Lighthouse Jericho

The March 21 Jericho Board of Education meeting was quite a dramatic event, again. Front and center was the ironic dispatch of board trustee Sam Perlman. He, once again, chose to use his position as a board trustee to bring to light his personal vendettas, this time as a complaint of being recorded by a district employee while he was having a conversation with a student. He presented this accusation publicly and demanded an investigation. No evidence, no facts. You can read what he said (here), since he sent it to a local paper as a letter to the editor. The response from the district’s lawyer was puzzling since it seems this was the first time anyone had heard of this complaint. It should have been, as was mentioned by the lawyer, brought up in executive session and as soon as it occurred, not waiting weeks to make a publicly dramatic display. The efforts this man goes to paint himself as a victim when he behaves, every month, as a clear and obvious bully. His repeated abuse of his position as a trustee to present his warped side of things is something this community should not tolerate. We should wonder where this investigation will lead and how much it will cost the district. Especially since Sam Perlman is so concerned about how much these investigations are costing taxpayers. It’s too bad he doesn’t seem to care about the victims making the complaint or the truth. 

Ironically, his statement was later followed by a rebuttal to his previous month’s claim of bias toward the PTA hosting a candidate’s forum for Board of education candidates moderated by the League of Women Voters. The PTA has been hosting the candidates forum event for over 20 years. They don’t select questions or participate in the forum in any way, except to sponsor the activity for building use purposes. At the February Board of Education meeting Sam Perlman accused the PTA of violating National PTA guidelines and creating a biased and unfair event for candidates running for Board of Education positions. Again, abusing his position as a Board of Education trustee to disparage the reputation of a group that has remained impartial and has provided years of leadership and service to the students of this district. The PTA statement made at the March 21 meeting, refuting his February claims, was followed by other supportive statements by community members calling on the Board of Education to behave in a way that our students should see as a positive example, not as an example of poor behavior.

This Board of Education needs to stop this board trustee from abusing his position to promote his own personal attacks. He continually presents misinformation as fact without opportunity for clarification or truth. If the Board cannot get him to behave more honestly, then the voters need to get the job done.

We were again subjected to an extended discussion of Board policy that showed clearly how a member of the board of education wants one standard for himself and another for anyone who disagrees with him.

The Board was presenting several policies which would establish a code of ethics and behaviors for board members. These policies were prompted by a recent investigation in the behaviors of a certain board member towards staff members and other board members.

The first policy up for discussion was met with a snag when a point was introduced that any board member who accepted a campaign contribution would be forced to recuse themselves on any vote related to the donor. The point of contention was clearly made by two board members who have been very critical about the support current school board members received from the community and unions in the recent school board elections. Perhaps these board members were upset because their supported candidate(s) lost in both elections.

The board then discussed a policy specifically about how board members should speak to one another and refrain from vitriolic speech toward one another during board meetings. The sticking point was that there should be no consequences for violating these expected behaviors. Coincidentally, the opposition to any consequences for violating this board policy came from the person who is under investigation for the abuses the policy is attempting to prevent.

Contributions to campaigns come in many shapes and forms. Printed endorsements, verbal endorsements, social media posts, volunteerism, and money to pay for campaign materials. There is a difference between a board member or politician voting on a matter by which they themselves or their immediate family would benefit (financially or otherwise) and participating in a vote that might involve someone from the community who assisted in their election. Part of a code of ethics, written or otherwise, would expect that an honorable person would recuse themselves from decisions in which there would be an actual or perceived conflict, or a decision in which they would personally benefit.

For example, an honorable person would recuse themselves from discussion at a meeting (or might even excuse themselves from the meeting) in which they themselves were the object of an investigation. It might seem to people observing the meeting that the person was attempting to intimidate or pressure their fellow board members from acting independently and in the best interests of the school district and community.

The Jericho School District deserves honorable Board of Education members who hold themselves to the same, if not higher, standards of behavior and ethics that are expected for the students and staff who learn and work there. Civility is not be something a Jericho board member should need to be counseled or reminded about, it is expected as a standard of behavior.