Complaint alleges foursome conspired against Talarico

By dave benjamin

I

f anything is certain about the latest claim made by one administrator against other administrators in the Freehold Regional High School District it is this — the case may not be decided for months or, more likely, years.

Deputy Superintendent Dr. Louis Talarico has filed a complaint in state Superior Court, Freehold, charging four people with participating in a conspiracy designed to prompt his ouster from the district.

Named as defendants are Superintendent of Schools James Wasser; Assistant Superintendent Dr. Patricia Emmerman; James E. Collins, the attorney representing the district’s Board of Education; and William Bennett, who was president of the board during the time the alleged conspiracy occurred.

In papers filed with the court, Talarico’s attorney, Michael D. Schottland, of Freehold, is seeking a trial by jury.

Collins told the News Transcript there will be no comment from the board on the charges set forth in the complaint that was filed April 14.

"The board’s policy is not to comment on any pending litigation," Collins said.

According to Talarico’s complaint, an anonymous letter making allegations against Wasser was circulated in Septem-ber 1999. The letter claimed Wasser had improperly appropriated district property for personal use and that district employees did work at his home on district time.

The complaint states that prior to that time, Talarico had an excellent reputation. However, "Following the circulation of the anonymous letter, Wasser, Emmerman and Collins embarked upon a course of conduct calculated to bring false and improper (tenure) charges against (Tala-rico) and abused the process available to boards of education and their employees to bring charges under the Teacher Tenure Act."

Talarico’s complaint alleges that the process involving the tenure charges employed the improper use of the office of superintendent, as well as the board attorney, in an investigation which brought about shame, humiliation and disrepute upon Talarico’s reputation and sought to deprive him of his livelihood.

The tenure charges board members considered against Talarico — and eventually chose not to act on — consisted of allegations that he appropriated district property, including a vacuum cleaner and a small refrigerator, for personal use.

Talarico’s complaint charges that Bennett participated in the process by using his office to bring about the improper use and abuse of the teacher tenure laws and related state education laws.

"This endeavor against (Talarico) was initially defeated when the board voted 6-2 against certification of tenure charges," the complaint states.

The complaint alleges that attempts have continued to be made, by the defendants, to injure Talarico’s reputation, directing him to cease his supervisory role which has isolated him from the education community and has made it impossible for him to do his job.

The complaint alleges that actions taken by the defendants have been calculated to improperly punish Talarico for exercising his rights in opposing tenure charges, for attempting to prosecute a claim against the board and for insisting upon protection of his job description and his title.

Speaking for Talarico, Schottland said, "We feel that Dr. Talarico was mistreated by people who were part of the apparatus at Freehold Regional."

Schottland charged that Collins "was party to conducting an inquiry where they were hauling people into an office and conducting some kind of an investigation by asking questions under threat of, ‘if you don’t answer the questions you may be in contempt or you may be (guilty of) misconduct.’ I’m not so sure that’s the way a board of education should get evidence regarding suspicions it may have regarding improprieties by another board employee."

Talarico, according to Schottland, "was hauled in and not told what it was about and all of a sudden they’re trying to get evidence to make tenure charges. Those are career-threatening charges.

"Dr. Talarico is a professional educator and these charges could have ended his career. The board members decided by a 6-2 vote three months later that they didn’t think they had enough to proceed with the case before the commissioner of education so it ended. Meanwhile, they took away most of his duties in his position, so they punished him anyway," the attorney said.

Schottland also questioned the board’s record-keeping practices in regard to matters before it. He said he has sought to obtain certain records or minutes of meetings, but "there are none regarding what went down here. So you have a public entity proceeding with its higher officials in an official way and not making minutes. That’s a great way to run a railroad."

Schottland noted that Talarico has a complaint pending before the state Department of Education dealing with the terms of his job description and job title and whether he is being punished because he resisted an effort to get him out.

Talarico was suspended from his job with pay for a period of several months last fall during the time when the tenure charges were being investigated.

Schottland said when a school board suspends a tenured employee it has to have the approval of the board president and it has to be monitored and then the board has to act on it.

"We say, at the next meeting," Schottland said. "They did not do that."

According to Schottland, a statute requires that if an employee is to be called in for a discussion of his conduct, if it has to do with continued employment, he is supposed to receive notice of what is going to be discussed. Furthermore, Schottland said, Talarico had a right to have a representative present.

"That was not done," the attorney said. "That’s Mr. Collins and that’s Mr. Wasser. Now the question is whether the board president (Bennett) knew they were doing that and I don’t know the answer to that. That’s the kind of stuff we’re talking about."

Schottland said Talarico was then told he was not suspended, but that he was on administrative leave with pay.

"There’s no such thing under the commissioner’s decisions," Schottland said. "The allegations are that the officials are supposed to proceed a certain way and they violated their obligations and they did it in such a way as to try to get the guy. There was a punitive aspect to what they were doing. They were misusing their power. I can’t make it any simpler than that."