairs? Why doesn’t the BOE open up to more public comments like the previous board did? Why does the treasurer send public records requests to an attorney when the previous treasure handled them at no additional expense? Why did BOE disband the finance committee? Why did staff members take notes at “community engagment meetings and reject citizens ideas when it was time to report to the group? It goes on and on. This superintendent, treasurer and BOE have in actuality limited the citizens’ ability to question them.
The issues raised against the school administration have been done by citizens who do have much background knowledge and experience which they could effectively support and cite with reference materials, examples and dates.
April 12th, 2010 on 5:00 am
Unfortunately, what really hurts the kids is poor administration and inept fiscal management. Many of the writers here have been solid supporters of the educational process, and taking issue with the management does not diminish their concern for the students’ welfare.
Many emotional issues will be proposed before the next levy appeal – cutting busing, increasing fees for participating in sports and extracurricular activities, closing schools…The truth is, unlike many previous requests for new money, the public is demanding answers. So far, the “transparency” we hear so much about is becoming increasingly opaque.
April 13th, 2010 on 1:50 am
JJinstow: I agree with OEC. I saw nothing in the SCRG’s list of complaints that would be construed as libelous or slanderous. So I agree with the minor reprimand they received. I can’t agree with your statement that the other complaints “held no merit”. That material was included in the hearing, I am sure, to show the Superintendent was also capable and guilty of making “false statements and misleading information”. In other words, I think he has been exposed. Also, I think you missed the point: It really has nothing to do with the amount of money spent or “being found guilty of a few mistatements”. It has to do with trust. Trust that government electees and appointees will practice what they preach when they say they are “transparent”.