North Tonawanda School District Officials, ERIE 1 BOCES Labor Relations Manager Perpetrate Fraud, Malice, Misuse of Federal Proceeding

Note to Readers: It is recommended that, at the very least, post entry dated March 23, 2008, ERIE 1 BOCES "Employee" Colleen A. Sloan, Esq. Designated FERPA Hearing Officer be reviewed prior to reading this post.

The Standards: Public Integrity, Rule of Reason, Family Education Right to Privacy Act (FERPA); Amendment of Education Records C.F.R. 34 Sections 99.20, 99.21 and 99.22 of FERPA Regulations, New York State Education Department Commissioner's Rules & Regulations Truant and/or Unlawfully Detained (the two categories of unexcused absence in New York State), and North Tonawanda City School District Attendance Policy, North Tonawanda High School "Agenda" (2005-2006, p 7-11).

The Truths: Principal James V. Fisher, among other matters, egregiously and with intent to perpetrate fraud and malice, violated New York State Education Law when he issued a directive to Michael's Grade 9 teachers to deny me access to Michael's coursework for a period of 34 days, beginning October 13, 2005 through and including December 2, 2005.

At the time of the FERPA Records Amendment Hearing, City of North Tonawanda School District Superintendent Dr. John George (retired), Andrew J Freedman, Esq. (CNTSD School Board Attorney), and FERPA Hearing Officer Colleen A. Sloan, Esq. were aware that North Tonawanda High School Principal James V. Fisher's false report of Educational Neglect to New York State Office of Children and Family Services was determined "Unfounded" by Niagara County Department of Social Services. Therefore, City of North Tonawanda School District failed IN FACT to prove Michael TRUANT or UNLAWFULLY DETAINED from school; the two categories of unexcused absence in New York State Education Law, and the category by which City of North Tonawanda High School Principal James V. Fisher repeatedly directed Michael's absence from school be recorded as "unexcused", and the category by which Principal Fisher issued a directive to Michael's Grade 9 teachers to deny me access to Michael's coursework.

Each school official was also clearly aware that FERPA Hearing Officer Colleen A. Sloan, Esq. is required by law to render her DECISION consistent with New York State Education law.

Ms. Sloan instead makes every effort to forge a DECISION that attempts to conceal the fact that the City of North Tonawanda School District egregiously and illegally denied Michael his RIGHT TO EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION, effectively denying Michael access to all coursework for the period mentioned and repeating Michael to Grade 9. Ms. Sloan in fact further perpetrates fraud, malices and misuse of a federal agency proceeding by mis-representing and/or omitting stated objections to the Hearing, and by further alleging testimony that never occurred from me, or Principal James V. Fisher related to home/hospital instruction. Ms. Sloan made every effort to join home/hospital instruction to the record in question with knowledge that home/hospital instruction services to Michael had no rational relationship to the attendance record in question.

"...Hearing Officer's
DECISION

In February 2006, Rhonda J. Mangus, mother of Michael A. Mangus (DOB [omitted]), requested that the North Tonawanda City School District ("District") amend certain education records of her son maintained by the District, including his attendance records. 1 James V. Fisher, Principal of North Tonawanda High School, sent Ms. Mangus a letter in which he, in effect, denied Ms. Mangus' request. 2 Ms. Mangus then requested that the District provide a hearing under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA") regarding her request for amendment of her son's attendance records. 3

I was designated by the District to serve as the hearing officer in this matter. 4 The hearing was held on March 21, 2006, beginning at approximately 9:40 a.m. in the Superintendent's Conference Room, 175 Humphrey Street, North Tonawanda, New York.

The Hearing was held in accordance with 20 USC 1232g(a)(2) and 34 CFR [Sections] 99.20 through 99.22, along with applicable Board of Education Policy and Administrative Regulations. 5 Ms. Mangus was given the opportunity to be represented at the amendment hearing by individual(s) of her choice, and she was accompanied by her attorney, James E. Rolls, Esq. Ms. Mangus was given a full and fair opportunity at the hearing to present relevant evidence. The District was represented by its school attorney, Andrew J. Freedman, Esq. Principal Fisher also appeared at the hearing.

The following represents my decision as hearing officer, along with a summary of the evidence presented at the hearing and the reasons for my decision.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Mangus objected to the hearing going forward, and also objected to my serving as hearing officer on the basis that I had been selected by the District's Superintendent of Schools. Although Ms. Mangus then indicated that she wished the hearing to proceed as scheduled, I did consider her objection to my serving as hearing officer.

FERPA itself establishes only minimal requirements for the conduct of a records amendment hearing. The federal regulations implementing FERPA at 34 CFR 99.22(c) state that an amendment hearing "may be conducted by an individual, including an official of the educational agency...who does not have a direct interest in the outcome of the hearing."6 The regulations allow, and the legislative history of FERPA supports, that even a school's own employees can under most circumstances conduct a record amendment hearing (including, presumably, the Superintendent).7 According to the Family Policy Compliance Office ("FPCO"), which administers FERPA and its implementing regulations, "districts should have some flexibility in conducting these hearings consistent with a rule of reason." FPCO has stated that "a rule of reason approach suggests that the deciding official...must be someone who does not have a personal or professional interest that would conflict with his or her objectivity in the hearing. Reason suggests that ordinarily a school or agency would not assign as a hearing officer either the individual who determined not to amend education records or someone who is in direct reporting or close collegial relationship with that individual."8

There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the Superintendent himself was specifically involved in the determination not to amend Michael's records. If, under FERPA, he could have conducted the hearing himself, then there is no reason he could not designate an outside party to do so without somehow influencing that person's decision. I am not an employee of the District; as such I am not in direct reporting or close collegial relationship with the Superintendent or with Mr. Fisher, the individual who did make the determination not to amend the records. I was not involved in Mr. Fisher's determination. There was no evidence presented at the hearing upon which to conclude that I have a personal or professional interest in the final outcome of the hearing, or that I could not be objective. Therefore, I did not recuse myself as hearing officer.

RECORDS SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE

In accordance with FERPA, a parent or eligible student has the right to request a hearing to challenge the content of the student's education records on the grounds that the information contained in the records is inaccurate, misleading, or in violation of the privacy rights of the student.

At the hearing, Mr. Rolls objected to Michael's attendance records maintained by the District to the extent any of the records indicate that Michael was absent without excuse from the period beginning October 13, 2005 through and including December 2, 2005. For example, Michael's Student Progress Report for the second marking period ending January 20, 2006 indicated a total of 34 instances of "unexcused" absence for that period.9 A "Student Absence Summary" prepared from District computerized records on March 2, 2006 confirmed that Michael was marked absent 34 times from October 13, 2005 through December 2, 2005, and that each of those absences was recorded by the District as "unexcused."10

According to Mr. Rolls, Ms. Mangus does not dispute the that her son was in fact absent on each of the above dates. However, Mr. Rolls indicated that the basis for Ms. Mangus' objection to the attendance records is that all of those absences should have been recorded as excused absences.

According to Mr. Freedman, Michael's absences on the above dates were properly designated and recorded by the District as "unexcused," in accordance with District policy and regulations which specify those absences the District regards as "excused" and "unexcused."

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

The evidence at the hearing established that District's Board of Education has determined that the absences will be considered "excused" or "unexcused" according to the following:11

Excused: An absence, tardiness or early departure may be excused if due to personal illness, illness or death in the family, impassable roads due to inclement weather, religious observance, quarantine, required court appearances, attendance at health clinics, approved college visits, approved cooperative work programs, military obligations, road test, school field trip, take your child to work or other such reasons as may be approved by the Board of Education.

Unexcused: An absence, tardiness or early departure is considered unexcused if the reason for the lack of attendance does not fall into the above categories (e.g., family vacation, hunting, babysitting, hair cut, obtaining learner's permit, oversleeping).

Students at the High School are further informed via the Student Handbook that the following will be considered "legitimate excused absences" from school:12

Court appearance
Illness (medical appointments)
Family death
Education
Religious observance
Local impassable roads

The evidence at the hearing established that students receiving approved home instruction are considered by the District to be "in attendance."13

According to Ms. Mangus, her son received a written death threat on October 12, 2005. As a result, she immediately took her son out of school, informed the school that he would not return until the matter was investigated to her satisfaction, and requested that his teachers send work home for him.14. Ms. Mangus stated that she requested home instruction for her son, and Mr. Fisher told her she needed to bring in a doctor's note. She stated that at first she told Mr. Fisher that she would not get a doctor's note; that her son's absences were due to the circumstances surrounding the threat he received. However, according to Ms. Mangus, Michael ultimately was diagnosed by his doctor as depressed. Michael's pediatrician sent a letter to the District dated November 21, 2005, indicating his belief that Michael was depressed and as such should be afforded home instruction.15 Ms. Mangus stated that Mr. Fisher requested that she then complete an additional form in order to receive home instruction. According to Ms. Mangus, she provided the completed form to the District as requested. Michael has received home instruction since December 5, 2005. Ms. Mangus stated that this situation with her son was an extraordinary circumstance, and as such the records of Michael's attendance should reflect all of his absences from October 13, 2005 through December 2, 2005 as "excused." Mr. Rolls stated that the examples of what is considered "unexcused" absence in District Policy (i.e., vacation, haircut, etc.) include "nothing remotely reflecting was was going on here," and "if any [absence] deserves to be excused, this does."

Referring to District Policy and the Student Handbook, Mr. Freedman reiterated that only certain types of absences are considered "excused" by the District. Mr. Freedman stated that whenever a student is absent, parents are required to submit a legitimate written excuse for the absence; if no such excuse is provided, the absence is considered unexcused. Mr. Freedman indicated that Ms. Mangus never provided documentation to the District that would have placed Michael's absences during the period in question into one of the categories of absences considered "excused" by the District. Mr. Freedman stated that during this time Ms. Mangus voluntarily chose to remove her son from school and keep him home, based on her perception that school was an unsafe environment for her son. According to Mr. Freedman, the District never suspended Michael or indicated that he could not return to school following the alleged threat. In fact, the District took steps to compel Michael's attendance.

Mr. Fisher confirmed that on October 12, 2005, Ms. Mangus came to him and informed him that Michael had received an anonymous death threat in his agenda planner, and that she was taking him home. Mr. Fisher stated that given the circumstances, he did not object to Michael leaving school on that day. Mr. Fisher outlined the steps he followed to respond to Ms. Mangus' request for home instruction, including the District's requirement that certain documentation be completed (including information as to the treating psychologist/psychiatrist) whenever the request for home instruction is based on a diagnosis of depression.16

Mr. Freedman stated that it was not until December 5, 2005 that Ms. Mangus provided the above documentation as requested by Mr. Fisher, but as soon as she did, "the categorization of Michael's absences changed."

District records indicate that Michael was in fact on "home teaching" as of December 5, 2005; his absences were no longer recorded as "unexcused."

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based soley on the above evidence presented at the March 21, 2006 hearing, I find that Michael Mangus' attendance records, specifically those that indicate that he was absent a total of 34 times without excuse from the period from October 13, 2005 through and including December 2, 2005, are not inaccurate, misleading or otherwise an invasion of the student's right of privacy.17

According to FPCO, the right of a parent or eligible student to challenge information in education records is not unlimited. A school is not required by FERPA to afford a parent the right to seek to change substantive decisions made by school officials, as opposed to ministerial or computational errors. See, e.g., Tarka v. Cunningham, 917 F.2d 890 (5th Cir. 1990), where the court denied a student's challenge to a grade under FERPA, stating that "students' grades as reflected in educational records can only be inaccurate or misleading if they do not reflect what the grader intended or if they are mathematically incorrect."

Case law and administrative decisions construing FERPA suggest that in order for a record to be deemed "inaccurate" or "misleading," it must be found to be "incorrect" at the time it was written, or, it must be found that because of an omission, or the means of expression, the content of the record casts the student in a false light or gives an erroneous impression. Compare, e.g., Carter v. Orleans Parish Public Schools, 555 IDELR 419 (5th Cir. 1984), where the parent successfully sought expungement of record that identified his children as mentally impaired when in fact they were not; with Nenana City Public Schools, 18 IDELR 489 (SEA AK 1991), where review officer denied parent's request to remove an IEP from her son's file that reflected services that had been subsequently changed, as the IEP was appropriate when it was written.

Here, Ms. Mangus does not assert that Michael's record of attendance is inaccurate or misleading because he was absent a lesser or higher number of days than actually recorded, or that he was absent on different days [than] actually recorded, or that he was not absent at all. Ms. Mangus asserts that Michael's record is inaccurate or misleading based on the perceived circumstances surrounding the threat against him, his medical condition, or both, the District would have more accurately determined and recorded each of Michael's absences as excused instead of unexcused.

Regarding absences related to a medical condition, the evidence at the hearing established that Ms. Mangus did not initially claim that Michael was being kept out of school because of any medical condition. The evidence established that she initially informed the District, both in writing and by telephone, that she was keeping her son out of school because of the threat made against him. Although she later provided the District with a letter from Michael's pediatrician stating his belief that Michael was depressed, she did not provide the District with specific information regarding Michael's diagnosis and treatment in accordance with its procedures for requesting home/hospital instruction for his condition, until on or about December 5, 2005. The evidence clearly established that once that information was received, the District immediately began providing Michael with home instruction, and his records accurately reflect his status as "in attendance" from that date forward. Therefore, I cannot find that Michael's attendance from October 13, 2005 through December 5, 2005 is inaccurate or misleading based on his medical condition.

Regarding absences based on perceived circumstances surrounding the threat against Michael, Ms. Mangus' attorney conceded that this may have been her personal choice. The evidence clearly established that such circumstances were not specifically included in the District's definition or list of examples of "excused" absences. Ms. Mangus basically argues, however, that the District made the wrong decision when it decided that her son's absences do not "go with" those other types of absences specifically considered excused.

There is no question in my mind that deciding to characterize Michael's absences based on perceived circumstances surrounding the threat against him as "unexcused" versus "excused" was a substantive decision by the District. There is no right to challenge such substantive decisions under FERPA.

CONCLUSION

The FERPA regulations provide that if, as a result of an amendment hearing, it is determined that the challenged information in the education is not inaccurate, misleading or otherwise in violation of the privacy rights of the student, the district shall inform the parent of the right to place a statement in the record commenting on the contested information in the record or stating why he or she disagrees with the decision, or both. If the district places such a statement in the student's education records, the district must maintain the statement with the contested part of the record for as long as the record is maintained, and, disclose the statement whenever it discloses the portion of the record to which the statement relates.18

I recommend that the District inform Ms. Mangus of the above right.

Dated: April 21, 2006

s/Colleen A. Sloan
Colleen A. Sloan, Esq.
ERIE 1 BOCES Labor Relations Services
Hearing Officer"

Please Note: I have not yet placed a statement in Michael's record. I did forward correspondence to Ms. Sloan regarding her Decision, which will appear in the next post. The exhibits referenced here will be posted at a later time. 

ERIE 1 BOCES "Employee" Colleen A. Sloan, Esq. Designated FERPA Hearing Officer

The Standards: Family Education Right to Privacy Act (FERPA); Amendment of Education Records C.F.R. 34 Sections 99.20, 99.21 and 99.22 of FERPA Regulations, New York State Education Department Commissioner's Rules & Regulations Truant and/or Unlawfully Detained (the two categories of unexcused absences in New York State), and North Tonawanda City School District Attendance Policy, North Tonawanda High School "Agenda" (2005-2006, pgs. 7-11).

The Truths: At a FERPA Hearing held at CNTSD Administration Building, 175 Humphrey Street, North Tonawanda, NY on 21 March 2006, at 9:30 a.m., before Colleen Sloan, Esq., designated Hearing Officer by former (retired) CNTSD Superintendent Dr. John George, I appeared with James Rolls, Esq.. Andrew J. Freedman, Attorney for City of North Tonawanda School District and North Tonawanda High School Principal James V. Fisher were also present at the Hearing.

Introductions were exchanged and the Hearing began to move forward. As Ms. Sloan began to proceed with the Hearing however, it was necessary for me to interrupt her for the reason that I had objections to the Hearing to state for the record:

"1. I have filed a Complaint on behalf of my child Michael Mangus with the Division of Human Rights against City of North Tonawanda School District charging City of North Tonawanda School District with unlawful discriminatory practice relating to education in violation of Article 15 of the Executive Law of the State of New York because of Sexual Orientation and Andrew J. Freedman, Esq. is the attorney of record for City of North Tonawanda School District.

2. I object to the fact that Dr. George, a party to the above action and having a direct interest in the outcome of this Hearing, selected the Hearing Officer on this matter.

3. I also object to the fact that I have been forced to seek this Hearing as a result of the City of North Tonawanda School District's willful disregard of a Decision, dated January 19, 2006, by New York State Office of Children and Family Services Abuse and Maltreatment Register that determined that a report of "educational neglect" was unfounded because no credible evidence was found to support the claim.

4. I further object to the fact that I have been forced to seek this Hearing as a result of the City of North Tonawanda School District's willful disregard toward State Education Law, Compulsory Education Under New York State, because the City of North Tonawanda refuses to acknowledge that Michael's absences cannot be defined as truant or unlawful detention.

The Records that are inaccurate: Attendance Records: There are 34 unexcused absences on Michael's report card for the period October 13, 2005 to December 2, 2005."

Throughout the Hearing, Attorney Freedman repeatedly attempted to bridge a relationship between Michael's absences and a subsequent medical request for home instruction, which bears no rational relationship to Michael's absences from school during the aforementioned time (Michael was removed from North Tonawanda High School on 12 October 2005 for the reason of a discovered written death threat against him for his sexual orientation/gender expression; a threat that put him in fear for his life. Michael was not removed from NTHS on 12 October 2005 for reason of illness/sickness).

In requesting and receiving evidence, Ms. Sloan refused to accept copy of initial correspondence from New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated 9 November 2005, and copy of final correspondence from New York State Office of Family and Children Services dated 19 January 2006, as evidence that the City of North Tonawanda School District failed to provide credible evidence of "educational neglect" therefore confirming that Michael was never truant or unlawfully detained from school, that Michael's absences from school should have been in fact recorded as excused, and that Michael was entitled to all coursework requested for him by me during the course of this time period.

As the Hearing drew to a close Ms. Sloan indicated that she would render her Decision within ten (10) days. Ms. Sloan's Decision is self-explanatory. A subsequent Affidavit of Ms. Sloan in a 310 Appeal later filed with New York State Education Department Office of Counsel on the Matter of Rhonda Mangus, on behalf of Michael Mangus v. Actions of a Hearing Officer and the City of North Tonawanda School District, Appeal No. 18345, is self-explanatory as well, and will be posted accordingly.

Please Note: A certain unsettling encounter took place at the Administration Building prior to the commencement of the Hearing. The event evolved from my request to Attorney Andrew J. Freedman for the City of North Tonawanda School District Administration Policy and Procedure Manual. Attorney Freedman's response was "Go sit down!" When I again requested the Manual for Attorney Rolls' review, Mr. Freedman's response was "Go sit down, before I call the police!" I immediately returned to Attorney Rolls and conveyed the incident to him. Attorney Rolls looked at me in disbelief. The Manual was never produced at the Hearing, Attorney Freedman claiming it was not on-site, Attorney Rolls' was given instead City of North Tonawanda School District's (invalid) NTHS 2005-2006 "Agenda", and my concerns prior to attending the Hearing were validated. Ms. Sloan was made aware of the event during the Hearing; Commissioner Mills would be made aware of the event in the first formal appeal to him, known as a Section 310 Appeal.

Please also note: Among other matters, I would learn (well after the FERPA Hearing) that Ms. Sloan does in deed hold both personal and professional relationships (as an "Employee" of Erie 1 BOCES) with City of North Tonawanda School District (CNTSD). Further, that Ms. Sloan is Manager of Erie 1 BOCES Labor Relations Service whose staff is available to provide seminars and in-service training on a wide range of topics to participating districts, including presentations on Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Level 2 Labor Relations Service also provides "Telephone consultation and information on specific pupil personnel issues such as attendance, denial of credit,...FERPA...". Furthermore, I would also learn that Erie 1 BOCES collaborated with CNTSD in the compilation of CNTSD Administrative Policy and Procedure Manual. Additionally, City of North Tonawanda School District also utilizes Erie 1 BOCES computer software, and has agreements with WNYRIC (cf. http://eboces.wnyric.org).

Andrew J. Freedman, Esq. (North Tonawanda CSD School Board Attorney) Appointed FERPA Hearing Officer

The Standards: United States Department of Education, The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA); 20 U.S. C. Section 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99 and Section 99.22 What minimum requirements exist for the conduct of a hearing?

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. FERPA also gives parents (or eligible students) certain rights with respect to their child's education records. Parents have the right to inspect and review their child's education records maintained by the school. Parents also have the right to request that a school correct records which they believe to be inaccurate or misleading. If the school decides not to amend the record, the parent (or eligible student) then has the right to a formal hearing. If, after the hearing, the school still decides not to amend the record, the parent has the right to place a statement with the record setting forth his or her view about the contested information. The statement must remain with the contested part of your child's record for as long as the record is maintained. FERPA cannot be used to challenge a grade or an individual's opinion unless it has been inaccurately recorded. Additionally, if FERPA's amendment procedures are not applicable to a parent's request for amendment of education records, the school is not required to hold a hearing under FERPA on the matter.

Under FERPA, Section 99.22 What minimum requirements exist for the conduct of a hearing? "The hearing may be conducted by any individual, including an official of the educational agency or institution, who does not have a direct interest in the outcome of the hearing."

The Truths: In correspondence dated 1 March 2006, addressed to Principal James V. Fisher, North Tonawanda High School, I stated that I believe that there is inaccurate information in Michael's education records, the specific information that I believe is inaccurate, the reason I believe such information is inaccurate, and my evidence to support my belief that the information is inaccurate:

"...1. Attendance records for the period October 13 - December 2, 2005 reflect thirty-four (34) un-excused absences.

2. In correspondence to you dated October 12, 2005, you were informed that Michael would not return to school until I was satisfied that the death threat against him was investigated. That Dr. John George (Superintendent of Schools), and Detective Smith (Juvenile Division, North Tonawanda Police Department) were copied on this correspondence.

That in addition to said correspondence, I telephoned the Attendance Office on school days between October and November 2005, indicating that Michael would not be in attendance pursuant to my correspondence to you (you may confirm this with Ms. Yager, Attendance Office).

3. NTCSD failed to prove that Michael's absence was un-excused (unlawful detention and/or truancy).

If you still believe, as stated in your correspondence of February 14, 2006, that "Michael's attendance records...are consistent with NTCSD Board of Education Policy, then FERPA provides that I receive a hearing on this matter. Please inform me in writing as to the date and time of the hearing...." (former Superintendent (Dr. John George), former NTCSD School Board President (Scott Schultz), an alleged Guidance Counselor (Mrs. Colleen Fisher), and Ms. Yager, (Attendance Office), were copied on this correspondence).

On March 2, 2006, I received correspondence from Dr. John George regarding my FERPA Hearing Request. Dr. George advises me that he has "designated our school attorney, Andrew J. Freedman, Esq., to hear the matter. The hearing is scheduled for March 10, 2006 at 10:00 A.M. in the Board of Education conference Room, 175 Humphrey Street, North Tonawanda, New York 14120. You may have an attorney present at your own expense if you so choose.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

John H. George, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools"

Dr. George copied Andrew J. Freedman, Esq., Hearing Officer and James V. Fisher, Principal.

By letter dated 2 March 2006 to Dr. John George, I objected to Dr. George's appointment of Andrew J. Freedman Esq. as Hearing Officer under FERPA, Section 99.22 What minimum requirements exist for the conduct of a hearing? By letter dated March 8, 2006, from Susan L. Villiers (North Tonawanda City School District Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services), Ms. Villiers informed me that "Based on a review of this matter, it was determined that Mr. Freedman, under FERPA, Section 99.22, does not have a direct interest in the outcome of the hearing. However, due to your concern, the District is willing to designate another individual as hearing officer."

Ms. Villiers further informs me that the hearing scheduled for Friday, March 10, 2006 has been postponed, and by letter dated March 15, 2006, Dr. George informs me that he has designated Colleen A. Sloan, Esq. of Erie 1 BOCES to hear the matter on March 21, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in the Superintendent's Conference Room, 175 Humphrey Street, North Tonawanda, New York 14120. Dr. George goes on to say "You may have an attorney present at your own expense if you so choose."

New York State Office of Children & Family Services Proceeds With Charge of Educational Neglect

The Standards: Laws of the State of New York Article 6, Title 6, Section 424(7), which states:

"Duties of the child protective service concerning reports of abuse or maltreatment. Each child protective service shall determine within sixty days, whether the report is "indicated" or "unfounded"."

Administrative Subpoena Duces Tecum to North Tonawanda City School District to produce "Educational records of Michael Mangus including but not limited to Home teaching record for the time frame: September 2005 to the present. Failure to comply with this Subpoena may be punishable as a contempt of Court and make you liable to the person on whose behalf this subpoena was issued for a penalty not to exceed fifty dollars.

The Truths: In a Hearing before New York State Office of Children & Family Services Administrative Law Judge Jean Greinert held at Niagara County Building in Niagara Falls, NY this past Friday, February 1st, the witness for New York State Office of Family and Children Services in a charge of "educational neglect" against me, arrived one hour late for a scheduled hearing to begin at 12 Noon. I read my opening statement before Judge Greinert, stating that Judge Greinert had "evidence before her of an egregious and illegal abuse of authority by New York State Office of Family & Children Services and Niagara County Department of Social Services personnel who violated, among other things, the Laws of the State of New York, Article 6, Title 6, Section 424(7), which states the duties of the child protective service concerning reports of abuse or maltreatment. "Each child protective services shall determine within sixty days, whether the report is "indicated" or "unfounded". " The initial report of "educational neglect and inadequate guardianship" was made November 29, 2006, and was not "indicated" until May 8, 2007. (I was able to reverse the charge of "inadequate guardianship" prior to learning that NYS OCFS and Niagara County Department of Social Services had in fact exceeded the statute of limitation and has no legal standing.) I then requested that the matter be promptly expunged and sealed and preserved my right to commence legal action on this matter. I also stated for the record that if New York State Office of Children and Family Services continues with this course of action, that I am requesting an adjournment to subpoena witnesses for examination.

I was not granted an adjournment or an opportunity to subpoena witnesses for examination as Judge Greinert then asked NYS OCFS Attorney Laura Wagner if she was ready to present her case. I entered evidence, twice objected to by Attorney Wagner, that City of North Tonawanda School District defied the Administrative Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by Judge Greinert back on December 5, 2007, to produce all of Michael's educational records and evidence that sources for the charge were unreliable, including "school officials" and a school board attorney. NYS OCFS could not provide evidence that Michael was released by his doctors for regular attendance to school.

Attorney Wagner repeatedly asked leading questions of me, not objected to by Judge Greinert who also gave no indication that she would hold City of North Tonawanda School District in contempt for violating the Subpoena. Judge Greinert did indicate however that she will render her Decision in 2 weeks.

City of North Tonawanda School District Files Second Charge of Educational Neglect to NYS Office of Children & Family Services

The Standards: Laws of the State of New York Article 6, Section 424(7). Parental Rights to the Care, Education and Upbringing of Their Child(ren), New York State Regents Student Bill of Rights, City of North Tonawanda School District Policy and Procedure (2005-2006), New York State Penal Code 240.50.

The Truths: In November 2005 North Tonawanda High School Principal James V. Fisher filed a false report of Educational Neglect against me when I refused to return Michael to school until Administration performed a complete investigation into the written death threat Michael discovered in his NTHS Day planner and directed toward his sexual orientation and gender expression. Principal Fisher's solution to the death threat against Michael included issuing a directive to Michael's Grade 9 teachers to refuse all requests made by me for class/homework assignments and file a false report to New York State Office of Family and Children Services, Niagara County Department of Social Services division for educational neglect after further and admittingly in SWORN Affidavit of a lengthy conversation with my son's father one week previous to filing the false report claiming "role of father unknown", and holding knowledge of the reasons for Michael's absence from school, as well as the fact that I followed City of North Tonawanda School District Policy and Procedure (which must conform to New York State Commissioner's Rules and Regulations) in the reporting of Michael's absence from school. Principal Fisher's report of educational neglect was determined within sixty days to be "unfounded". In other words, Principal Fisher could provide no credible evidence that I was neglecting Michael educationally, or that Michael was truant or unlawfully detained from attending school.

Nevertheless, Principal Fisher over the course of a thirty-five day period continued to refuse my requests for access to coursework for Michael and Michael ultimately was failed to repeat Grade 9 as a result of this action. A 310 Appeal, including a Request for Stay, to Commissioner of Education Mills to grant Michael his legal right to complete coursework and take exams was denied. Further efforts by me to file criminal charges against Principal Fisher for willfully and intentionally filing a false report with New York State Office of Family and Children Services have been prevented by City of North Tonawanda Police Department and former Niagara County District Attorney, Matthew J. Murphy, III.

In this most recent charge allegedly filed by another City of North Tonawanda School District employee in November 2006, charging me with educational neglect and inadequate guardianship, I was able to reverse the charge of inadequate guardianship finding prior to discovering that New York State Office of Family and Children Services had exceeded New York State statute of limitations and in fact has no standing in law to proceed with the Hearing scheduled for this Friday, February 1 at 12 Noon, in Niagara Falls, New York before Administrative Law Judge Jean Greinert for the reason that the Laws of the State of New York Article 6, Section 424(7) states that within sixty days the report is to be "indicated" or "unfounded". Niagara County Department of Social Services caseworker, Robin Stroud, did not "indicate" the report of educational neglect until May 8, 2007, nearly six months after the initial report made by City of North Tonawanda School District personnel.

These recent charges are another attempt by City of North Tonawanda School District to cover-up mal-administrative, negligent and fraudulent responses of Principal James V. Fisher to his responses to the death threat against Michael, complete disregard for parental rights, and complete disregard for medical professionals who have not released Michael for regular attendance to school, as well as to cover-up the mal-administrative, negligent and fraudulent responses of New York State Commissioner of Education Mills, who himself repeatedly failed to execute the duties and responsibilities of his office to protect Michael's rights in education and Michael's right to a safe environment in which to learn.

The school district's continued filing of false charges against me and cover-up for City of North Tonawanda School District personnel by numerous state agencies and individuals remains un-redressed as I continue pro se on these matters.

POST ENTRY: North Tonawanda High School "Administrator" Continues to Jeopardize Safety of Students...

The Standards: Project SAVE and Commissioner's Rules and Regulations 155.17 School District-Wide Safety Plans.

The Truths: A recent post entry by me titled "North Tonawanda High School "Administrator" Continues to Jeopardize Safety of Students, Staff and Visitors" was removed from this BLOG by me for the reason that in re-reading TONAWANDA NEWS reporter Phil Dzikiy's article "NORTH TONAWANDA: Bomb threat at NTHS" conflicting statements were noticed related to the procedure(s) followed during the bomb threat alleged to have occurred 11 January 2008 at North Tonawanda High School. According to a statement by Lieutenant Tom Krantz, "North Tonawanda police checked the school and determined there was no credible threat before children went back to classes,..." This statement by Lieutenant Krantz contradicts North Tonawanda High School Principal Jim Fisher's statement that "The school entered lockdown mode twice, ...""Fisher sent a voice message to all parents of high school students that explained the school was first locked down for the bomb threat,...". "During lockdown, students stay in their classrooms until given further directions, Fisher said."

Nevertheless, lock down procedures are not to be used for a bomb threat occurring or that could occur inside the facility.

Principal Fisher has a well-documented history of negligent responses to violent incidents including under-reporting violent incidents to New York State Education Department and failures to notify local law enforcement upon notification of violent incidents, compromising the safety of students, staff, and visitors. Principal Fisher alleges upon SWORN Affidavit a series of "6 or 7 bomb threats" occurring the period of October 7 through October 12, 2005, where three were reported (one of which North Tonawanda Police Department indicates no report was required/October 12, 2005), which leaves "3 or 4 bomb threats" where no action was taken as required by law. Principal Fisher's mal-administrative and illegal and fraudulent responses to violent incidents remain yet un-redressed. Commissioner of Education Mills, along with numerous state agencies and individuals, has knowledge of these matters and has made every effort to keep all matters closed and un-redressed.

To read TONAWANDA NEWS reporter Phil Dzikiy's article " NORTH TONAWANDA: Bomb threat at NTHS" visit http:www.tonawanda-news.com or contact reporter Phil Dzikiy at 693-100, ext. 114.

To obtain a copy of Emergency Management Operations Plan Quick Reference Guide for North Tonawanda City School District, call or visit City of North Tonawanda School District Administration Building, located at 175 Humphrey Street, N Tonawanda. The publication is free to the public.

North Tonawanda Police Department Refuses to Disclose Whereabouts of NTHS Crime Scene Evidence

The Standards: Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). REQUEST FOR RECORDS.

The Truths: In correspondence dated January 15, 2008 from North Tonawanda City Attorney Shawn P. Nickerson, Attorney Nickerson continues to indicate that NTPD reiterates that they have no photographs of crime scenes taken at North Tonawanda High School in October 2005.

"Dear Ms. Mangus:

Thank you for your letter of December 28, 2007, alledging [sic] that the City is somehow holding back information from your recent FOIL request. Please be advised that the City is not required to keep old information indefinitely, and you have been given all of the information that is still available. Additionally, as we stated in our last letter to you, we did ask the NTPD to re-check their files for the existence of photographs, and they reiterate that they have none.

That being said, we realize that you can come in to view the NTPD Manual for Standard Operating Procedures and Rules and Regulations, and make the copies you need. However, your original request for information did not state that you wanted to come in to review the Manual. You did state, "I am also requesting all documents that describe or reflect the procedures followed by investigating officers on this matter, .......". Therefore, we assumed you wanted a copy of the Manual. We are here during regular business hours if you wish to come in to review the Manual.

Lastly, I am returning your money order, which you alledge [sic] was illegally billed. Since you seem to be testing this office as to the NYS FOIL law, please remit what you think you owe for the documents already provided to you. Then, if you decide to come in to photocopy pages from the Manual, be prepared to pay $.25 per page for whatever you photocopy at the time you come in. I would suggest that you call ahead to make sure that there are no meetings going on so that someone is here when you come in. Lastly, I'm sure you know that the City is not required by law to mail out information requested in FOIL requests, but we have done so as a courtesy.

Very truly yours,

Shawn P. Nickerson/kl
City Attorney"

The City of North Tonawanda Police Department is clearly resisting an explanation of where the photographic evidence is. The FOIL request is not simply for "old information". Again, crime scene(s) evidence cannot be destroyed or disappear without explanation (ie the date of destruction and who authorized the destruction of evidence), and there is documented evidence that photographs of the crime scene(s) were in fact taken by NTPD Captain Detective Hall, Detective Kalota, and Detective Mahoney.

The balance of City Attorney Nickerson's correspondence is self-explanatory and will be addressed accordingly. A "FOIL" Appeal will be directed to City of North Tonawanda Honorable Mayor Soos and Common Council.