School Sale In Limbo Amid Flurry Of Rumors And Innuendo
The proposed sale of Hillcrest Elementary School by the East Ramapo School Board to Yeshiva Avir Yaakov of New Square has been met with challenges, objections, and a temporary order halting the sale. Amid the new battle in East Ramapo, which has formed over the sale of this particular school, a great deal of rumor and untruths have been circulated by those opposed to the sale.
The story of the sale of this school dates back several months, when the school board proposed its first budget for the voters to approve. The first budget, which called for minimal cuts, was supported by the public school minority in the district, and even the most fervent critics of the school board campaigned heavily for it. Included in that budget was a provision to sell Hillcrest Elementary and use the funds to balance the budget.
While public school families supported the initially proposed budget, voters in the district overwhelmingly rejected it. School officials and the board were then forced to make more cuts in the budget to win favor among district residents, which they proceeded to do. Once again, this second proposed budget had the support of the public school community, and as before, it included the sale of Hillcrest Elementary.
The second budget won the favor of the voters, and the district began to implement the approved budget, including the planned sale of Hillcrest Elementary. Immediately, all the vocal public school critics of the school board denounced the plan to sell Hillcrest Elementary, and protested against it, despite the fact that a few weeks earlier, they campaigned in favor of the very budget that called for the sale.
The protests against the sale grew louder, and ultimately, someone filed a complaint with the New York State Education Commissioner requesting the Commissioner to halt the sale. Those behind this complaint had previously complained about the school board to the state, and in one complaint, referred to the private school community as “narrow-minded” and “fundamentalist.”
Unlike their past appeals, in this instance, the State Education Commissioner approved a temporary halt to the sale of Hillcrest Elementary. The Commissioner stated that he would like to have “up to 6 months” to review the case and issue a final ruling on the sale.
A large part of the complaint centered on the public nature of the sale process. Part of the complaint, obtained by The Advocate, reads, “The property was not listed with any broker; it was put on the market in the form of a Request for Proposal only. No ads were listed in any newspaper.”
Not so, say school officials – a full notice was placed in the most widely read newspaper in the region. In the wake of the appeal, the very newspaper that the ad for the sale appeared in stated that the board did not act in accordance with the law, and did not publicize their intention to sell the building through an ad or any other means.
With the momentum of those opposed to the sale clearly building based on these statements, Albert D’Agostino, the counsel to the East Ramapo School Board, responded emphatically, seeking to correct the misrepresentations that had been spreading.
D’Agostino pointed to an Affidavit of Publication, signed by the newspaper and the school district clerk stating that an ad was placed requesting bidders to submit proposals to purchase Hillcrest Elementary. The ad then appeared on June 17th, in direct contradiction to what that very publication claimed.
“You are chargeable with misrepresentation of the facts which are clearly within your knowledge and control: your proverbial ‘right hand’ is chargeable with possession of the facts which are known to your proverbial ‘left hand,’” D’Agostino declared to the publication. “Your editorial staff is at the very least extremely negligent; at most manipulative and falsely reporting facts as a basis for its purported ‘opinion,’” he continued.
D’Agostino went so far as to say that perhaps their misrepresentation was worthy of an investigation by the Rockland County District Attorney’s office.
In response, the publication issued a short statement that discussed their opposition to the planned sale, and only a very brief mention of the June 17th ad that was placed there. At this time, it is unknown what legal consequences the publication may face.
With the debate over the sale reaching a crescendo, particularly after the state’s temporary order to prevent the sale of the public school, the school board is combating not only those who oppose them, but various untruths that have made their way into the debate itself.
Board members have maintained that they have done everything in accordance with the law, and point to the support the budget received months ago when it included the sale of the school; support that was given by the very people now seeking to stop the sale of Hillcrest Elementary.
The story of the sale of this school dates back several months, when the school board proposed its first budget for the voters to approve. The first budget, which called for minimal cuts, was supported by the public school minority in the district, and even the most fervent critics of the school board campaigned heavily for it. Included in that budget was a provision to sell Hillcrest Elementary and use the funds to balance the budget.
While public school families supported the initially proposed budget, voters in the district overwhelmingly rejected it. School officials and the board were then forced to make more cuts in the budget to win favor among district residents, which they proceeded to do. Once again, this second proposed budget had the support of the public school community, and as before, it included the sale of Hillcrest Elementary.
The second budget won the favor of the voters, and the district began to implement the approved budget, including the planned sale of Hillcrest Elementary. Immediately, all the vocal public school critics of the school board denounced the plan to sell Hillcrest Elementary, and protested against it, despite the fact that a few weeks earlier, they campaigned in favor of the very budget that called for the sale.
The protests against the sale grew louder, and ultimately, someone filed a complaint with the New York State Education Commissioner requesting the Commissioner to halt the sale. Those behind this complaint had previously complained about the school board to the state, and in one complaint, referred to the private school community as “narrow-minded” and “fundamentalist.”
Unlike their past appeals, in this instance, the State Education Commissioner approved a temporary halt to the sale of Hillcrest Elementary. The Commissioner stated that he would like to have “up to 6 months” to review the case and issue a final ruling on the sale.
A large part of the complaint centered on the public nature of the sale process. Part of the complaint, obtained by The Advocate, reads, “The property was not listed with any broker; it was put on the market in the form of a Request for Proposal only. No ads were listed in any newspaper.”
Not so, say school officials – a full notice was placed in the most widely read newspaper in the region. In the wake of the appeal, the very newspaper that the ad for the sale appeared in stated that the board did not act in accordance with the law, and did not publicize their intention to sell the building through an ad or any other means.
With the momentum of those opposed to the sale clearly building based on these statements, Albert D’Agostino, the counsel to the East Ramapo School Board, responded emphatically, seeking to correct the misrepresentations that had been spreading.
D’Agostino pointed to an Affidavit of Publication, signed by the newspaper and the school district clerk stating that an ad was placed requesting bidders to submit proposals to purchase Hillcrest Elementary. The ad then appeared on June 17th, in direct contradiction to what that very publication claimed.
“You are chargeable with misrepresentation of the facts which are clearly within your knowledge and control: your proverbial ‘right hand’ is chargeable with possession of the facts which are known to your proverbial ‘left hand,’” D’Agostino declared to the publication. “Your editorial staff is at the very least extremely negligent; at most manipulative and falsely reporting facts as a basis for its purported ‘opinion,’” he continued.
D’Agostino went so far as to say that perhaps their misrepresentation was worthy of an investigation by the Rockland County District Attorney’s office.
In response, the publication issued a short statement that discussed their opposition to the planned sale, and only a very brief mention of the June 17th ad that was placed there. At this time, it is unknown what legal consequences the publication may face.
With the debate over the sale reaching a crescendo, particularly after the state’s temporary order to prevent the sale of the public school, the school board is combating not only those who oppose them, but various untruths that have made their way into the debate itself.
Board members have maintained that they have done everything in accordance with the law, and point to the support the budget received months ago when it included the sale of the school; support that was given by the very people now seeking to stop the sale of Hillcrest Elementary.
Posted by Reserve Ramapo at Monday, September 20, 2010 5:13:00 PM 
Categories: East Ramapo, New Square, Town of Ramapo, Reserve Ramapo, Campaign, Preserve Ramapo, Rockland County
Tags: East Ramapo Preserve Ramapo Reserve Ramapo Board of Elections Democratic Party New York New Square Ramapo Spring Valley
Categories: East Ramapo, New Square, Town of Ramapo, Reserve Ramapo, Campaign, Preserve Ramapo, Rockland County
Tags: East Ramapo Preserve Ramapo Reserve Ramapo Board of Elections Democratic Party New York New Square Ramapo Spring Valley
You realize the ad the school district's lawyer refers to is a "legal ad," required by law to publicize the sale of a school property. The legal ad is small print in the classified section of the newspaper. It doesnt meet the idea of marketing the school property, as suggested by two appraisals, including one that matched the price. The lawyer is looking to blame the paper.
Reply to this