Waronker Chgs Specs.08 07 18

Q J.
HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT

DUE PROCESS PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO CONTRACT
H$MPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT and

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HEMPSTfiAD [JNION
FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, NOTICE OF
Charging Parties; CHARGES
AND
-against- SPECIFICATIONS
SHIMON A. WARONKER,Ed.D.,
Respondent
TO: SHIMON A. WARONKER,Ed.D.

1241 Eastern Parkway
Brooklyn, NY 11213
(PERSONAL DELIVERY)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that in accordance with NYS Education Law §1711, and the
terms of your Emp]oyment Agreement dated May 11, 2017 (hereinafter "Contract'), the Board
of Education (hereinafter, the"Board"or "BOE"), of the Hempstead Union Free School District
(hereinafter, the "District" or "HUFSD"), is preferring the attached Charges and Specifications
against you; and
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the BOE is providing you with notice of
the Charges and Specifications after duly considering the contents thereof in Executive Session,
together with the evidence in support thereof, on August 7.2018; and
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the BOE is providing you with personal
delivery of this Notice of Chazges and Specifications, together with the underlying Chazges and
Specifications, in accordance with x[10 of the Contract, prior to the commencement of the hearing
to be held before a hearing officer selected in accordance with the Contract, to determine
whether the Charges shall have been proven, and if so, what shall be the remedy; and
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the hearing before a hearing officer shall
be scheduled as directed by the hearing officer; and
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE it is the intent of the parties to provide an

effective due process proceeding and to permit either party to appeal from any and all aspects of
said proceeding and from the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to Section 310 of the
Education Law or Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules; and
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the cost of the hearing, including the
transcript fees and expenses, will be borne by the District; and
Page I of 2
9 ~.,
e ~' tr
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that you have the right to select a public or .
your sole discretion; the right to be represented by counsel at all. stages of said
— , - taken under oath and the right to present witnesses on
;fit fo have all testnnony
---_
'rhe right to .;question real and tangible èvidence in any form; including
.;and other such evidence; and such other rights as set forth in x[10 of the
FAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the Board shall have, the burden of proof
~jproceeding with regazd to the Charges, and shall be required to prove the
nderance of the evidence; and
E FURTHER NOTICE; that if none of the Charges against you aze

the hearing and appeal, the Boazd shall reimburse you for the attorneys'
and other expenses incurred by you in defense of the Charges; and
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that additional notice provisions, as set forth at
the -end of, tHe;;Rnderlying Charges and Specifications, aze expressly incorporated by reference
and made:a part hereof, as if fully-set forth at length herein; and
PLEASE' TAKE F[JRTHER NOTICE that the service of these Chazges and
Specifications shall:not be deemed a waiver of any rights which the Boazd has at law or equity or
otherwise.
Preferred this 7`h day of August 2018,
~' V~'~' .
By: ~ ~ ~ '. l `~~iG
Tifle: Trustee of the Board of Education
Page 2 of 2
HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
DUE PROCESS PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO CONTRACT
HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL

DISTRICT and BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
THE HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, CHARGES AND
Chazging Parties, SPECIFICATIONS
-against-
SHIMON A. WARONKER,Ed.D.,
Respondent.
TO: SHIMON A. WARONKER,Ed.D.

1241 Eastern Parkway
Brooklyn, NY 11213
(PERSONAL SERVICE)
In accordance with the provisions of the Employment Agreement dated May 11, 2017
between the Board of Education (hereinafter, the "BOE" or the "Board") of the Hempstead
Union Free School District (hereinafter, the "HUFSD" or the "District') and Shimon A.
Waronker, Ed.D. (hereinafter, the "Respondent" or "~")for the position of Superintendent of
Schools, for a four yeaz term from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2021 (Exhibit 1, a copy of the
Contract), as amended by the First Amendment to the Contract, dated May 24, 2017 (Exhibit 2,
a copy of the First Amendment to the Contract)(collectively, , as approved by the Board on May
31, 2017 so that you could commence your employment with the District on June 2, 2017
(Exhibit 3, a copy of the May 31, 2017 BOE Meeting Minutes), you are hereby notified that the
District is preferring against you the Charges with Specifications set forth herein.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on Januazy 9, 2018, the Board placed you on an
Administrative Leave of Absence with Pay, by the passage of a resolution that also provided for
an investigation of your actions and/or failures to act, which were suspected to be actionable
against you, either as (1) breaches of your Contract,(2)instances of neglect of duty, or (3) events
amounting to gross misconduct, as quoted below:
"RESOLVED, that the District's Superintendent of Schools, Shimon

Wazonker, is placed on Administrative Leave of Absence with Pay, for 60
days, pending the conduct of investigations in the confidential attachment
annexed hereto; and it is further:
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT
(1) the BOCES investigation of his involvement in and the

circumstances surrounding the publishing of the RFP, the responses to the
RFP, the negotiations of the contract, the drafting of the contract and the
Page 1 of 172
engagement of the New American Initiative ("NAI"), and any and all
services rendered by NAI [corrected from NIA in the original], the
processing of payments made to NAI, and the receipt of payments by
NAI; and
(2) the Districts Special Counsel's investigation of his involvement in

and the circumstances surrounding the publishing of the RFP, the
responses to the RFP, the negotiations of the contract, the drafting of the
contract and the engagement of the New American Initiative NAI, and any
and all services rendered by NAI, the processing of payments made to
NAI, and the receipt of payments by NAI; and
(3) the District's Special Counsel's [to be assigned] investigation of

the District's failure to timely submit a completed application for the
Community School Grant;
(4) the Districts investigation of the Superintendent of Schools'

failure to timely implement a facilities maintenance and repair program for
the boilers and pipes at the Districts various buildings, which were
assessed to be in need of repairs and maintenance by administrative staff,
as well as by the Distinguished Educator, and as recorded in the Facilities
Assessment conducted by the Superintendent of Schools and completed
before September 28, 2017; and
(5) the District's investigation of the Superintendent of Schools'

failure to timely implement a Violence Suppression and Security Plan at
the High School and the Middle School; and

failure to timely and responsibly investigate, and report to the Board of
Education as repeatedly demanded by members of the Board the facts and
circumstances concerning the termination of the High School Principal.

disenrollment of approximately 300 students in the High School in the Fall
of 2017, which is under review by the NYSED.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that on Februazy 1, 2018, while you continued
to be on an Administrative Leave of Absence with Pay, the Board passed a resolution that added
an eighth area of investigation concerning your actions, which were suspected to be (1) a
material breach of your Contract,(2) an instance of neglect of duty, or (3) an instance of gross
misconduct, which resolution is quoted below:
RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE MATTERS

RELATED TO EMPLOYEE #4622
Page 2 of 172
RESOLVED, that the District's Labor Counsel is directed to investigate the
facts and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of a preliminary report
issued by Plante Moran, dated January 11, 2018, as an additional azea of
inquiry regarding Employee #4622.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that your Contract provides, among other terms
and conditions related to disciplinary action as a basis for terminating the Contract, that "The
Superintendent shall not be suspended, disciplined, or terminated, without just cause, and only
for alleged acts of material breach of this Agreement, neglect of duty, gross misconduct ...
according to the evidentiary standard hereinafter set Forth and only following a fair hearing
before and impaztial hearing officer." In accordance with such terms, the Boazd approves the
Chazges with Specifications preferred herein against you, which aze grouped in sections as
'follows:
Section I: Chazges wherein the District contends that the alleged acts
constitute "a material breach of this Agreement"
Section II: Charges wherein the District contends that the alleged acts
constitute "neglect of duty"; and
Section III: Charges wherein the District contends that the alleged acts
constitute "gross misconduct."
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that to facilitate review of the Charges and
Specifications set forth herein, we provide the following summary table, which does not limit in
any way, the substantive content of each such Charge set forth herein:
S~ ectron I ~~ ~~~ Charges wherein'the Distact contends that the alleged acts constattite ` a mafenal
~rA~ , breach'ofttus~4 cement •~•~ ~ ~~G'~
Charge 1 Violation of Law —Conflict of Interest — NAI
Undisclosed Interest in NAI
Charge 2 Violation of Law -Conflict of Interest — NAI
Bid Rig in in Award Contract to NAI
Im ro er of Award of Contract and Im ro er Pa ments to NAI
Chazge 4 Violation of Law —Conflict of Interest — NAI
Stealin Time (9-25-17 and 9-16-17)for work for NAI
Stealing Time (7-25-17)for work for NAI
Stealin Time (7-9-17 through 7-14-17 for work for NAI)
Self-Dealin Re azdin NAI
Chazge 8 Violation of Law - Conflict of Interest — NAI
Awardin work to NAI
Cronyism -Hiring under False pretenses; Sham Hiring process;
1)Hirin Master teachers
Page 3 of 172
a T
ySechon I~ ~ ~j , Chazges wherein the District contends Wat the"alleged acts constitute a material,;
Si~ '13 f ~ ~ Ys~M~
,.~~~ ~~ breach`„of this A eerrient"' ~ 5~
2)Hiring Varleton "Mac" McDonald
Char e I 1 Violation of Law —Civil Service Law §100 &Certified Pa roll Fraud
Charge 12 Violation of Law —Improper Accounting for Grant Funds —
a ments to NAI in Violation of PSSG Funds
Charge..13 Violation of Law —Improper Accounting for Grant Funds —
a menu to Master teachers in Violation of Title I Funds
Char e 14 Violation of Law — Disenrollment
Chaz e 15 Violation of Law — Dela in or Den in Re-Enrollment
Charge 16 Violation of Law — Not Following the High School's School Improvement
Plan while in Receivershi
Charge 17 Violation of Law — Not Managing Performance of High School Principal in
While in Receivershi
Char e 18 Violation of Law —Breach of Confidentialit of Personnel Records
Char e 19 Violation of Law —Breach of Confidentialit —Plante Moran
Char e 20 Violation of Law —Unlawful Disclosure of Student Identities(FERPA)
Chaz e 21 Ne lect of Dut —Failure to Timel Develo an Action Plan

Chaz e 22 Ne lect of Dut —Failure to Pro erl Mana e the Hi h School
Chaz e 23 Ne lect of Dut —Failure to Pro erl Mana e Staff of Eve of O enin for School
Charge 24 Ne lect of Dut —Failure to Pro erl Mana e the CSG
Char e 25 Ne lect of Dut —Failure to Pro erl Mana e Facilities Maintenance & Re airs
Char e 26 Neglect of Dut —Failure to Pro erl Validate NAI Billing
Charge 27 Neglect of Duty —Failure to Properly Manage ABGS 6'h Period Teaching
Liabilit Arbitration
Chaz e 28 Neglect of Dut —Failure to Ne otiate Receivershi Deal for Master Teachers
Charge 29 Neglect of Dut Failure to Pro erl Manage High School Violence
Charge 30 Gross Misconduct — Disenrollment of 294 Students without Compliance with

Law
Chaz e 31 Gross Misconduct — Violatin Due Process ri hts of Disenrolled Students
Char e 32 Gross Misconduct —Bid Ri ging
Chazge 33 Gross Misconduct — Hirin NAI and Wasteful S ending
Char e 34 Gross Misconduct —Referring to Students as "Road Kill" and "Dead Weight
Char e 35 Gross Misconduct —Den in Disenrolled Students the Right to Re-Enroll
Charge 36 Gross Misconduct —Purposeful breach of Confidentiality (Plante Moran)
Page 4 of 172
Chazge 37 Gross Misconduct —Hiring Weak Business Official to Permit Abuse of
Discretion
Chazge 38 Gross Misconduct — A roving Underservin OT for Mana ement Em to ee
Char e 39 Gross Misconduct —Abuse of Discretion (Ne ative Publicit )
Chazge 40 Gross Misconduct —Conflict of Interest —Undue Pressure on Employees for
Pa ments to be made to the NAI
Charge 41 Gross Misconduct —Conflict of Interest —Undue Pressure on Claims Auditors for
Pa ments to be made to the NAI
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that your Contract provides that if a member or
members of the Board seek to terminate your Contract, they shall be required to (1) prepare a
detailed Statement of each Charge, (2) review each Charge in Executive Session and to
determine the sufficiency of evidence respecting each Charge, and (3) vote on each Chazge and
specifications as to whether probable cause exists (the "Vote"). The Contract further provides
that in the event any Charge is found to contain sufficient probable cause, then the
Superintendent shall be served personally with a pazticulazized written statement of each of the
Chazges within two (2) days of the Boazd's Vote, and the procedures set forth in Article 10 of
your Contract shall be followed for the hearing and determination as to each such Chazge.
PLEASE TAKE FiJRTHER NOTICE, on Aueust 7. 2018, the Board held a meeting to
review each of the Charges set forth herein, and to determine the sufficiency of the evidence
respecting each Charge, in Executive Session, and thereafter voted on each of the Charges and
the Specifications in support thereof, as to whether probable cause exists (the "Vote"); and
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that in accordance with the terms of your
Contract, the District does hereby prefer the following Charges and Specifications against you;
and
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the District is serving these Charges Specifications
against you in accordance with your Contract, and shall proceed with a hearing thereon in
accordance with the procedure set forth in your Contract.
Page 5 of 172
Section I:
Charges wherein the District contends that

the alleged acts constitute
"a material breach of this Agreement"
Page 6 of 172
CHARGE #1:
YOU MATERIALLY BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO PERFORM

THOSE DUTIES AS SET FORTH IN THE EDUCATION LAW OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK,OTHER STATUTES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OR THE RULES
AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OR BOARD OF
REGENTS
(CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING NAI —

(1) YOUR COVERT ROLE CONTINUING TO WORK FOR NAI.
(2) YOUR DECEPTIVE APPOINTMENT OF LORRAINE SCORSONE TO ACT AS
INTERIM CEO.UNTIL YOU RESUMED AS CEO OF NAI; and
(3) YOUR IMPROPER NON-DISCLOSURE OF YOUR CONTINUATION OF YOUR
Specification:
On May 11, 2017, you entered into your Contract with the District and represented that
you had past professional and financial relationships with organizations that you might
recommend that the District enter into transactions with, to help the District attract and retain
talent to improve the instruction for students, and you included The New American Initiative
(hereinafter, the "NAI") in the list of four (4) entities that you specifically named as possible
firms to recommend to the District. See, Exhibit 1, a copy of the Contract, at 9[15.
As the Districts Superintendent of Schools, you assured the District that your conduct
with respect to the NAI, and the other entities listed in the Contract, would be in a manner that
would "eliminate any possible conflict of interest." See, Exhibit 1, a copy of the Contract, at
9[15.
On May 11, 2017, you also represented in your Contract with the District that you would
not pursue engagements with third parties outside the District for additional compensation to the
Superintendent, without prior written notice to the Board, and regardless of notice, would refrain
from any such engagement unless it was clear that such engagement would not, and "does not
present an actual or potential conflict of interest with the District or interfere with the
Superintendent's performance of his duties to the District." See, Exhibit 1, a copy of the
Contract, at 9[16.
On May 24, 2017, you entered into an Amendment to your Contract with the District, to
stazt work eazly as the District's Superintendent, commencing on June 2, 2017, instead of July 1,
2017 to start. See, Exhibit 2, a copy of the First Amendment to the Contract.
~ TNAA stands for "The New American Academy"

Z TNAACS stands for "The New American Academy Charter School"
Page 7 of 172
On May 31, 2017, the BOE approved your early stazt date, for the purported reason to
enable you to begin your term as Superintendent as soon as possible so you would have the time,
prior to the commencement of the 2017-18 school year, to familiazize yourself with the District
and its personnel, facilities, policies and practices and be better prepared for the commencement
of the academic year in order to ensure a seamless and efficient transition of District leadership.
See also, Exhibit 3, a copy of the May 31, 2017 BOE Meeting Minutes, at p.2.
On June 2, 2017, you started working as the Districts Superintendent of Schools, thereby
making you "the Chief Executive Officer of the school district and the educational system" of
the HUFSD.
The law requires you, as an Officer of the District, to conduct yourself in a manner that is
free from prohibited conflicts of interest.
The term "conflict of interest" describes a situation in which a School Boazd member,
District Officer or an employee of the District, is in a position to benefit financially, directly or
indirectly, from a decision that he or she may make on behalf of the District, through the exercise
of official authority or by disposing of public funds. See, School Law Hornbook, 34`h Edition,
2:89; see also, General Municipal Law §801.
The term "contract" is defined to include any claim, account, or demand against, or
agreement, express or implied, as well as the designation of a depository of public funds or a
newspaper for use by the School District. See, School Law Hornbook, 34`h Edition, 2:89; see
also, General Municipal Law §800(2).
The term "interesP' is defined as a direct or indirect pecuniazy benefit that accrues to the
Officer or the employee as a result of the contract with the School District. See, School Law
Hornbook, 34`h Edition, 2:89; see also, General Municipal Law §800(3).
The General Municipal Law expressly makes the provisions regarding conflicts of
interests applicable to School Districts. See, School Law Hornbook, 34~' Edition, 2:89; see also,
General Municipal Law §800, et seq.
General Municipal Law Section 801, entitled, "Conflicts of Interest Prohibited,"

provides, in relevant part, as follows:
Except as provided in section eight hundred two of this chapter, (1) no

municipal officer or employee shall have an interest in any contract with
the municipality of which he is an officer or employee, when such officer
or employee, individually or as a member of a board, has the power or
duty to (a) negotiate, prepare, authorize or approve the contract or
authorize or approve payment thereunder, (b) audit bills or claims under
the contract, or (c) appoint an officer or employee who has any of the
powers or duties set forth above and (2) no chief fiscal officer, treasurer,
or his deputy or employee, shall have an interest in a bank or trust
company designated as a depository, paying agent, registration agent or
Page 8 of l72
for investment of funds of the municipality of which he is an officer or
employee.
General Municipal Law Section 802, entitled, "Exceptions," at subsection (1)(b),

provides, in relevant pan, as follows:
The provisions of section eight hundred one of this chapter shall not apply
to:
l.b. A contract with a person, firm, corporation or association in

which a municipal officer or employee has an interest which is prohibited
solely by reason of employment as an officer or employee thereof, if the
remuneration of such employment will not be directly affected as a result
of such contract and the duties of such employment do not directly involve
the procurement, prepazation or performance of any part of such contract;
General Municipal Law Section 803, entitled, "Disclosure of Interest," provides, in

relevant part, as follows:
1. Any municipal officer or employee who has, will have, or later

acquires an interest in or whose spouse has, will have, or later acquires an
interest in any actual or proposed contract, purchase agreement, lease
agreement or other agreement, including oral agreements, with the
municipality of which he or she is an officer or employee, shall publicly
disclose the nature and extent of such interest in writing to his or her
immediate supervisor and to the governing body thereof as soon as he or
she has knowledge of such actual or prospective interest. Such written
disclosure shall be made pazt of and set forth in the official record of the
proceedings of such body.
General Municipal Law Section 804, entitled, "Contracts Void," provides, in relevant
part, as Follows:
Any contract willfully entered into by or with a municipality in which

there is an interest prohibited by this azticle shall be null, void and wholly
unenforceable.
General Municipal Law Section 805, entitled, "Violations," provides, in relevant part, as
follows:
Any municipal officer or employee who willfully and knowingly violates

the foregoing provisions of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Page 9 of 172
__
General Municipal L,aw Section 805-A, entitled, "Certain Actions Prohibited," provides,
in relevant part, as follows:
1. No municipal officer or employee shall:

a. directly or indirectly, solicit any gift, or accept or receive any
gift having a value of seventy-five dollars or more, whether in the form of
money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality,'thing or promise,
or in any other form, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be
inferred that the gift was intended to influence him, or could reasonably be
expected to influence him, in the performance of his official duties or was
intended as a rewazd for any official action on his pazt;
b. disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course
of his official duties or use such information to further his personal
interests;
c. receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for
compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before
any municipal agency of which he is an officer, member or employee or of
any municipal agency over which he has jurisdiction or to which he has
the power to appoint any member, officer or employee; or ....
General Municipal Law Section 806, entitled, "Code of Ethics," provides, in relevant
part, as follows:
1. (a) The governing body of each county, city, town, village, school
district and fire district shall and the governing body of any other
municipality may by local law, ordinance or resolution adopt a code of
ethics setting forth for the guidance of its officers and employees the
standards of conduct reasonably expected of them. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this azticle to the contrary, a fire district code of ethics
shall also apply to the volunteer members of the fire district fire
depaztment. Codes of ethics shall provide standazds for officers and
employees with respect to disclosure of interest in legislation before the
local governing body, holding of investments in conflict with official
duties, private employment in conflict with official duties, future
employment and such other standards relating to the conduct of officers
and employees as may be deemed advisable. Such codes may regulate or
prescribe conduct which is not expressly prohibited by this article but may
not authorize conduct otherwise prohibited. Such codes may provide for
the prohibition of conduct or disclosure of information and the
classification of employees or officers.
You violated the above quoted laws, after you stazted working as the Districts
Superintendent of Schools on June 2, 2017, by causing the District to enter into a contractual
relationship with the NAI, which created a conflict of interest for you, since you actually neither
Page 10 of 172
stopped working nor stopped guiding the operations of the NAI, which fact you deceptively
concealed from the District.
You actively misled the District, by including language in your Contract to state, "The
Superintendent has had professional or financial relationships with organizations that he may
recommend that the District enter into transactions in order to help the District ...," including the
NAI. See, Exhibit 1, at y[15. By use of such language, you misled the District and expressly
misrepresented the facts, pretending that you no longer had a professional or financial
relationship with the NAI, implying falsely that your interests in the NAI had been severed, and
deceptively presenting your relationship and interests in the NAI in the past tense. You were not
honest and avoided disclosing to the District that your relationship with the NAI was ongoing,
that you intended to continue to operate as a defacto officer of the NAI(even if you could argue
you had resigned as CEO de jure). Nor did you request permission and approval from the
District, its counsel, the NYSED, to be able to lawfully act as a de facto officer of the NAI,
which was a vendor that you sought to enrich with lucrative contracts with the District. Nor did
you disclose that you were acting as a defacto officer of the NAI, continued to have an interest
in its success and growth, and were retaining a beneficial interest in its development for its and
your own future gain and enrichment.
Deceptively, and manipulatively, and in violation of law, you concealed the truth from
the District and engaged in a course of conduct that was an egregious violation.of the laws
prohibiting a Superintendent of Schools from both acting as an officer of the District and, at the
same time, as an undisclosed and continuing de facto officer of a vendor to whom the
Superintendent of Schools routed hundreds of thousands of dollars of work from the District.
Add to the mix that the vendor, the NAI, offered an educational program that proved
unable to generate results to maintain support from its other clients, and proved to be financially
not viable, made the referral' questionable at best, unlawful at worst. Nonetheless, you caused
the District to award "reflective praxis" work to the NAI, in part, because you knew it was the
only way that NAI as an organization could stay afloat and remain solvent, as will be shown in
subsequent Charges herein. Accordingly, the course of conduct that you engaged in with NAI
was an egregious violation of the laws prohibiting conflicts of interest.
By this Charge #1, and these Specifications, the District shall show that from June 2017
through Februazy 2018, you (1) continued to be a principal operator and de facto officer of the
NAI, (2) took concrete action to conceal your continuing operational activity for the NAI,(3)
actively guided the NAI staff that you pretended to leave behind at that organization,(4) actively
participated in operating its programs, (5) continuing to monitor and actively manage its
operations,(6) remained involved in its finances and its revenues, guiding your staff at the NAI
how to bill the District for services it rendered, and how to secure business From other clients of
the NAI,(7) helped guide it when write letters to the District, how to formulate responses to the
District, and how to bill the District, and remained involved in the NAI until you were placed on
ALGA with pay on January 9, 2018, and then the NAI closed shortly thereafter.
Subsequent Chazges will demonstrate that you engaged in equally egregious conflicts of
interest involving the NAI,including:
Page I 1 of 172
(1) Bid rigging to ensure the NAI gets the contract with the District; and
(2) Securing payment to the NAI on its billing that you caused the District to
pay without the District's staff first validating or reviewing NAI's billing to confirm the District
received the services billed for, or to determine if the billing comported with the value of the
services claimed to have been provided,
(3) Pressuring and coercing the staff at the District, including your direct
subordinates in the District's Business Office (hereinafter, the "BO") to pay the NAI as fast as
humanly possible and in advance of all other vendors, and out of cycle with the ordinazy and
routine process of payment to vendors, and
(4) Pressuring and coercing the staff at the District's external claims auditors
to prioritize the NAI billing for payment not only on accelerated payment basis unlike the
treatment of any other vendors, but on occasion, to be paid on the same day as the NAI's billing
was presented, even if for services of negligible value, whereas other vendors, such as BOCES,
who provided critical services for students that the District could not go without providing to
students, were forced to endure not being paid for months on end.
In breach of your contractual obligations, and despite the understanding expressed by the
District in its resolution passed on May 31, 2017, to hire you starting June 2, 2017, so you could
"familiarize [yourself) with the District and its personnel, facilities, policies and practices and be
better prepared for the commencement of the academic year in order to ensure a seamless and
efficient transition of District leadership" (see, Exhibit 3) you instead focused on your conflict
of interest agenda to promote the best interests of the NAI, over the interests of the District,
because you never stopped working for the NAI.
A. Your work for the NAI continued after June 2, 2017, without.
Interruption.
On June 2, 2017, literally within hours of you commencing work for the District, you
pursued a conflict of interest, seeking to secure a contract between the District, which you now
headed as the Superintendent of Schools, with the NAI, the entity you founded and served as its
CEO from its founding through and after you were hired by the District, and which entity you
continued to serve and work for, even though you claimed you had discontinued being its leader.
See, Exhibit 4, a copy of the weekly conference call scheduled between you, as Superintendent
of Hempstead Schools, and the NAI,stazting on June 2, 2017 at 8:30am.
Instead of focusing on the operations of the District starting June 2, 2017, as required by
your Contract, you prioritized your loyalty to the NAI, and continued to be intricately and
intimately involved in the operations of the NAI, including remaining involved in the day to day
operations of NAI, and its sister organization, TNAA,providing guidance to its staff by email.
On June 12, 2017 and June 13, 2017, you prioritized the NAI and TNAA over the needs
of the District, attending a "Master Teacher Institute" being hosted by NAI, where you acted as
one of NAI's or TNAA's presenters. See, Exhibit 5, a copy of June 12, 2017 email and June 13,
2017 Agenda for the meeting at TNAA, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0021, p. MW-NAI-0043 - p. MW-NAI-0051. Tellingly, your
involvement in the Master Teachers Institute on June 13, 2017, was concealed from the District,
Page 12 of 172
by you using your "[email protected]" email address to conduct such
business while you were supposed to be working for the District.
B. Your work for NAI to secure a contract from the District for NAI.
From June 12, 2017 through June 23, 2017, you engaged in bid rigging, to serve the best
interests of the NAI, not the best interests of the District. See, Charge #2, infra.
From June 12, 2017, when you first started conversing with John Sheahan, Esq., of
Guercio and Guercio LLP, the District's General Counsel, concerning your desire to awazd a
contract to the NAI without pursuing an RFP, through June 15, 2017, when he rejected your
stated preference to have the District give a contract to the NAI by direct award, you failed to
disclose that you continued to work for and provide operational guidance to NAI. Nonetheless,
given the history of your dealings with the NAI, and the appeazance of impropriety raised by
your past connections with NAI, John Sheahan Esq., advised you and the Board that an RFP
would be the prudent course to take regazding any possible engagement of the NAI as a vendor
to the District. See, Exhibit 6, a copy of the June I5, 2017 memo from John Sheahan to you and
the Board, rejecting your efforts to award NAI a contract without an RFP.
Your failure, however, to disclose to John Sheahan Esq., at that time, that you continued
to work for the NAI(see, Exhibit 4, the weekly calls), including serving as one of its presenters
at an event at NAI as recently as June 13, 2017 (see, Exhibit 5, the June 13 Master Teacher
Institute email and agenda), constituted a deceptive course of conduct.
On June 22, 2017, which is the day before the June 23, 2017 RFP "Open Date," your
secretary at the NAI, Dini Gourarie, wrote to John Sheahan, Esq., forwarding to him a proposed
contract for the NAI, as if it had already won the RFP and had been awazded the service contract
opportunity. The timing of the email prompted Mr. Sheahan to write in response, at 4:02pm on
June 22, 2017, as follows: "Has there been a determination to award the RFP to the New
American Academy?" See, Exhibit 7, a copy of the June 22, 2017 email exchange between
Dini, you and John Sheahan, Esq., concerning whether the NAI "draft contract is `kosher' as
presented," as you subsequently asked of him.
In response, Dini Gourarie did not write back. Had she been the one to write back, it
would have been inappropriate, because although she was pretending to be a "project manager"
for the NAI working on site at "the client," the truth is that she was acting as your confidential
personal secretary inside the Districts Administrative Offices (hereinafter, the "AO"),
improperly and in violation of Civil Service Law §100 and §101, but acting as your personal
assistant just the same. Her work in your office as your confidential secretary enabled you to
pursue your conflict for the NAI while working for the District, but also displaced the work and
role to be played by Ana Lovasz, the confidential secretazy to the Superintendent of Schools
provided by the District. The civil service violations attendant to your employment of Dini
Gourarie, to work on both the NAI matters (pursuing your conflict of interest) and your District
matters (and thereby displacing a substantial portion of Ana Lovasz's duties), supports the
Page 13 of 172
Chazge against you that you violated the Civil Service Law, which is the subject of sepazate
Charges and Specifications herein. See, Charge #11, infra.
As inappropriate as it was for Dini Gourarie to make her inquiry for NAI on June 22,
2017, it was all the more inappropriate for you to follow up for NAI later that day, since you
were supposed to be representing the District with neutrality as to who would win the bid in
response to the RFP. Your failure to remain uninvolved at that moment in time exposes your
conflict of interest.
Compounding the nature of the conflict by even inquiring, you make a naked admission
of your conflict by writing back, saying, "No. Need your legal advice so this draft contract is
kosher. Can we talk tomorrow?" See, Exhibit 7, a copy of the June 22, 2017 email exchange
between you and John Sheahan, Esq., including your words, asking for the NAI, whether its
"draft contract is `kosher' as presented."
After further exchanges of email, you ask to talk to Mr. Sheahan at Sam on June 23,
2017, to review a draft contract for the NAI, which is six (6) hours before the RFP opening at
2:OOpm on June 23, 2017. See, Exhibit 7.
Even worse, you reviewed the NAI's response to the RFP before the NAI submitted -its
RFP response to the District, even though you were then the District's Superintendent of
Schools. See, Exhibit 79, a copy of an email from Dini Gourarie to Shimon Wazonker (on his
"thenewamericanacademy" email account), dated June 22, 2017, with attachments, produced in
discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI 0004196 through
0004210, marked CONFIDENTIAL. Worse, still, she and you were writing clandestinely, to
your "[email protected]" email address, evidencing an intent to conceal
this improper behavior.
On or about June 22, 2017, your emails via Dini Gourazie pursuing a contract for the
NAI, even though you were the District's Superintendent of Schools, prompted John Sheahan,
Esq., to reject discussing the NAI contract with Dini Gourarie or you. He will testify that your
conduct had exposed to him that you were too involved for a normal vendor procurement
exercise. H wever. he will testify that he had no idea that you were still workine for the NAI
and that you were utterly conflicted in those discussions because you were an undi~clo~e_d de
facto Officer of the NAI at that time. John Sheahan Esq., merely considered it to have an
"appearance of impropriety" for him to be negotiating with either you or Dini Gourarie, the
terms of any contract between the District and the NAI, especially on June 22, 2017 (the day
before the open date, as if you know something you should not know and are absolutely certain
that you shall win because there will be no other bidders), and especially given your purported
"history" as a recently resigned CEO and founder of the NAI. So, he asked to engage with a
different person than you concerning the NAI. In response, you rolled out Lorraine Scorsone for
him to interact with for the NAI, holding her out to be a successor CEO to you at the NAI.
On June 23, 2017, you caused Dini Gourarie to submit by hand delivery the NAI RFP
response.
Page 14 of 172
On June 23, 2107, the NAI was the only entity to submit a bid in response to the
Districts RFP, which you caused the NAI to help draft so that the bid could be won by the NAI.
That fact, plus others, supports the Chazge against you that you engaged in bid rigging, to serve
the best interests of the NAI, not the best interests of the District. See, Charge #2, infra.
After the June 23, 2017 RFP opening at 2:00 p.m., the District Clerk never informed
Lorraine Scorsone that the NAI had won the bid and that the next step was for the contract to be
negotiated. Nor did the Purchasing Agent. Nor did the Board, prior to June 27, 2017. Notably,
although the Board held a meeting that same Friday night (June 23, 2017, from 6:OOpm until
10:55pm), that meeting concerned only the then pending Lamont Johnson removal proceeding,
and the Board did not address at that meeting the failure of the RFP process3, which failed to
procure any other bids besides the one from the NAI.
Certainly, nothing should have been decided upon, or acted upon, prior to decisions being
made in accordance with applicable District Policy for Purchasing, under which the Purchasing
Agent has the authority to guide the Board as to procurement of services.
Yet, you usurped the power and discretion of both the Purchasing Agent and the Board of
Education, in terms of making purchasing decisions that serve the best interests of the District,
by pushing the process to award a contract to the NAI, and by preventing the Purchasing Agent
from doing his job to protect the integrity of the purchasing process, as mandated by:
• Board Policy #6700(Purchasing),

• Board Policy #6700-R (Purchasing Regulation),
• Board Policy #6710(Purchasing Authority),
• Board Policy #6720(Bidding Requirements) and
• Board Policy #6720-R (Bidding Requirement [Competitive] Regulation).
On June 23, 2017, you informed John Sheahan, Esq., that the NAI was the prevailing
bidder on the RFP, without informing him that NAI was the only bidder, and asked him to send
to Lorraine Scorsone, your purported successor as CEO to you at the NAI, a draft consulting
agreement. There is no delay for the Board to consider a report from the Purchasing Agent that
the RFP was a failure because only one bid was received. There is no opportunity given to the
3 The irony of that conclusion is not lost on the District, since (1) the premise of the conclusion is that an RFP
process is supposed ro net the District many qualified bidders capable of providing the services sought by the
District, so [hat it has ample choices, and can be certain that it is getting the lowest bid and most responsible
candidate from as many bidders as possible within the field of providers of such services;(2)from the NAI point of
you, and from yours, the opposite conclusion may be drawn, and the RFP process could be viewed as a success,
because it left the District with no other choice but[he NAI[o be selected, and (3) the dichotomy of the two views is
the best expression of the conflict of interest that you, personally had wearing both hats at the same time, since you
had an irseconcilable set of agendas with 2 masters to serve at the same time. Individually, you had a hopeless
conflict, since personally you were aligned with [he NAI and had that hat to wear ([o cause the NAI to "land the
account," by whatever means necessary), and yet you were supposed to be [he guardian of the District's best
interests to secure options and best price, from competition, via an RFP process. Unwilling to avoid the conflict of
interest, you prioritized the best interests of the NAI (to win the bid) over the best interests of the District (to have
choice and to make sure i[ received the hest choices and the most insight and transparency as [o the scope and cost
and relevance of such services compared [o [he District's actual needs).
Page 15 of 172
Board, and no time taken to reflect on the options available to the Board, to consider whether the
District should put the service contract out to bid again, to see if there are other vendors with
more experience, or better pricing, or alternate approaches, so that the District can have the
benefit of true competitive bidding. Accordingly, on your request, made with Board President
Mazibel Toure's support, John Sheahan sends to Lorraine Scorsone a form consulting agreement
at 3:56 p.m., which is within two hours of the open date and time at 2:00 p.m. See, Exhibit 8, a
copy of June 23, 2017, 3:56 p.m., email from John Sheahan, Esq., to Lorraine Scorsone, with the
draft consulting agreement, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced,
at p. MW-NAI-1739 — p. MW-NAI-1748.
On June 23, 2017, at 4:36 p.m., Loraine Scorsone forwazded John Sheahan's email and
the draft consulting agreement he sent to her for NAI, to you and Dini Gourarie, to express her
excitement about this development. Her email to you is a momentous writing, for three (3)
reasons:
First, she knew the topic of her comments and emotions should not be shazed with you on
your District email address, where it could be seen by others, and compromise your secret
continuing involvement and vestedness in the NAI, so she writes to you at your TNAA email
address, "swaronkC~thenewamericanacademy.ora," saying, "Thank you s000 much. I can't
believe the timing of this:' This was a purposeful act. She didn't need to write a forward email
to you, since you were cc'd on John Sheahan Esq.'s email at your District email address, and she
could have just replied to you directly, but then again, that would have put her email on the
Districts servers. She didn't do that. Instead of simply replying to the Sheahan email, but
replying to you only, she opted to communicate with you surreptitiously, writing to you privately
at "swaronk@thenewamericanacademy ors," using your TNAA email address, which confirms
you had a continuing interest in the NAI.
Second, she cannot wait, and writes to you because she is so excited that you "pulled off
a miracle," or delivered a "blessing" for the NAI, since you enabled the NAI to win a fast tracked
contract award from your new employer, the District. Why was it so momentous? She writes to
you, "Thank you s000 much. I can't believe the timing of this" because she knew, as you did,
that the NAI was on the verge of going out of business due to insufficient funding to sustain its
operations4 She writes to shaze her excitement because you prevented the shutdown of your pet
^ The NA1 was on the verge of going ouf oC business due to the cash flow problems that NAI was experiencing, had
been running at a $4,854.23 monthly deficit for months, and had been operating in the red for four months since
March 2017. See:
Exhibit 29, a copy of 2016-17 Cash Flow analysis for the NAI/TNAA in excel spreadsheet format,
showing the NAI was in operating at a deficit of 4 54 29 per month, was in red starting in March 2017, and going
deeper and deeper into the red each month into June 2017, which document was produced in discovery in the federal
litigation that you commenced, p. MW-NAI-0025158; and
Elchibit 23, a copy of 2016-17 Projected Budge[ for [he NAI/TNAA in excel spreadsheet format, showing
[he NAI was forecasted ro operate in the red in [he 2016-17 school year, showing a forecasted deficit by June 30,
2017 of ~22.I C~3 20, which sum would have been X89.35520 if the NAI not had a surplus carzy forward of
$67,195.00 from the year prior, which document was produced in discovery in [he federal litigation that you
commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0025157; and
Exhibit 40, a copy of the "White Paper" written by Loraine Scorsone on February 1, 2018, after she
resigned as CEO of the NAI on January 16, 2018 after she detemvned that [he NAI was on a negative financial
trajectory and was not a viable educational model for the reasons set forth in her analytical assessment, produced in
Page 16 of 172
project, the manifestation of your dissertation, and educational service provider firm that you
founded, namely, the NAI, since the $450,000.00 annual compensation was 46% greater than the
$245,000.00 in total revenues earned by the NAI in the 2016-17 school year.5
Third, she could not wait to share her excitement, even though she is writing to you just
before Shabbat and you are not at work, but rather, you had left the District hours earlier in the
day, by 3:00 p.m., as had been your penchant on Fridays, to be sure to be home for Shabbat
regardless of possible likely heavy traffic needing to drive back to your home in Brooklyn. She
could not wait until after Shabbat to communicate the great relief she felt and her desire to
celebrate with you her excitement about the "great timing" of the contract that you caused the
HUFSD to award to the NAI. Interestingly, despite it being shortly before the stazt of Shabbat,
you wrote back to her, at 5:44 p.m., stating, "I know. However, that is how blessings work. They
aze a lot of hard work!" In response at 6:19 p.m., she exclaims, "Haha, right!" See, Exhibit 9, a
copy of June 23, 2017 emails from 4:36 p.m., 5:44 p.m., and 6:19 p.m., with the draft consulting
agreement forwarded to you at your "[email protected]" email address,
produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-1749 — p.
MW-NAI-1761.
On Sunday evening, June 25, 2017, at 929 p.m., Lorraine Scorsone sends back a draft
consulting contract to John Sheahan Esq., by email, for his review and approval. See, Exhibit
10, a copy of June 25, 2017, 9:29 p.m. email, from Lorraine Scorsone to John Sheahan, Esq.,
together with the draft consulting agreement she forwarded back to him, produced in discovery
in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-1072 — p. MW-NAI-1092.
The Sunday, June 25, 2017, 9:29 p.m. email, from Lorraine Scorsone to John Sheahan,
Esq., and the draft contract she sent back to him, is evidence that you were jumping the gun, and
pushing to get a contract signed by the District in haste, and that you were working with Lorraine
Scorsone against the District to benefit NAI. The contract that she sent back was preemptively
dated as June 27, 2017, instead of being sent back with a blank space, as is customazily the case
when still negotiating terms and exchanging drafts (such as, June _,2017), which indicates
that you were working with her to have the contract executed on or before the regulaz Board
meeting that was scheduled for June 27, 2017, when you had the NAI engagement on the
docket.b
discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-01101 - p. MW-NAI-01116, and p. MW-
NAI-01117 - p. MW-NAI-01132.
5 See, Exhibit 23, a copy of 2016-17 Projected Budge[ for[he NAI/TNAA in excel spreadsheet format, showing the
NAI was forecasted to have only $245,000.00 in total revenues, and [o operate in [he red in the 2016-17 school year,
showing a forecasted deticit by Junc 30, 2017 of $22.163~0, which sum would have been X89.663.20 had the NAI
not had a surplus carry forward of $67,500 from the year prior, which document was produced in discovery in the
federal litigation [hat you commenced, at p. MW-IVAI-0025157. Thus, the NAI's revenues in 2016-17 was only
54% of the revenue it was going to be able to forecast it would have in 2017-1 S, based on the $450,000.00 contract
with District alone ($245,000.00/$450,000.00 = 54%).
You caused the DistricPs Board of Education to pass a resolution ro award a $450,000 engagement in favor of the
NAI, regardless of the fact that a contract was not even fully negotiated and approved yet by John Sheahan, Esq.,
General Counsel~for the District. See, Exhibit 12, a copy of June 27, 2017 Board meeting minutes, at p.2.
Page 17 of 172
Thus, you were working with and through Loraine Scorsone to fast track a contract in
favor the NAI, and against the District, and to bypass the authority of the Purchasing Agent and
the Board of Education to evaluate bids before a contractis awarded and work is assigned to a
prospective vendor of the District, all for the benefit your pet project, the NAI, in which you
remained vested and interested.
Your conduct on June 25, 2017, using Loraine Scorsone to act as your agent to push for
a contract for your non-profit entity, the NAI, from your new employer, the District, before a
determination on the bidding process was made by the Purchasing Agent and the Board, was
consistent with your improper conduct on June 22, 2017, which prompted John Sheahan Esq., to
utter his prescient words the day before the RFP open date, when he asked you,"Has there been
a determination to awazd the RFP to the New American Academy?" See, Exhibit 7.
On June 27, 2017, John Sheahan, Esq., counsel for the District reviewed the proposed
contract for the NAI as a consultant, and he asked Lorraine Scorsone to answer questions about
the scope of work and deliverables. She was spectacularly unable to answer such questions and
did not turn for guidance to others within the NAI, but rather, by email at 139pm on June 27,
turned to you (and your personal secretary, Dini Gourarie for guidance) writing to. you
clandestinely, to your "[email protected]" email address, asking you,
"How do I answer this?" See, Exhibit 11, a copy of June 27, 2017 emails, produced in discovery
Five hours later, on June 27, 2017, at 6:15 pm, Lorraine Scorsone suddenly knows how to
answer the questions and sent an email to John Sheahan, Esq., counsel for the District. Clearly,
after you spoon fed the answers to your figurehead replacement CEO at the NAI, namely,
Lorraine Scorsone, who was able to supply him with answers to justify the cost proposals in the
NAI's proposed contract sent to him by email the night before. See, Exhibit 11. Notably, her
answer was sent only 45 minutes before the start of the Boazd meeting at 7:OOp.m., that same
night, when the NAI was on the docket to be awazded the service opportunity for $450,000.00
per annum, or neazly $1,800,000.00 over the four yeaz term of your employment contract. See,
Exhibit 12, a copy of the June 27, 2017 Board meeting minutes, with the NAI resolution set
forth on p.2 thereof.
On June 27, 2017, even though the contract negotiations were far from completed, and
even though the RFP process failed to produce any competitive bids to the one you caused the
NAI to resubmit, by hand delivery by your assistant, Dini Gourarie, with your name scrubbed off
the letterhead at the last minute, so that the NAI was the sole responsive bidder, you caused the
District's Board of Education to pass a resolution to award a $450,000 contract to the NAI. See,
Exhibit 12, a copy of June 27, 2017 Board meeting minutes, at p.2.
On July 5, 2017, at 828pm, your secretazy, Dini Gourarie, assured the NAI's de jure
CEO, Loraine Scorsone, that she could negotiate the contract for the NAI, with John Sheahan,
with your help. Ms. Scorsone did not understand the contract negotiation process, nor
understood how to provide for billable hours in the Consulting Contract she was supposed to be
negotiating for the NAI, so Ms. Gourarie assured her that you would ignore your conflict of
interest, and go ahead and help her negotiate against the District's General Counsel, and provide
Page 18 of 172
her with the guidance she needed to bazgain a deal with John Sheahan. On your behalf, Ms.
Gourarie wrote, "Lorraine, Shimon says this is the way contract negotiations are. He can show
you how to do billable hours. I've attached it again." Thus, Dini Gourarie was communicating
your willingness to help her answer the questions posed by Mr. Sheahan and bazgain for the NAI
against your employer, the District. In response, on July 6, 2017, Loraine Scorsone agreed to be
mentored by you in that fashion, so she could be responsive with your assistance and could
bazgain more effectively for NAI with your help against Mr. Sheahan. See, Exhibit 13, a copy
of the July 5, 2017 underlying email and the follow up July 6, 2017 email with attached the NAI
proposed consulting agreement to the HUFSD, produced in discovery in the federal litigation.
that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-219 — p. MW-NAI-240.
On July 6, 2017, at 9:41am, your secretary, Dini Gourazie, sent email to the NAI's
purported new CEO, Lorraine Scorsone, containing an admission that reveals the depth of your
conflict of interest, and the moral turpitude of your conduct, when she wrote, "Can you send to
John Sheahan again? You can download and save as same document .2" This email reveals that
Ms. Scorsone did not prepare the second draft of the NAI contract, but rather, you did, with Ms.
Gourazie's assistance as your personal secretary, and that you were sending it to her so she could
send it "as is" to John Sheahan, Esq., after downloading it. Thus, effectively, you were using
Lorraine Scorsone, as afront-person for you to hide behind, so you could conceal the fact that
you were negotiating for the NAI against your own employer, the District. See, Exhibit 14, a
copy of July 6, 2017 9:41am email, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
commenced, at p. MW-NAI-241.
On July 6, 2017, at 11:47am, when she could not find the document attached to that
email, Ms. Scorsone asked, "Where's the download?" This email confirms that Ms. Scorsone
had no involvement in prepazing the 2"a draft of the NAI contract, which was drafted entirely by
you, with Ms. Gourarie's assistance as your personal secretary, and that you were simply using
Ms. Scorsone as the delivery medium to transmit the document to John Sheahan, since Mr.
Sheahan had informed you that he would no longer allow you and Dini to communicate with him
for NAI, since you were supposed to be the District's Officer, and you were supposed to have an
undivided loyalty to the District. See, Exhibit 15, a copy of July 6, 2017 930am through
12:OOpm email exchange, with attached NAI proposed consulting agreement to the HLTFSD,
MW-NAI-264.
On July 6, 2017, at 3:43pm, the NAI's purported new CEO, Ms. Scorsone responded by
email to you, via your secretary, Dini Gourarie, by which she admitted that she had no role to
play in preparing the revised consulting services agreement that NAI was presenting to John
Sheahan, Esq., other than to download it to the NAI's computers, save it as ".2," and then send it .
to Mr. Sheahan "as is." Unsure of how to proceed, and seeking your guidance, Ms. Scorsone
asked,"So, I send this to John as us? [sic][presumably meaning, "as is"] Correct?" See, Exhibit
16, a copy of July 6, 2017 3:43pm email, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
On July 6, 2017, at 3:43pm, the NAI's purported new CEO, Lorraine Scorsone admitted
that she did not even work on the revised Consultant Agreement, and that any revisions that had
Page 19 of 172
yi Y
been implemented by the NAI in response to his critical comments had been performed by YOU,
with Dini Gourarie, and that you were using Lorraine Scorsone as a placeholder CEO. That is
the true meaning of her question, when she asks of Ms. Gourarie, "So, I send this to John as us?
[sic][presumably meaning, "as is"] Correct?" See, Exhibit 16, a copy of July 6, 2017 3:43pm
email.
Although the executed contract between the District and the NAI purports to be dated as
of June 27, 2017, at the top of page 1, the execution copy of the NAI contract is mazked July 12,
2017 at the upper right corner of the top of page 1 (over the text typed with June 27, 2017), and
was purportedly signed by Lorraine Scorsone on July 12, 2017, as CEO for the NAI, the truth is
that it was not fully negotiated and properly executable even as of July 12, 2017. See, Exhibit
17, a copy of the NAI consultancy contract, executed by Maribel Toure, for the District, as the
HIJFSD Board President, on July 25, 2017.
The problem with the July 12, 2017 date on the front page of contract and the signature of
Loraine Scorsone as CEO for NAI on July 12, 2017, is that the contract was not fully negotiated
as of July 12, 2017, and was not ready to be executed until July 25, 2017.
On July 11, 2017, the NAI submitted a contract with terms requiring the District to pay
NAI $37,500.00 each month, regardless of whether such payment was for past services or in
anticipation of future services, which was not acceptable under NYSED regulations. See,
Exhibit 18, a copy of the July 11, 2017 email to Patricia Wright, the District Clerk., from the
NAI's Lorraine Scorsone, which was forwarded to John Sheahan, Esq.
On July 13, 2017, John Sheahan, Esq., responded for the District to inform the NAI that
the District did not accept the contract submitted with terms requiring the District to pay the NAI
$37,500.00 each month, regardless of whether such payment was for past services or in
anticipation of future services, which was not acceptable under NYSED regulations. He also
informed NAI that the terms would be under review by the District's administration. See,
Exhibit 19, a copy of the July 13, 2017 email from John Sheahan Esq., to the NAI's Lorraine
Scorsone.
On July 13, 2017, John Sheahan, Esq., sent a second responsive email for the District to
the NAI's Loraine Scorsone, to inform her that Regina Armstrong would be reviewing the NAI
contract regarding tracking of services and scope of work as well as payment terms, since
services could not be pre-paid, but rather would be payable only after the services had been
rendered. See, Exhibit 20, a copy of the follow-up July 13, 2017 email from John Sheahan Esq.,
to the NAI's Lorraine Scorsone.
On July 14, 2017, Lorraine Scorsone responded to the second responsive email from John
Sheahan, Esq., for District, whereby Ms. Scorsone indicated she would contact Regina
Armstrong to discuss the contract. You are cc'd on the email. Notably, however, this time, you
are emailed to your District email address. This stands in stazk contrast to all of the other emails
highlighted herein, because it is consistent with the NAI's efforts to conceal the true nature of
your continued involvement in the NAI's operations, since it seemingly was intended to cast the
image that you were being informed as to the progress of the contract negotiations in a manner
Page 20 of 172
that would be consistent with how a vendor would communicate with counsel and you if it was
an arms-length transaction, and you had no conflict of interest in the negotiation of the
transaction. See, Exhibit 21, a copy of July 14, 2017 email, produced in discovery in the federal
litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-374.
On July 17, 2017, Lorraine Scorsone sent a revised contract to Regina Armstrong, in the
".2" format described in your secretary's July 6 email (see, Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 16, copies of
July 6, 2017 emails), with revised terms for payment in the exhibit B page,"Fee Schedule" to the
proposed contract. See, Exhibit 22, a copy of July 17, 2017 email, with the revised contract
attached, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-352
- p. MW-NAI-374.
At this point, the nature of your conflict put a spotlight of impropriety on how you were
proposing to have the terms negotiated by the District. It is totally unreasonable for you to have
thought it was acceptable, or that it could pass muster, to have the District enter into a contract
with the NAI, where the terms of the contract are supposed to be negotiated for the District by a
subordinate who is a direct report to you, is evaluated annually by you, is answerable to you on a
daily basis, and who works a few doors down from you in the AO. Since you had managed to
obtain'the Board's approval on June 27, 2017, to award a contract to your organization, the NAI,
without first having a contract fully negotiated before such a resolution was passed, you had put
the cazt before the horse. The deal was already a fait accompli, and you inherently were in a
position to bully anyone who dared slow down the process to look at the terms being proposed
objectively, or who might delay the deal to ponder issues of fairness or propriety. The whole
dynamic of the contract negotiation was a distortion of how a contract is supposed to be
negotiated for the District, and asking a subordinate to negotiate a contract against you, was a
prescription for failure, since the subordinate was in a position of extreme vulnerability if he/she
did not yield to your will to pay your company, the NAI, as you wanted it to be paid, or if he/she
were taking too much time to think over the terms of the contract to protect the District, when
such delay would be delaying your company from getting paid. Without even knowing the
financial extremis that your company was actually in at the time, the whole negotiation
framework was distorted, abnormal, and not designed to protect the District's interests, where
you were assigning to a subordinate employee the task of bargaining a contract against you
and/or your pet project.
Nonetheless, The District needed someone to review the scope of services for value and
methods of computing value, whether by hours of work performed or by deliverables provided to
the District, and you designated Regina Armstrong, the Districts Associate Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction, to review the contract for the District. See, Exhibit 19 and Exhibit
20, copies of the July 13, 2017 emails.
The problem with this assignment to Regina Armstrong is that your conflict of interest
rendered the whole negotiation illusory and defeating to the Districts best interests, and its
ability to negotiate freely to pursue its interests against yours to give a generous contract to the
NAI. Indeed, the contract between the NAI and the District was worth more than the entirety of
the NAI's revenue in the prior year, which was only $245.000.00, and which was projected as
$312,195.00 with the benefit of a $67,195.00 balance carry forwazd from the year prior. See,
Page 21 of 172
__
Exhibit 23, a copy of 2016-17 Projected Budget for NAUTNAA in excel spreadsheet format,
produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, p. MW-NAI-0025157.
It was not even remotely reasonable to expect your direct report subordinate, Associate
Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Regina Armstrong, to negotiate against you as she
should, or as she could if she was free of your. pressure and coercion, directly or indirectly
applied, inasmuch as you were her boss and her direct report, as Superintendent of Schools. The
whole "negotiation process" was meaningless, because there was no way to avoid the
consequence of your impermissible conflict of interest permeating and infecting the process to
stymie, if not thwart altogether, any real negotiations over terms.
Indeed, although the District was fortunate that the assignment was given to Regina
Armstrong, who rendered professional responsive commentary to John Sheahan, Esq., who in
tum negotiated for reasonable and standazd terms for the District, the process was unreasonable
as to him also.
He too was placed in a compromised position, by your involvement and relationship with
the NAI, especially where, in September 2017, you had the blind support of the then-Board
majority, Maribel Toure, Gwen Jackson and Mary Crosson. Indeed, the best expression of the
immutable fact that both John Sheahan and Regina Armstrong were being abused by you
insisting upon awarding a fast tracked contract to your company the NAI, is that neither of them
reported sooner to the NYSED your questionable conduct regarding the NAI as of then, whether
related to the obvious bid rigging conduct that you engaged in, or the pre-emptive contract
negotiating you tried to commence on June 22 2017 (a day before the bid open date); or
otherwise.
On July 20, 2017, John Sheahan, Esq., sent an email for the District, to the NAI's
Loraine Scorsone, enclosing a revised consulting contract for NAI, together with a revised
contract dated June 27, 2017, but sent July 20, 2017. See, Exhibit 24, a copy of the follow-up
July 20, 2017 email from John Sheahan Esq., to the NAI's Lorraine Scorsone, together with a
July 20 draft contract (regardless, however, of it being dated June 27, 2017).
On July 25, 2017, the District signed the contract with the NAI. See, Exhibit 17, a copy
of the NAI consultancy contract, executed by Mazibel Toure, for the District, as the HUFSD
Board President, on July 25, 2017.
Thus, by hiding behind Dini Gourarie, and Loraine Scorsone, you concealed your
involvement in the awazd of a contract to the NAI, and your continuing role with the NAI.
Your behavior relating to the negotiation of the NAI contract via Lorraine Scorsone
against the District, which shows that you had a continuing interest in NAI, and a conflict of
interest with the District, and that you sought to conceal that conflict while pursuing the contract
for the NAI, establishes that your conduct was deceitful, manipulative, and a violation of law.
The totality of facts enumerated above, and the evidence detailing your behavior
regazding the NAI contract, establishes that you had an egregious ethical lapse, your judgment
Page 22 of 172
was poor, your discretion was clouded by improper motivations, and you engaged in conduct of
moral turpitude.
Accordingly, your judgment cannot be trusted, and your behavior outlined above
warrants the immediate termination of your employment with the District.
C. The Charade of Lorraine Scorsone acting as the NAI's "Interim CEO," as

a Personal Favor" to you, and your work for the NAI as a de facto
Officer, to support her Interim CEO role
1. Pursuing the NAI's Contract with TNAACS
Based off the contract with the HUFSD, the NAI sought to secure a contract with its own
sister organization, TNAACS,but as of July 31, 2017, Lorraine Scorsone could not even sign the
agreement for the NAI as its CEO, because she was not even retired yet as an employee of the
New York City Department of Education (hereinafter,"NYCDOE").
Lorraine Scorsone's inability to sign as CEO for the NAI as of July 31, 2017, because she
had not retired yet from the NYSDOE, because the TNAACS contract involved funding to be
paid to NAI from the NYCDOE, exposes the truth that she was not truly or validly the CEO of
the NAI as of that date.
If she had a problem signing a contract as of July 31, 2017 because the NYSDOE had
oversight over the contract, then how could she have signed contracts for the NAI prior to July
23, 2017, including the one she signed on July 12, 2017 with the HUFSD?
The problem is that if she could not be the CEO of the NAI for purposes of the TNAACS
contract with the NAI, since that contract was subject to NYCDOE review and oversight, then
she was not properly holding herself out to be the CEO of NAI, period. This revelation exposes
the misrepresentations made to the HUFSD that she was NAI's CEO, which she made at your
behest, and which she was willing to do as "personal favor"~ to you when dealing with HUFSD,
when in fact, she was just an "interim CEO"$, and she was not willing to represent that she was
the NAI's CEO to the NYCDOE. See, Exhibit 25, a copy of the July 31, 2017 email exchange
regarding Lorraine Scorsone's inability to sign as CEO for the NAI until she retires from the
NYCDOE, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-
389.
~ On January 16, 2018, Lorraine Scorsonc admits [hat she served as an "intecitu" CEO only, for no pay, and as a
mere "personal favor" to you, Shimon, so you could pull off your hoax on the HUFSD and pretend that you were
not really pulling [he strings and continuing to be both [he leader and guiding force behind the NAI, while you
"transition" to becoming the Superintendent of Schools" at the District. She resigns as the unpaid, interim CEO, as
of January 12, 2018. See, Exhibit 68, a copy of the January 16, 2017 email, and attached resolution from Lorraine
Scorsone, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-808 — p. MW-NAI-
809.
$ See,footnote #7, infra.
Page 23 of 172
b
Loraine Scorsone's inability to sign as CEO for the NAI in its dealing with TNAACS
and the NYCDOE triggered a problem requiring deliberations among the NAI's and TNAACS's
leadership team. You were not out of the loop. Indeed, the person to guide Lorraine Scorsone as
to how to proceed was you. Your personal secretary, Dini Gourarie, sought your guidance via
email, but did not write to you via your HUFSD email address. Instead, she wrote to you
clandestinely, to your "[email protected]" email address, asking you,
"Shimon, please read Lorraine's question below. If we change date, to avoid problems, should
we change contract to 11 months and divide monies that way? So we don't lose July funding?
See, Exhibit 25, a copy of the July 31, 2017 email.
The language employed by your personal secretary, Dini Gourazie, is revealing, By use
of the word "we," she is including you in the collective. The word "we" refers to the party that
would bill and collect fees, but would divide the monies by 11 months, not 12, if you guided her
to follow that line of analysis. Since the delay risked "losing funding," which would be
occasioned by a delay in billing of TNAACS by the NAI, if the NAI waited for Lorraine
Scorsone to be able to sign as CEO for the NAI, which could only happen after she retired from
employment with the NYCDOE,then the "we" is the NAI. The "we" is not TNAACS, because
TNAACS was receiving its money from the NYSDOE, regardless of whether Lorraine Scorsone
continued to be employed bythe NYCDOE or not. Thus, the "we" had to be the NAI, since only
the NAI was to be impacted by whether Loraine Scorsone could sign as CEO for the NAI or
not. Thus, you were clearly being consulted as pazt of the NAI team, and your continuing
interest in the NAI's funding is revealed thereby. See, Exhibit 25, a copy of the July 31, 2017
email.
The statement, "So we don't lose July funding," is a statement of concern for the NAI,
and the issue is being brought to you for your consideration, and for deliberation and guidance,
since you remained a defacto officer and decision maker for the NAI. See, Exhibit 25, a copy of
the July 31, 2017 email.
This was not a new problem for the NAI on July 31, 2017. Indeed, Lorraine Scorsone
raised her concerns about "playing the role of CEO" for the NAI, when the issue was discussed
in depth on July 25, 2017 and July 26, 2017, by emails that addressed a shortage of funds to pay
the NAI. The NAI needed to collect funds to meet its own payable obligations. The following
sequence of emails illuminates the chazade that Lorraine Scorsone was holding herself out as a .
fully capable CEO of the NAI at the time:
• On July 25, 2017, Matt Harrington of the NAI and TNAA wrote to Dini, stating,
"Chazter cannot fund TNAI until new service aereement is reached with new
CEO when that person is installed in their new role."
o If Loraine Scorsone had been fully installed as CEO, he would have had
no need to write "when that person is installed in their new role."
o If Lorraine Scorsone was truly the CE0 of the NAI at that time, then he
would have wrote, "... until new service agreement is signed by Lorraine
Scorsone."
Page 24 of 172
On July 26, 2017, Matt Harrington listed a series of steps that were needed to be
taken to get the NAI's house in order, in terms of documents not yet prepared,
executed, filed or voted upon, including a needed Board resolutions to be passed
and adding Loraine Scorsone to the bank account as a signatory for the NAI. He
cautioned, however, that, "I would check with Lorraine to see if her acceptin¢ this
position conflicts at all with the timing of her retirin¢ from the DOE?."
o Again, if Lorraine had been fully insta118d as CEO, he would have had no
need to write that.
o How could she still not be a signatory after one month and 26 days had
passed since you allegedly resigned as CEO effective as of June 1, 2017?
If she was not a signatory for the NAI yet, as of July 26, 2017, then who
was?9
On July 26, 2017, Dini Gourarie writes to you and Loraine, to update you
concerning the need to (1) set up a "time [to meet] with "Loraine, Matt and Lisa
to [be able to] go forward with TNACCS payments" and (2) confirm Lorraine
does not have a problem with respect to Matt Harrington's expressed concerns,
when he wrote, "I would check with Lorraine to see if her accepting this position
conflicts at all with the timing of her retiring from the DOE?."
o Again, if Lorraine had been fully installed as CEO, there would have been
no need for Matt Harrington to write that.
o If you were not still involved in the operations of the NAI and TNAA,and
if you were no longer interested in its financial outlook, then she would
not be seeking to consult with you about the finances on the NAI, securing
TNAACS payments for the NAI, or whether Ms. Scorsone was able to
serve as an unpaid CEO of the NAI.
See, Exhibit 26, a copy of the July 26, 2017 email exchange regarding produced in discovery in
the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-390 - p. MW-NAI-391 (emphasis
added).
As of July 26, 2017, Loraine Scorsone responded to the question whether she was able
to serve as the NAI's CEO for purposes of NYCDOE funded schools, by stating in reply, "I
know for sure I cannot accept any money until I retire officially. Shimon said I can work pro
bono as CEO without a conflict of interest. Shimon, is there a lawyer that can substantiate this
[?]" See, Exhibit 27, a copy of the July 26, 2017 emails, exchange regazding produced in
discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-393 - p. MW-NAI-396
(emphasis added).
The totality of facts enumerated above, and the evidence detailing your continued
involvement in the management and operations of the NAI, despite your denials of the truth that
you continued to have interests in the NAI, establishes that you had an egregious ethical lapse,
9 If this matter proceeds [o a hearing at the American Arbitration Association, then prior thereto, the District shall
seek discovery as to those issues, in accordance with your ContracPs terms. See, Exhibit 1, the Contract, at 9[10(C).
The District reserves its rights to amend these Charges and Specifications, based upon such discovery.
Page 25 of 172
your judgment was poor, your discretion was clouded by improper motivations, and you engaged
in conduct of moral turpitude.
2. The August 3,2017 Payment to the NAI from the District
On August 3, 2017, you caused the District to pay the NAI on its first invoice submitted
to District, which was received by the District on August 3, 2017 and processed and paid on
August 3, 2017. See, Exhibit 28, a copy of the first Requisition packet for the NAI's initial
billing to the District, consisting of the District's August 3 check in payment to the NAI, the
NAI's Invoice dated July 31, 2017 with supporting papers, the Districts Purchase Order
processed on August 3, 2017, and the email approving the expedited payment to NAI on August
3, 2017,from the Districts External Claims Auditors.
The District's check, dated August 3, 2017, was deposited by the NAI on August 4, 2017.
The NAI needed the payment to be rushed through and processed on neazly instantaneous terms,
due to the cash flow problems that NAI was experiencing, having been running at a $4,854.23
monthly deficit for months, and having been operating in the red for four months since Mazch
2017. See, Exhibit 29, a copy of 2016-17 Cash Flow analysis for the NAUTNAA in excel
spreadsheet format, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, p. MW-
NAI-0025158; see also, Exhibit 23, a copy of 2016-17 Projected Budget for the NAU'I'NAA in
excel spreadsheet format, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at
p. MW-NAI-0025157.
The payment was made in such a rush to NAI, by the District, only because you put
undue pressure upon the Districts employees in the BO to process it and pay it on a "fire drill
basis," and undue pressure upon the Districts External Claims Auditors, namely, Cerini &
Associates, due to your conflict of interest, which is the subject of a separate Chazge herein. See,
Charge #4, infra.
Separate and apazt from the conflict of interest behavior demonstrated by your undue
influence upon District personnel and its External Claims Auditors to prioritize payment to the
NAI on August 3, 2017, with same day turn around timing (which is unheard of favoritism), you
also demonstrated your continuing interest in the NAI,concerning the August 3, 2017 payment.
Your continued involvement in the NAI's operations as a de facto officer of NAI, even
after Lorraine Scorsone agreed to serve as your "Interim" de j~ire CEO, was shown on August 4,
2018, when you performed a cash flow analysis for the NAI after the Districts check, dated
August 3, 2017, was cashed on August 4, 2017. See, Exhibit 30, a copy of the August 4, 2017
email that you sent to Loraine Scorsone, together with the cash flow analysis in excel
spreadsheet format attached thereto, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0457 - p. MW-NAI-0458.
Page 26 of 172
Worst of all, you sent the cash flow analysis for the NAI to her, from your
"[email protected]" email address, evidencing that you were engaging in
NAI management activity for her, in a clandestine fashion.
Your efforts to fast track the payment of the District's cash to the NAI, and to conceal
your involvement in management of the cash flow of the of NAI by conversing with Lorraine
Scorsone from your "[email protected]" email address, proves your
continuing stewardship role and defacto officer position in NAI after June 2, 2017.
Your behavior relating to the August 3, 2017 check issued to the NAI, the pressure you
applied upon the District's Business Office personnel and the Districts External Claims Auditors
to process the District's payment to the NAI, and your performance of a cash flow analysis for
the NAI and you sending to her the same day that the NAI check was cashed, shows that you had
a continuing interest in the NAI, and a conflict of interest with the District.
The cash flow analysis you performed for Lorraine Scorsone and emailed to her from
your "[email protected]" email address shows that you sought to conceal
that conflict while pursuing your continuing interest in and officer role in the NAI, which
establishes that your conduct was deceitful, manipulative, and a violation of law.
regazding the NAI cash flow analysis that you performed on August 4, 2017, establishes that you
had an egregious ethical lapse in favor of the NAI, your judgment was poor, your discretion was
clouded by improper motivations, and you engaged in conduct of moral turpitude.
3. The September 25 and September 26, 2017 NYSED Charter School

Office Renewal Site Visit to TNAACS
On July 27, 2017, the issue of TNAACS's renewal application, to be able to operate as a
Chazter School, was circulated by the TNAACS Director of Operations, Matthew Harrington, to
the NAI and TNAA team. If you had actually resigned from the NAI and TNAA,instead ofjust
resigning on a de jure basis, then you would have had no need to be included on the email
circulated to the TNAACS Board and the NAI team. Yet, you covertly remained involved in the
operations of TNAA and the NAI, as evidenced by the email being sent to you too, at your
"[email protected]" email address. See, Exhibit 31, a copy of the July 27,
2017 email, together with the Attachment "O" sheet to be signed by mentor and friend, Varleton
("Mac") McDonald, as the TNAACS Board President, produced in discovery in the federal
litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0397 - p. MW-NAI-398.
On August 13, 2017, the Headmaster of TNAACS, Lisa Parquette Silva, sent out a blast
email to the NAI and TNAA team to notify all interested persons on the circulation list that the
NYSED Chazter School Office (hereinafter,"CSO")intended to conduct a "renewal site visiP' at
the TNAACS location in Brooklyn, on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017. If you had
Page 27 of 172
actually resigned from the NAI and TNAA,instead of just resigning on a de jure basis, then you
would have had no need to be included on the email circulated to the TNAACS Board and the
NAI team concerning the site visit at TNAACS. Yet, you covertly remained involved in the
operations of TNAA and NAI, as evidenced by the email being sent to you too, at your
"[email protected]" email address. See, Exhibit 32, a copy of the August
13, 2017 email, together with the Char[er Renewal Site Visit Protocol booklet and the August 11,
2017 cover letter from the NYSED CSO, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
On August 14, 2017, the Headmaster of TNAACS, Lisa Parquette Silva, sent out another
blast email to the NAI and TNAA team to notify all interested persons on the circulation list of
the NYSED CSO "renewal site visiP' to be held on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017.
If you had actually resigned from the NAI and TNAA, instead of just resigning on a de jure
basis, then you would have had no need to be included on the email circulated to the TNAACS
Board and the NAI team concerning the site visit at TNAACS. Yet, you were cc'd on this email
also, which was sent to your "[email protected]" email address. See,
Exhibit 33, a copy of the August 14, 2017 email, produced n discovery in the federal litigation
that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0439 - p. MW-NAI-440.
On Sunday, September 24, 2017, the Headmaster of TNAACS, Lisa Pazquette Silva, sent
out another blast email to the NAI and TNAA team, with a "talking points memo" and a draft
"trending ELA narrative", to prepaze everyone intending to attend the NYSED CSO "renewal
site visit" to be held on Monday and Tuesday, September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017,
respectively. If you had actually resigned from the NAI and TNAA,instead ofjust resigning on
a de jure basis, then you would have had no need to be included on the email circulated to the
TNAACS Boazd and the NAI team concerning the site visit at TNAACS. Yet, you were cc'd
once again on this email, which was sent to your private "[email protected]" email
address. See, Exhibit 34, a copy of the September 24,'2017 email, together with the talking
points memo, produced n discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-
NAI-0577 - p. MW-NAI-583.
On August 23, 2017, you submitted a form for approval of requested time off from work
at the District, to be taken on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017. See, Exhibit 35, a
copy of August 23, 2017 "Administrator's Absence Report," signed by you, requesting two days
off during the three day period from "9/24 — 9/26", to be used as "conference/workshop" time off
from work, which request was approved by then Board President Maribel Toure, on August 24,
2017.
You took time off from work at the District on September 25, 2017 and September 26,
2017, to attend the NYSED CSO "renewal site visit" to be held on those date, but you lied about
the nature of the time you were taking off on those days, by claiming to be using them as "work
shop" days. See, Exhibit 36, a copy of your Attendance Record in the Districts Finance
Manager data base, maintained by the District's BO for the 2017-2018 school yeaz, showing you
took September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 as paid days off as "workshop" days.
Page 28 of 172
You took September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 as paid days off as "workshop"
days, but you did not attend a "workshop" or a "conference:
' Instead, you attended the renewal
site visit by the NYSED CSO on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 at TNAACS.
No part of the two days that you took off from work at the District, was for Professional
Development, or for skills training for your professional growth. The site visit on September 25,
2017 and September 26, 2017 at TNAACS was not a conference or a workshop that would or
could qualify as Professional Development or skills training:
You did not take those days off, to attend a "work shop" of any kind.
You did not take those days off, to/for the benefit of the District in any way.
You only took those days off to advance your interests in, and serve your personal
interests to grow your investment as the founder and as a person with a continuing interest in the
NAI, TNAA and TNAACS.
The renewal site visit on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 at the TNAA
Charter School was ONLY for the purpose of securing a renewal of the permit from the NYSED,
for TNAACS to operate as a Charter School, which in no way related to your service to the
District as its Superintendent of Schools, so that your attendance thereat in no way served the
interests of the District.
Your efforts to conceal (1) your involvement in the management of the NAI's business
interests, which were intertwined with the business of TNAACS,(2) your arrangements to attend
the NYSED CSO's renewal visit at TNAACS, by conversing with the NAI and TNAA staff via
your "[email protected] and your "uspwaronkerCagmail.com" email
addresses, and (3) your actual attendance at the NYSED CSO's renewal visit at TNAACS on
September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017, all proves your continuing stewazdship role and de
facto officer position in the NAUTNAA/TNAACS after June 2, 2017.
The false representation to the District that you were attending a work shop on September
25, 2017 and September 26, 2017, when you were really attending the NYSED CSO's renewal
site visit at TNNACS, shows that you sought to conceal your conflict while pursuing your
continuing interest in and officer role in the NAI, which establishes that your conduct was
deceitful, manipulative, and a violation of law.
regarding the NYSED CSO's renewal site .visit at T'NNACS on September 25, 2017 and
September 26, 2017, establishes that you had an egregious ethical lapse in favor of NAI, your
judgment was poor, your discretion was clouded by improper motivations, and you engaged in
conduct of moral turpitude.
Page 29 of 172
4. The sales pitch to Yeshivas, as potential clients of the NAI, and your
guidance and support of Lorraine Scorsone,for the NAI's growth and
success.
It appeazs you did resign as the CEO of the NAI and TNAA on a de jc~re basis as of June
I5, 2017. See, Exhibit 37, a copy of the June I5, 2017 Board minutes of NAI, which document
was produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-01826.
However, after you resigned as the de jure CEO of the NAI, you needed to be involved,
and so you continued to remain involved, in managing NAI's clients, managing the NAI's
operations, and supporting Loraine Scorsone, since she was not able to manage the NAI's
clients and be a successful CEO without your continuing involvement and guidance.
Interestingly enough, this need for you to be involved in pitching new work for the NAI
did cause you to actually recognize in writing, once, that you had a conflict of interest serving
the NAI while being the District's Superintendent of Schools. See, Exhibit 38, a copy of the
January 5, 2018 email, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-025267 [Notepad document].
The issue is, however, that but for that one time, you otherwise routinely ignored the
conflict of interest and did whatever you wanted to do, either because you did not think you
would get caught, or because you didn't think it was a big deal, or because you just didn't care
since the NAI was your brainchild and your pet project and you wanted the NAI to thrive. The
reason does not matter, actually. Regardless of your thought process, or your reasoning, your
conduct was reprehensible because you not only should have known, but you actually did know
that what you were doing for the NAI was prohibited, was a conflict of interest, and was a
violation of the General Municipal Law. See, Exhibit 38. And yet, you did it anyway.
In that instance where you did recognize the conflict of interest issue, concerning the
Chabad of Northeast Queens (discussed in sub-point "c" below in this section 4), you declined to
service the NAI client, and the result was that the client became embittered for not having access
to you, since you were the "visionazy"10 or salesman who sold them the dream of the NAI
program, and Lorraine Scorsone was unable to prevent the NAI from losing the client. See,
Exhibit 39, a copy of Lorraine Scorsone's January 28, 2018 email, and Dina Blesofsky's
January 29, 2018 reply email, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
By then, however, the NAI's demise was all but a certainty. See, Exhibit 40, a copy of
the "White Paper" written by Loraine Scorsone after she resigned as CEO of NAI, on February
1, 2018, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-
01101 - p. MW-NAI-01116, and p. MW-NAI-01117 - p. MW-NAI-01132.
~~ See, Exhibit 40, a copy of the "White Paper" written by Loraine Scorsone after she resigned as CEO of the NAI,
onFebruazy 1, 2018 produced in discovery in [he federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-01101 - p.
MW-NAI-01 116 (stating, at p. MW-NAI-Ot 120, that "Absence of a CEO is a deficit. Shimon is a visionary, but
not an execuror. He is an inspirational conveyor of the NAI message, but no[ an executor of a plan.")(emphasis
added).
Page 30 of 172
Nonetheless, as is shown by the below examples of the NAI's interactions with several
Yeshivas from June 15, 2017 through Lorraine Scorsone's resignation as the NAI's de jure CEO
on January 16, 2018, you remained involved as a de facto officer of NAI, to help prevent the
NAI from failing (as it did) under Lorraine Scorsone's leadership.
The fact that you resigned as the NAI's de jure CEO on June I5, 2017, purportedly
retroactive to and effective from June 1, 2017 (see, Exhibit 37), did not change the fact that you
remained deeply embedded and involved in the NAI's operations, acted as a defacto Officer of
the NAI, and were integral to its Yeshiva clientele.
a. Yeshiva Ohr Reuven in Suffern, NY.
For example, on September 25, 2017, Danielle Bloom of the Yeshiva Ohr Reuven
reached out to you, after she attended a work-shop type presentation that you made in
Cedarhurst, on or about July 25, 2017, at the Consortium of Jewish Day Schools (hereinafter, the
"CoJDS" or "Consortium"). See, Exhibit 41, a copy of the September 25, 2017 emails between
you and Danielle Bloom that initiated the connection, produced in discovery in the federal
You routed Ms. Bloom to Lorraine Scorsone and Dini Gourarie. See, Exhibit 42, a copy
of the follow up emails on September 25, 2017 through September 27, 2017, sent by NAI staff to
pursue the business lead that you generated for NAI by making the presentation at the
Consortium on July 25, 2017, which documents were produced in discovery in the federal
After the Jewish high holidays passed, Loraine Scorsone and Dini Gourarie followed up
with this consortium lead, pursuing Danielle Bloom to grow the NAI's business. See, Exhibit
43, a copy of the follow up emails from October 16, 2017 through October 29, 2017, which
documents were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-
NAI-0624 - p. MW-NAI-0632.
However, when the Ms. Bloom asked Lorraine Scorsone to produce data on the efficacy
of the NAI program, because one of the teachers at the Yeshiva Ohr Reuven expressed doubts
about the NAI program, Lorraine Scorsone offered to set up a face-to-face meeting at the school,
so that.the NAI leaders could "speak with the staff and help on board them." Ms. Bloom then
asked Lorraine Scorsone if she could set up such a meeting with Yeshiva Ohr Reuven's school
leaders to "help get them on boazd." In response, Lorraine conceded that you needed to be
involved, and she needed you mentorship, stating, "Yes. I am thinking exactly that ... an NAI
visit to your school. I am waiting to eet Shimon's input resardine on-boardine. He is wise and
has done this before I wish to learn from him which procedures were the most successful in the
past•" See, Exhibit 44, a copy of the emails exchanged on October 29, 2017, which documents
Page 31 of 172
were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0635 -
p. MW-NAI-0637(emphasis added).
b. The Jewish Academy in Northport, NY.
As another example, on October 16, 2017, Lorraine Scorsone followed up on an existing

client relationship and reached back out to one of the Directors of The Jewish Academy in
Northport, on Long Island, to secure a continuing association of that school with the NAI. A
google search of Chaya Teldon's email address ([email protected]) reveals that
the educational program's details are as follows:
The Jewish Academy

Directors: Chaya Teldon and Rabbi Michael Druin
178 Cedar Rd,E Northport, NY 11731
Phone: 631-368-2600
Fax: 631 368 2384
Email: info Catheiewishacadem
Email: cteldon@theiewishacadem
Founded 2004
An email exchange ensued on October 16, 2017, and Lorraine Scorsone asked Chaya
Teldon if his expressed interest in working with NAI meant that his Yeshiva had decided to sign
up, writing, "is that a yes ... are you in?" In response, he wrote, "Yes, but we need to talk
details, price, etc:
' In reply, Loraine Scorsone made a critical admission, stating, "Yes. we will
talk with Shimon to ¢uide us." See, Exhibit 45, a copy of the October 16, 2017 email, produced
n discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0613(emphasis added).
c. The Chabad in Bayside, Queens, NY.
As yet another example, on Januazy 3, 2018, your staff at the NAI reached out to Dina
Blesofsky, the Head of School at Chabad of Northeast Queens, in Bayside, to explore renewing
the contract that was set to expire on Februazy 28, 2018.
Vanessa Marie Scorsone, who stazted working for NAI in November 2017, as an
executive assistant to her mom, wrote to Dina Blesofsky, saying, "I just wanted to send you a
friendly reminder about your upcoming meetings with Loraine [Scorsone]. She is looking
forward to working with you!" On January 4, 2018, instead of agreeing to proceed as had been
scheduled previously, Dina Blesofsky replied, saying, "I would like to meet with Lorraine this
Mondav, however. I had honed to have spoken with Shimon to work out the issues that need to
be resolved in terms of the relationship between NAI and Chabad Qoine forward." See, Exhibit
46, a copy of the January 3, 2018 and Januazy 4, 2018 emails, produced in discovery in the
federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0796 (emphasis added).
Realizing that Lorraine did not have the clout with the client, as a successor CEO,to save
the client relationship, the NAI team discussed how to try to save the relationship, and on
January 4, 2018, Vanessa Marie Scorsone replied, stating, in relevant pazt, "We have been in
Page 32 of 172
ontact with Shimon and will do our best to make this phone conference hanoen tomorrow."
See, Exhibit 47, a copy of the January 4, 2018 emails, produced n discovery in the federal
litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0799(emphasis added).
However, on Januazy 5, 2018, Vanessa Mazie Scorsone replied to Dina Blesofsky,

stating, in relevant part, "Good Afternoon Dina, Hope you are warm :) We were able to reach
Shimon. Due to his new position as Superintendent of Hempstead, he is no longer CEO of NAI,
and would be a conflict of interest for him to discuss NAI matters. All conversations and
questions in regazds to NAI should now be discussed with Lorraine. Thank you for
understanding and please let us know if Monday's meeting is still scheduled. Lorraine looks
forward to meeting with you." See, Exhibit 38, a copy of the Januazy 5, 2018 email, produced n
discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-025267 (Notepad
document)(emphasis added).
On Januazy 28, 2018, the Board of the Chabad Northeast Queens issued a response,
which Dina Blesofsky forwarded to Lorraine Scorsone, indicating that without Shimon
Wazonker's day to day involvement in the NAI, they felt they had not received the support they
had contracted with the NAI to receive, and that on account thereof, they Felt they had paid
enough for the services they had received, and they would not continue to pay for the support
provided by the NAI under Lorraine Scorsone's leadership. See, Exhibit 48, a copy of the
January 28, 2018 email, produced n discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-0825 (emphasis added).
After the District terminated its contract with the NAI on December 21, 2017, and after
the District placed you on ALGA with Pay on Januazy 9, 2018, Lorraine Scorsone soured on
being the CEO for the NAI any further, and she tendered her resignation on January 16, 2018,
effective January 12, 2018. See, Exhibit 49, a copy of Lorraine Scorsone's January 16, 2018
email, with her formal resignation notice attached thereto, produced in discovery in the federal
On Januazy 28, 2018, Lorraine Scorsone notified Chabad Northeast Queens that she was
no longer the CEO of the NAI and that due to the suspension of payment by Chabad (due to the
disagreement that existed over the quality of the NAI's services after you stopped being the day
to day officer operating the NAI), the NAI was suspending service unless a new agreement was
reached. The next day, Chabad's Dina Blesofsky agreed to the suspension, given the lack of an
agreement to work with the NAI without more involvement from you, Dr. Waronker, given the
leadership commitments you promised to be delivered by the NAI, but were not being delivered
by NAI under Lorraine Scorsone's leadership. See, Exhibit 39, a copy of Lorraine Scorsone's
January 28, 2018 email, and Dina Blesofsky's January 29, 2018 reply email, produced in
discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0829 - p. MW-NAI-0832.
Thus, the one time you recognized the conflict of interest that existed by virtue of you
being the Superintendent of Schools for the District, and you operating as a de facto officer of
the NAI, and withheld support from NAI, Lorraine Scorsone was an utter failure as the CEO of
NAI to deliver the services, and collect the revenues, that would have made the NAI's
customer's loyal clients, and would have funded the NAI's operations.
Page 33 of 172
D. Your embedded role in NAI,TNAA and TNAACS,and your involvement
as a de facto Officer of NAI, TNAA and TNAACS, after June 15, 2017,
despite being the Superintendent of Schools for the District
On July 7, 2017, the staff at TNAA published the calendar for the then upcoming 2017-
2018 school year. You were the Superintendent of Schools for the District for 35 days at that
point in time. Yet, you remained involved in TNAA or TNAACS matters, and updated as to the
PS 770 calendaz for the upcoming yeaz, via your "[email protected]"
email address. Such continuation of emails to your TNAA email address enabled you to conceal
your continued involvement in NAI and TNAA from the District, when you were supposed to be
working for the District and getting School ready to open the District's schools or the next school
yeaz. See, Exhibit 16, a copy of July 7, 2017 emails regarding the TNNA school calendar,
produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0188 - p.
MW-NAI-0192.
On July 25, 2017, an email was circulated to the TNAACS Board and the NAI team
concerning the TNAACS Board meeting to be held on August 2, 2017. You were covertly
informed of the TNAACS Board Meeting, as evidenced by the email sent to your
"[email protected]" email address. See, Exhibit 50, a copy of the July 25,
2017 email notice of the August 2, 2017 Board meeting, produced in discovery in the federal
On July 26, 2017, an email was circulated to the TNAACS Board and the NAI team
concerning problems encountered, and steps needed to be taken, to enable TNAACS to pay the
NAI, which was in the red and needed cash at that time in the worst way to cover expenses. You
were covertly informed of the problems TNAACS was having paying the NAI, as evidenced by
the email sent to your "swaronkC~thenewlmericanacademy.orb" email address. See, Exhibit 51,
a copy of the July 26, 2017 email sent to you, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that
you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0390.
On July 27, 2017, an email was circulated to the TNAACS Boazd and the NAI team
concerning the Charter School Renewal Certification Application to be signed by Vazleton
McDonald prior to August 1, 2017. You were covertly updated by the email sent to your
"swazonkC~thenewamericanacademv.ors" email address. See, Exhibit 31, a copy of the July 27,
2017 email sent to you, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-0397.
On August 2, 2017, the TNAACS Boazd held a meeting. If you had actually resigned
from the NAI and TNAA, instead of just resigning on a de jure basis, then you would have had
no need to be included on the email circulated to the TNAACS Board and the NAI team
concerning the TNAACS Boazd meeting held on August 2, 2017. Yet, you covertly remained
involved in the operations of TNAA and the NAI, as evidenced by the email being sent to you
too, at your "[email protected] email address. See, Exhibit 52, a copy of
the August 2, 2017 conference call notification, sent by your secretazy who was the organizer of
Page 34 of 172
the email notice and the Boazd meeting, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
On August 4, 2017, you emailed Lorraine Scorsone, with a cash flow analysis for the
NAI, after the District's check, dated August 3, 2017, was cashed on August 4, 2017, to pay the
NAI's first invoice to the District. See, Exhibit 30, a copy of the August 4, 2017 email, together
with the cash flow analysis in excel spreadsheet format attached thereto, produced in discovery
in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0457 - p. MW-NAI-0458. You did
not wait for Lorraine Scorsone to perform the cash'flow analysis, even though she was the new
CEO, and you resigned as the NAI's de ja~re CEO on June 15, 2017. See, Exhibit 38, a copy of
the June 15, 2017 Board minutes of the NAI, which document was produced in discovery in the
federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-01826. You were keenly awaze of the
NAI's cash flow problems at that time, which was due to the NAI having a monthly operational
budget deficit of $4,854.23 for months, and having been operating in the red for four months
since March 2017. See, Exhibit 29, a copy of 2016-17 Cash Flow analysis for the NAUTNAA
in excel spreadsheet format, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced,
p. MW-NAI-0025158; see also, Exhibit 23, a copy of 2016-17 Projected Budget for the
NAUTNAA in excel spreadsheet format, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
On August 13, 2017, the Headmaster of TNAACS, Lisa Parquette Silva, circulated an
email to the NAI and TNAA team to notify all interested persons of the NYSED CSO's "renewal
site visit' at the TNAACS location in Brooklyn, on September 25, 2017 and September 26,
2017. You covertly remained involved in the operations of TNAA and the NAI, as evidenced by
the email being sent to you too, at your "[email protected] email address.
See, Exhibit 32, a copy of the August 13, 2017 email, together with the Charter Renewal Site
Visit Protocol booklet and the August 11, 2017 cover letter from the NYSED CSO, produced in
discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced,,at p. MW-NAI-0421 - p. MW-NAI-438.
On August 14, 2017, the Headmaster of TNAACS, Lisa Parquette Silva, circulated
another email to the NAI and TNAA team concerning the NYSED CSO "renewal site visit" to be
held on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017. You were cc'd on the email, which was
sent to your "[email protected]¢ email address. See, Exhibit 33, a copy of
the August 14, 2017 email, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced,
at p. MW-NAI-0439 - p. MW-NAI-440.
On Sunday, September 24, 2017, the Headmaster of TNAACS, Lisa Parquette Silva,
circulated another email to the NAI and T'NAA team, with a "talking points memo" and a draft
"trending ELA narrative", to prepare everyone for the NYSED CSO "renewal site visiP' to be
held the next two (2) days, on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017, respectively. You
were cc'd on the email, which was sent to your private "uspwaronkerCa~mail.com" email
address. See, Exhibit 34, a copy of the September 24, 2017 email, together with the talking
points memo, produced n discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-
NAI-0577 - p. MW-NAI-583.
Page 35 of 172
On September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017, you actually attended the NYSED CSO
"renewal site visit" at the TNAACS. You must have felt compelled to be there as the founder of
NAI and a current member of the NAI and TNAA team, even if your involvement was intended
to be covert and secretive. It should be noted that your attendance at the site visit would have
been problematic in its own right (i.e., even if you had attended using "Personal Days" or
"Vacation Days" to which you were entitled); however, your decision to apply for and collect
paid time off for "conference" or "work-shop" pay for those two (2) days, when there was no
professional development component of that visit that could even azguably be claimed to have
inured to the benefit of the District, and when your Contract did not provide you with paid days
off for "Conferences" or "Work-Shops" as one of your enumerated benefits, is absolutely
reprehensible and abusive conduct to the District. You stole time from the District by taking
such time as paid "conference" or "work-shop" days, when you were not entitled to such pay
either contractually or for your reasons for taking that time off. See, Charge #6, sa~pra.
On October 16, 2017, the Headmaster of TNAACS, Lisa Parquette Silva, circulated an
email to the NAI and TNAA team concerning a demonstration of new technology at TNAACS,
namely, "BoazdOn Track," which presentation was being made that same evening, on October
16, 2017, from 6:30 pm. To 730 p.m. You were cc'd on the email, which was sent to your
"uspwaronker@¢mail. corn" email address. See, Exhibit 53, a copy of the October 16, 2017
email, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0611 -
p. MW-NAI-0612.
On October 17, 2017, the Headmaster of TNAACS, Lisa Parquette Silva, circulated an
email to the NAI and TNAA team concerning the Benchmark 1 Student Performance Report and
the 2017-18 Renewal Application for TNAACS. You were cc'd on the email, which was sent to
your "usowaronker@Qmail. corn" email address. See, Exhibit 54, a copy of the October 16,
2017 email, together with the benchmark documentation that was shared with you as part of the
NAI, TNAA and TNAACS team, which documents were produced in discovery in the federal
On or about October 2, 2017, the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, commenced his
work at the District. Within a short period of time, he began asking you what services the NAI
was performing for the District, what value or deliverables had been furnished for all the money
that had been paid to the NAI, and from what budget lines was the money taken to pay for the
NAI's services. He also began to probe and ask you about your role or involvement with the
NAI, which you sensed you needed to deny. In response, you conferred with your the NAI team
to (1) rebut any inquiry into whether you were operating with a conflict of interest as a person
with an interest in the NAI, and (2) obtain a status report, dubbed a "quarterly reporP' from the
NAI.
Concerning your role in the NAI, and the need to conceal your continuing active
involvement therein, on October 17, 2017, you caused Dini Gourazie and Lorraine Scorsone to
work with the NAI staff to produce documents that would allow you to claim that you
completely disassociated yourself from the operations and from the money related to the NAI.
See, Exhibit 55,a copy of the October 17, 2017 email, together with an attached check summary
report from the NAI showing your last paycheck from the NAI was May 15, 2017, an undated
Page 36 of 172
and unsigned resignation notice from you, and an undated and unsigned appointment acceptance
notice from Lorraine' Scorsone, which documents were pr"oduced in discovery in the federal
Notably, the cover email indicates that the NAI team involved in this matter understood
the significance and problems implicated by a possible conflict of interest for you, as Dini
Gourarie writes to Nancye Miller (the TNAACS Boazd Chair) and Lorraine Scorsone (the de
j~ire CEO of the NAI), saying, "Nancye, I've shared the conversation we had this morning, with
Lorraine. We need a follow up conversation, as there are some concerns. Please let us know if
you're available to speak ..."See, Exhibit 55, at p. MW-NAI-0614.
Concerning the NAI status report needed to respond to Jack Bierwirth's inquiry, which
you dubbed a "quarterly report" from the NAI, instead of disentangling yourself from the NAI in
the process, you did the opposite. From October 19, 2017 through November 20, 2017, you
enmeshed yourself in the prepazation of the "quazterly reporP' that you helped Loraine Scorsone
send to the District from the NAI, which ultimately was dated November,20, 2017.
On October 19, 2017, at 5:57 p.m., Lorraine Scorsone sent an email to Dini Gourarie,
with two copies of a single page cover letter wherein she suspiciously and awkwardly tried to
attest to your resignation being effective as of June 1, 2017, and that your final paycheck was
receive by you on May 15, 2017, and by which she declared that the NAI was in compliance
with its contract with the District. See, Exhibit 56, a copy of the October 19, 2017, 5:57p.m.
email with two copies of a single page 1" draft of the letter, which documents were produced in
discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0648 - p. MW-NAI-0650.
On October 19, 2017, at 6:00 p.m., Lorraine Scorsone sent an email to you, this time with
(1) the same one page cover letter wherein she suspiciously and awkwardly tried to attest to your
resignation being effective as of June 1, 2017, and your final paycheck having been received by
you on May 15, 2017, and by which she declared that NAI was in compliance with its contract
with the District; and (2) a one page "Attachment A" that described mostly preparations, but
little if any substantive work performed, and identifying the Harvazd trip and the mediation
sessions with professor Bush at Hofstra as the 2 big accomplishments by NAI then to date. See,
Exhibit 57, a copy of the October 19, 2017, 6:00 p.m. email, the 1" draft of the letter and
Attachment A, which documents were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
Instead of allowing Lorraine Scorsone to formulate her update letter for NAI to the
District, without your interference, you enmeshed yourself in the matter, redrafting the letter she
was supposed to send to you, so that you were helping her to write the letter from her to you. As
awkward as that appears, it is worse because the documents show that you tried to lie and spin
the huth, and manufacture a story that not only was she the new CEO,but also, that you were not
even entirely the founder yourself, and that she was somehow, with a revisionist pen in your
hand, a co-founder with you. Such conduct is deceptive, misleading and shows moral turpitude.
On October 30, 2017, at 1021 a.m., you caused Dini Gourarie to send an email to
Lorraine Scorsone, by which you edited again both the cover letter and the attachment. While
Page 37 of 172
the cover letter, which became two pages, continued to suspiciously and awkwazdly (1) attest to
your resignation being effective as of June 1, 2017, (2) recount that your final paycheck was
received by you on May 15, 2017,(3) declare that NAI was in compliance with its contract with
the District, you still attempted to amend it at the start of the fourth paragraph on the first page,
to falsely claim that "You and I co-founded NAI..." See, Exhibit 58, a copy of the October 30,
2017, at 1021 a.m. email, the revised draft of the letter and Attachment A, which documents
were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0638 -
p. MW-NAI-0643(emphasis added).
You knew that the contention you were adding, that she co-founded the NAI with you,
was false at the moment you conceived of it and when you caused Dini Gourazie to write it. You
alone conceived of the idea of establishing TNAA,the NAI and the TNAACS, all of which was
based on your Harvard Graduate School dissertation, and as you boasted on the letterhead of the
NAI prior to Pat Wright bringing to your attention the problem with your letterhead when she
spoke to you on June 23, 2017 after the RFP opening, and elsewhere, seemingly all the time.
See, Exhibit 59, a copy of the June 23, 2017 NAI letterhead submitted as pazt of the NAI RFP
submittal, indicating only you as Founder and CEO; see nlso, Exhibit 60, a copy of the June 23,
2017 revised the NAI letterhead submitted after NAI RFP submittal was opened, which was a
modified letterhead to state that Lorraine Scorsone was now the CEO, instead of listing you as
both the CEO and Founder, but tellingly, the revision only adds Loraine Scorsone as CEO, does
not also add her as a co-Founder, which if she truly had been, she would have been added as
such at that time because it would have suited your purposes, but it was not, because it was not a
true contention; see also, Exhibit 61, a copy of the July 5, 2017 Power Point Presentation, at
slide #5, which presentation you made to the Hempstead community at the Re-Organization
Board Meeting held that night, wherein you boasted that you alone were the founder and CEO of
the NAI.
Lorraine Scorsone knew that the contention you were adding, that she co-founded the
NAI with you, was false at the moment you proposed it, which is confirmed by her in writing on
more than one occasion. See:
Exhibit 40, a copy of the "White Paper" written by Loraine Scorsone

after she resigned as CEO of the NAI, on February 1, 2018, on the first
page thereof in the 3`d text box on the left column, which document was
produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-01101 - p. MW-NAI-01116, and p. MW-NAI-01117 - p. MW-
NAI-01132; and
Exhibit 62, a copy of March 7, 2018 email from Loraine Scorsone to

Dini Gourarie, as the NAI tax returns are being prepazed in anticipation of
filing multiple years of tax returns not filed since 2015, so that the NAI
could go out of business with all tvc filings submitted, wherein Loraine
Scorsone states that she is not willing to sign the tax returns for [he NAI
for Fiscal Year 2015, since she admits she had no idea if the tas returns
were accurate, since "I was not part of the NAI operations [back then],
Page 38 of 172
which document was produced in discovery in the federal litigation that
you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-01961 and
• Exhibit 63, a copy of the February 16, 2018 email sent from Vanessa
Maria Scorsone, which was copied to Lorraine Scorsone, so if the
attached documents were in error, she presumably would have made
mention of it, and which was sent to NAI's accountants for final tax
returns being prepared for filing, together with Board resolutions for NAI
from January 30, 2017, June 15, 2017, June 30, 2016, and October 19,
2015, each of which was prepazed when there was no motivation to lie on
letterhead, and all of which designate only you, Shimon Waronker, as
"Founder and CEO," which documents were produced in discovery in the
federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-01823 - p. MW-
NAI-01832; and
• Exhibit 64, a copy of the November 20, 2017 letter in final form, with
attachments A and B, wherein Lorraine Scorsone deletes any reference to
the sentence that to added with false content that she was a co-founder of
the NAI, which documents were produced in discovery in the federal
Exhibit 65, a copy of the January 9, 2018 email, from Dini Gourarie to
Lorraine Scorsone and Vanessa Marie Scorsone, with an attached cover
letter accompanying billing from the NAI to TNAACS, whereupon the
letterhead designates only Shimon Waronker as the Founder, and lists
Lorraine Scorsone, as CEO (but not also a Founder), which documents
were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced,
at p. MW-NAI-0791 - p. MW-NAI-0792.
In the meantime, the truth is that you continued to be deeply involved in the NAI, while
you were working hard to fabricate obfuscating story lines to hide the fact that you were still
acting as a de facto Officer of NAI throughout the Fall of 2017 and into the stazt of 2018, before
NAI was shut down for not being an economically viable entity.
On October 25, 2017, Lisa Parquette Silva as the Head Master, circulated an email to the
members of the TNAA and the NAI team, a Board agenda for that nights Board meeting for
TNAACS, which email notably. included you, but was sent to you covertly, to your
"~u [email protected]" email account. See, Exhibit 66, a copy of October 25, 2017 email,
with attachments, which documents were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
If you had actually resigned from the NAI and TNAA, instead of just resigning on a de
ja~re basis, then you would have had no need to be included on all of the emails circulated to the
TNAACS Board and the NAI team concerning all of the varied matters relating to the internal
operations of NAI, TNAA and TNAACS.
Page 39 of 172
The body of documents set forth in this Section D,shows that you deceptively pretended
to have been untainted by conflict and uninvolved in the internal operations of the NAI, TNAA
and TNAACS.
Your deceptive conduct, and the lengths by which you were willing to go to cover up to
your tracks, including you encouraging Lorraine Scorsone to lie, is conduct involving moral
turpitude, and alone, warrants the termination of your employment with the District.
E. The resignation of Lorraine Scorsone as the NAI's dejure CEO,and your

continued involvement as a de facto Officer of the NAI, TNAA and
TNAACS, after January 12, 2017, despite being the Superintendent of
Schools for the District on ALGA with Pay since January 9,2018.
On December 21, 2017, the District terminated the contract with the NAI. See, Exhibit
67, the December 22, 2017 email from Patricia Wright, the District Clerk, to Lorraine Scorsone,
with attachments, which documents were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
On January 16, 2018, Lorraine Scorsone admits, in writing, that served as an "interim"
CEO only, for no pay, and as a mere "personal favor" to you, Shimon, so you could pull off your
hoa~c on the HUFSD and pretend that you were not really pulling the strings and continuing to be
both the leader and guiding force behind the NAI, while you were "transitioning" to becoming
the Superintendent of Schools. She resigned from being the unpaid, interim CEO, as of January
12, 2018. See, Exhibit 49, a copy of January 16, 2018 email and attached resolution from
Loraine Scorsone, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-808 — p. MW-NAI-809.
On January 28, 2018, the NAI loses the Chabad of Northeast Queens as a client too, and
Loraine Scorsone informs that client of the NAI that she has resigned as NAI's CEO. See,
Exhibit 39, a copy of January 28, 2018 email and attached resolution frofn Lorraine Scorsone,
MW-NAI-832
On January 29, 2018, the NAI set up a seminar to be held at TNAA you are listed as the
NAI's "CEO &Founder," again, but this time on new letterhead. See, Exhibit G8, a copy of
January 28, 2018 email and attached agenda sheets for the NAI, at p. MW-NAI-1065 — p. MW-
NAI-p1067.
On February 2, 2018, Lorraine Scorsone drafts an email and sends it to Nancy Miller,
with a chart on page one of the memo, that confirms that NAI was formed in September 2013,
with you (Shimon Waronker) being the CEO of NAI from its formation in September 2013
through the present, which confirms that Lorraine Scorsone was the de jure CEO, but in truth,
she was merely a figurehead, and an interim appointee, waiting for the next transition to happen.
See, Exhibit 40, a copy of February 2, 2018 email and White Paper document prepared by
Lorraine Scorsone showing you to be the CEO from Sept 2013 to Present (as per p.l of the
White Paper), at p. MW-NAI-1103 — p. MW-NAI-p1116; see also, Exhibit 49, a copy of
Page 40 of 172
January 16, 2017 email and attached resolution from Lorraine Scorsone, by which she admits she
only served as an "interim" CEO, for no pay, and as a mere "personal favor" to you, Shimon,
which documents were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-808 — p. MW-NAI-809.
On February 2, 2018, after you had been working at the District for literally seven full
months from June 2, 2017, and only after the New York Times ran a story on the District and
your lawsuit against the District, and only after you and the NAI team realized your covert
continuation as de facto Officer of NAI could hurt your legal positon in Court, did the NAI and
TNAA team decide to remove you from the NAI website, where you continued to be listed under
the tab, "our team," as the "CEO &Founder" of NAI. See, Exhibit 69, a copy of the February 2,
2018 email and attachments relating to the "our team" discovery, listing you, Shimon Waronker,
as founder and CEO, still, as of that date, the NAI, which documents were produced in discovery
Thus, you caused or allowed the NAI to preserve its website presence undisturbed, with
you continuing to be listed under the tab, "our team," as the "CEO &Founder" of NAI, for the
whole Fall of 2017, while you were still believed that your name was an asset for soliciting new
clients and bringing in new work from old clients and/or new grant funding from old donors or
new contacts, so that you could excel at client generating activities for the NAI, especially with
Yeshivas, as described in section (C)(4) of this Charge, above.
Only after the District started investigating you concerning the matters addressed herein,
with a focus on the apparent but then unknown extent of your the NAI conflict of interest, and
only after the New York Times reported on it, did your staff realize that it needed to take down
the website information that confirmed the truth, that you remained a member of the
NAUTNAA/TNAACS team the whole time that you were working for the District, which fact
prompted them to exclaim, OY VEY" and start exploring removing your information from the
NAI website, and if necessazy, to take down the whole website, until such information could be
removed. See, Exhibit 69, a copy of the February 2, 2018 emails, which documents were
MW-NAI-1072.
From February 2, 2018 through April 25, 2018, the NAI staff focused on closing down
the NAI. An analysis of the NAI's Payroll records, from Paylocity, confirms that Loraine
Scorsone was never paid to work for NAI as its CEO. See, Exhibit 70, a copy of the Paylocity
records for the NAI.
Instead, her daughter, an acupuncturist by trade, was paid, starting in November 2017, to
work for her mom as an executive assistant, which makes the whole payment arrangement with
Lorraine Scorsone highly dubious. Officially, the NAI had no de jure CEO after Lorraine
Scorsone resigned. See, Exhibit 40, a copy of February 2, 2018 email and White Paper
document prepared by Lorraine Scorsone, showing you as CEO from Sept 2013 to Present (as
per p.l of the White Paper), but also indicating there is no formally appointed CEO as of that
date (as per p.2 of the White Paper ), at p. MW-NAI-1103 — p. MW-NAI-p1116
Page 41 of 172
F. Concluding observations.
Your conflict of interest arose from you holding positions of management and leadership
in both organizations, the HUFSD on the one hand, and the NAI on the other hand, a[ the same
time. While serving as the HUFSD's Superintendent of Schools, you caused the District to enter
into a contract with the NAI, and at the same time, you continued to guide and manage the
operations of the NAI and its sister organizations, TNAA and TNAACS.
While you were serving as the HUFSD's Superintendent of Schools, you surreptitiously
and deceptively (without disclosure on the official 'record of the HUFSD) and improperly
continued to provide services as a de facto officer of the NAI, without disclosure to the HUFSD
of the true nature of your involvement in the operations of the NAI and TNAACS.
In breach of your contractual obligation, "to enforce all provisions of law and all rules
and regulations relating to the management of the schools...," under NYS Education Law
§1711(2)(b), and by extension, Article 18 of the General Municipal Law, §800 et seq., you
pursued a conflict of interest, advancing your personal interests over those of the District, to save
the NAI from going out of business, and to protect the financial viability of the organization you
founded, the NAI, since it was not viable without District funding.
To advance your personal interest as the founder of the NAI, you selfishly caused the
District to enter into a business transaction with the NAI, which was your "brainchild" and the
practical application of your educational theories as articulated in you Dissertation at Harvard
Graduate School for Education, since you knew that the NAI was going out of business without
the contract you knew it needed from the HUFSD to survive.
In breach of your contractual obligation, "to enforce all provisions of law and all rules
and regulations relating to the management of the schools...,".under NYS Education Law
§1711(2)(b), and by extension, Article 18 of the General Municipal Law, §800 et seq., you
pursued a conflict of interest, promoting the best interests of NAI, over the best interests of the
District. Accordingly, you awazded a contract to NAI to ensure the District's funds flowed to
NAI to prop it up and enable it to survive.
Despite paragraph 15 of your Contract, which listed the NAI among the four
organizations you wanted to introduce to the District, you were obligated by the "implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing" to deal honestly with the District, and conduct yourself
in a manner that was free from a conflict of interest, which necessitated that you only bring to the
District reputable and successful programs, and which barred you from promoting programs that
you had an ongoing personal interest in, that you continued to work for, and that you had a
motivation as its founder to keep afloat with the Districts funds.
In breach of the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" to deal honestly with
the District, you misled and deceived the HUFSD in paragraph 15 of your Contract, by (1)
misleadingly identifying the NAI as an entity that you, as the Superintendent, "has had a
professional relationship with," as if you would be recommending the District to enter into a
transactional relationship with the NAI as an entity that you no longer had an interest in; which
Page 42 of 172
e
d ~
representation was false; and (2) misleadingly representing that you would draw no
compensation from such listed entities, "in order to eliminate any possible conflict of interest,"
when the fundamental premise of pazagraph 15 of your Contract was false, since you never
stopped working for the NAI as its defacto leader and manager.
On the basis of the above, you breached your contract, violated this Stats law, engaged in
deceitful behavior and conduct of moral turpitude warranting your termination of employment
with the District.
Witnesses To Suaport Charee #1
• Robert Cialone
• Patricia Wright
• Dina Blesofsky, of Chabad of NorthEast Queens
• Chaya Teldon, of the Jewish Academy
• Danielle Bloom of the Yeshiva Ohr Reuven
• Lorraine Scorsone
• Dini Gourarie
• Vanessa Marie Scorsone
• Matt Harrington
• Lisa Parquette Silva
• John Sheahan
• Regina Armstrong
• James Clark
• Ana Lovasz
• Fanciene DiPaola
• LaMont E. Johnson, Trustee
• Dr David B. Gates, Trustee
• Randy Stith, Trustee
• Dr. Robert Dillon, District Superintendent
• Jack Bierwirth, Distinguished Educator
Documents To Suanort Charee #1
• Exhibits 1-70
• NAI Discovery from McGuire Woods, p.0000001 — 0025274
• Waronker Litigation, Index #2018-CV-0393(DRH), Discovery #0001— 1023
• Larry Dobroff Interview Transcripts, with Exhibits 1-87
• Shimon Waronker Interview Transcripts, with Exhibits 1-19
• District email mailbox for Shimon Waronker
• Robert Cialone's notes and documents relating to Request for Proposal
Page 43 of 172
0
• Boazd resolutions
• Boazd Policies
• NAI contract with the District
• NAI emails
• District emails
• Hamburger law firm emails
• John Sheahan Esq.'s emails, memos and draft documents
Page 44 of 172
CHARGE #2:

NEW YORK,OTHER STATUTES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OR THE RULE5
REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW —BID RIGGING TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO THE NAIL
Specification:
On June 2, 2017 you commenced working for the District as the Districts Superintendent
of Schools. See, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4.
As early as June 12, 2017, you had already submitted to the District's Labor Counsel at
the time, the law firm of Hamburger, Mvcson, Yaffe &McNally, LLP (the "Hamburger Law
Firm") a proposed consultant contract for the NAI, as a vendor to the District. See, Exhibit 71, a
copy of the Hamburger Law Firm billing at p 17of 52.
On June 13, 2017, you pursued a fast track award of a contract to the NAI, in consultation
with the Hamburger Law Firm, inquiring whether you could bypass the requirements for
competitive bidding and simply award a contract to your company, the NAI, as a sole source
service contract. See, Exhibit 71, a copy of the Hamburger Law Firm billing at p17of 52.
From June 12, 2017 through June 14, 2017, you were pressuring Robert Cialone, the
Districts then Purchasing Agent, to pursue a sole source service contract for NAI, so you could
eliminate competition and pursue a fast track awazd of a contract to the NAI. See, Exhibit 72, a
copy of the Affidavit of Robert Cialone, sworn to on January 22, 2017.
On June 14, 2017, you were directed by the Hamburger Law Firm to pursue an RFP
instead of trying to place a contract with the NAI as a sole source service contract. See, Exhibit
71, a copy of the Hamburger Law Firm billing at p 17of 52.
On June 14, 2017, you discussed with the Hamburger Law Firm the legal constraints and
requirements and timing for a proper RFP, in an effort to make the RFP process so time
constrained and so limited, that the NAI was essentially guaranteed to be the winning bidder.
See, Exhibit 71, a copy of the Hamburger Law Firm billing at p 17of 52.
From June 12, 2017, when you first started conversing with John Sheahan, Esq., of
Guercio and Guercio LLP, the District's General Counsel, through June 15, 2017, you pursued
his approval to award a vendor service contract to the NAI. On June 15, 2017, he rebuffed your
stated desire to awed a contract to the NAI without pursuing an RFP, guiding you and the Board
that an RFP would be necessazy. See, Exhibit 6, a copy of the June 15, 2017 memo from John
Page 45 of 172
Sheahan to you and the Boazd, rejecting your efforts to award the NAI a contract without an
RFP.
On June 15, 2017, you directed Robert Cialone, the District's then Purchasing Agent, to
publish the RFP for the legal minimum period of time of one (1) day, and providing notice to
prospective bidders that an RFP Response would be due within five days, which was for the
legal minimum period of time. See, Exhibit 73, a copy of the 1 day publication in Newsday.
On June 15, 2017, you caused Dini Gourarie, your long time secretary at the NAI, to draft
the language of the RFP's terms and specifications, which she forwarded to Robert Cialone, the
District s then Purchasing Agent, to publish in the RFP.
On June 15, 2017, Dini Gourarie, your long time secretary at the NAI, sent emails to
Robert Cialone, the Districts then Purchasing Agent, with draft language for him to include in
the "Reflective Practice" and "Refined Praxis" description of the RFP's terms and specifications,
but with key language and phraseology not complete, which she informed him you would be
drafted custom for the RFP packet. As a result, the RFP that you used to solicit bids from
prospective bidders, which ultimately was won by NAI as the ONLY bidder to respond to the
RFP, was effectively written by NAI for the NAI. See, Exhibit 74, a copy of the June I5, 2017
emails to Robert Cialone from the NAI's Dini Gourazie, with the language for the RFP that you
and she drafted.
On June 15, 2017, at your direction, Robert Cialone, the Districts then Purchasing
Agent, placed an advertisement in the Legal Notice section of Newsday for a one day publication
on June 17, 2018, stating that, "All RFPs received will be publicly opened and read on Friday,
June 23`d, 2017 at 2:00 PM." The Legal Notice for the RFP to which the NAI responded was
NOT reasonably calculated to draw as many qualified bidders to respond, inasmuch as the one
day publication in Newsday ran only on a Saturday, which is not a normal business day. See,
Exhibit 73, a copy of the 1 day publication in Newsday.
The RFP packet for "Reflective Practice" and "Refined Praxis," which RFP was
ultimately won by the NAI, and which had only one responsive bidder, namely, the NAI, and
which was written by the NAI, was also mailed out to a list of 6 vendors selected by you, Dr.
Waronker. See, Exhibit 75, a copy of the RFP packet published by the District; see also,
Exhibit 76, the summary memo prepared by the Purchasing Depaztment together with the RFP
packet published by the Disreict; See also, Exhibit 72, a copy of the Affidavit of Robert Cialone,
sworn to on Januazy 22, 2017.
The RFP Packet listed six vendors to whom the RFP should be mailed, which names you
provided to Robert Cialone. See, Exhibit 36, a copy of the Affidavit of Robert Cialone, sworn to
on January 22, 2017.
The 6 vendors listed in the RFP packet as the vendors list to whom the RFP solicitation
was mailed, were as follows:
1. Leadership and Learning, Inc.
2. Minds at Work LLC
Page 46 of 172
d b
3. Cambridge Leadership Association

4. McKinsey &Company
5. Teacher Quality Resources
6. The New American Initiative Inc.
See, Exhibit 75, a copy of the RFP packet published by the District, with a cover
summary memo'prepared by the Purchasing Department.
The first vendor, Leadership and Learning, Inc., was not an arms-length referral of a
competitor to your company, the NAI, inasmuch as one of the principals of Leadership and
Learning, Inc., namely, Barry Jentz, is also affiliated with the NAI See, Exhibit 77, a copy of
the profile the principals of Leadership and Learning, Inc., featuring Barry Jentz.
The second vendor, Minds at Work LLC, was not an arms-length referral of a competitor
to your company, the NAI, inasmuch as one of the principals of Minds at Work LLC, namely,
Deborah Helsing, is also affiliated with the NAI. See, Exhibit 78, a copy of the profile the
principals of Minds at Work LLC,featuring Deborah Helsing.
The third vendor, Cambridge Leadership Association, appears to be based in Boston, and
was founded by Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky, who have spent more than 30 years examining
and teaching the practice of leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of
Government. Their connection to you appears to be Harvard based.
The fourth vendor, McKinsey &Company, is a world renowned management consulting

firm, which appears to be overqualified for the RFP then being offered by the District.
The fifth vendor, Teacher Quality Resources, appears to be a small firm based in
Williamsburg, VA, with only 2 employees, annual revenue of less than $60,000.00, and appeazs
to been under-qualified for responding to any RFP being offered by the District. See, Exhibit
79, a copy of the meager web presence maintained by Teacher Quality Resources.
The sixth vendor, was your company, the NAI.
Only your firm, the NAI, submitted a response to the RFP. See, Exhibit 76, a copy of the
RFP packet published by the District, with a cover summary memo prepazed by the Purchasing
Department.
As of June 22, 2017, no firm had responded to the RFP.
Yet, on June 22, 2017, your secretary at NAI, Dini Gourarie, writes to John Sheahan,
Esq., of Guercio & Guercio, the Districts General Counsel, forwarding to him a proposed
contract for the NAI, as if it had already won the RFP and had been awarded the service contract
opportunity. The timing of the email prompted Mr. Sheahan to write in response, at 4:02pm on
June 22, 2017, as follows: "Has there been a determination to award the RFP to the New
American Academy?" See, Exhibit 7.
Page 47 of 172
Even worse, you reviewed the NAI's response to the RFP before the NAI submitted its
RFP response to the District, even though you were then the District's Superintendent of
Schools. See, Exhibit 80, a copy of an email from Dini Gourarie to Shimon Waronker (on his
"thenewamericanacademy" email account), dated June 22, 2017, with attachments, produced in
discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI 0004196 through
0004210, marked CONFIDENTIAL. Worse, still, she and you were writing clandestinely, to
your "swaronkC~thenewamericanlcademp.ors" email address, evidencing an intent to conceal
this improper behavior.
On or about June 22, 2017, your emails via Dini Gourarie pursuing contract for the NAI,
even though you were the Districts Superintendent of Schools, prompted John Sheahan, Esq., to
reject discussing the NAI contract with Dini Gourarie or you. He will testify that your conduct
had exposed to him that you were too involved for a normal vendor procurement exercise.
However, he will testify that he had no idea that you were still workine for the NAI and that you
were utterly conflicted in those discussions because you were an undisclosed de facto Officer of
the NAI at that time. John Sheahan Esq., merely considered it to have an "appearance of
impropriety" for him to be negotiating with either you or Dini Gourarie, the terms of any
contract between the District and the NAI, especially on June 22, 2017 (the day before the open
date, as if you know something you should not know and are absolutely certain that you shall
win because there will be no other bidders), and especially given your purported "history" as a
recently resigned CEO and founder of the NAI. So, he asked to engage with a different person
than you concerning the NAI. In response, you rolled out Loraine Scorsone for him to interact
with for the NAI, holding her out to be a successor CEO to you at the NAI.
On June 23, 2017, within an hour prior to 2:OOpm, Robert Cialone, the Purchasing Agent,
called Dini Gourarie to lament the fact that he was rushed to publish for the RFP, generate RFP
packets for vendors, emailed the RFP packets to the vendors on the list you provided for him to
send direct solicitations, and no responsive submittals had been received by the BO as of 1:OOpm
that day. Thus, within an hour of the open time of 2:OOpm, you were informed, as a person
interested in the bidding outcome for the NAI, via your personal secretary from the NAI working
inside the District's AO that there were no responsive bids, and the solicitation was a "busP' in
his opinion. Thus, you gave the NAI the competitive advantage of having inside information,
and you disadvantaged the District by undercutting its interest in soliciting the most competitive
bids possible, by allowing the NAI to know that there was no competition to its price quotes. By
so acting, you were assuring the NAI had an unfair advantage to monitor its competition and
know whether there was price pressure or other quotes to compete against, which is inforniation
that no vendor should have when submitting and RFP for work.
On June 23, 2017, at approximately 1:30 p.m., Robert Cialone, the Purchasing Agent,
observed Dini Gourarie walk into the business office and attempt to tender to him an RFP
package that was unsealed that he rejected, because an unsealed submittal did not comply with
the RFP directions. She left the BO and returned shortly thereafter, but before 2:00 p.m., to drop
off an RFP submittal package for the NAI, together with her business card, which identified her
as being affiliated with the NAI.
Page 48 of 172
On June 23, 2017, the open date for the District's RFP for "Reflective Practice," the NAI
submitted an RFP response that perfectly matched the RFP terms that you narrowly drafted for
the District so that the NAI could be hired and become a vendor to the District. The submittal of
the NAI documentation included letterhead that indicated that you still were the founder and
CEO of the NAI. See, Exhibit 59, a copy of June 22, 2017 letterhead indicating only you as
Founder and CEO.
Later that same day, on June 23, 2017, but after the RFP opening, and only after the
District Clerk informed you that the letterhead for the NAI was problematic because it still listed
you as founder and CEO, you caused your assistant, Dini Gourarie to change the NAI letterhead
by deleting reference to you as founder, and by adding Lorraine Scorsone as the purported CEO
of the NAI. See, Exhibit 60, a copy of June 23, 2017 letterhead that deleted reference to you as
founder and added Lorraine as CEO (notably not as a founder).
The District Clerk informed you of the problem in the presence of Ana Lovasz, Mazibel
Toure and you and your private personal secretary, Dini Gourarie. You had Dini change the
letterhead in the AO and tender the replacement letterhead for the NAI, by which Lorraine
Scorsone's name was added as CEO, in the presence of the people so stated. That is how the
District Clerk came to have both sets of the NAI letterhead from that day in her files.
Due to your manipulation and bid rigging activities, you ensured that the NAI was the
ONLY bidder to respond to the RFP, when responses were due and opened on June 23, 2017 by
Patricia Wright, the District clerk, and Robert Cialone, the then-Districts Purchasing Agent.
See, Exhibit 76, a copy of the June 23, 2017.RFP opening notes, written by Patricia Wright,
showing that only the NAI responded to the RFP; see also, Exhibit 72, a copy of the Affidavit of
Robert Cialone.
Instead of putting the RFP back out to bid, to secure more competition for the providing
of such "Reflective Practice" services, you accepted the only bid received by the District as
having been made by the company you founded, namely the NAI.
The failure of the RFP process, which did not procure any other bids than one from the
NAI, was not addressed at the June 23, 2017 Boazd meeting.
After the June 23, 2017 RFP opening at 2:00 p.m., the District Clerk never informed
Loraine Scorsone that the NAI had won the bid and that the next step was for the contract to be
negotiated. Nor did the Purchasing Agent. Nor did the Boazd, prior to June 27, 2017. Notably,
although the Board held a meeting that same Friday night (June 23, 2017, from 6:OOpm until
10:55pm), that meeting concerned only the then pending Lamont Johnson removal proceeding,
and the Board did not address at that meeting the failure of the RFP process, which failed to
procure any other bids besides the one from the NAI.
Certainly, nothing should have been decided upon, or acted upon, prior to decisions being
made in accordance with applicable District Policy for Purchasing, under which the Purchasing
Agent has the authority to guide the Board as to procurement of services.
Page 49 of 172
Yet, you usurped the power and discretion of both the Purchasing Agent and the Boazd of
by pushing the process to award a contract to the NAI, and by preventing the Purchasing Agent
from doing his job to protect the integrity of the purchasing process, as mandated by:

• Boazd Policy #6700-R (Purchasing Regulation),
• Board Policy #6710(Purchasing Authority),
• Boazd Policy #6720-R (Bidding Requirement [Competitive] Regulation).
On June 23, 2017, you informed John Sheahan that the NAI was the prevailing bidder on
the RFP, without informing him that NAI was the only bidder, and asked him to send to Lorraine
Scorsone, your purported successor as CEO to you at the NAI, a draft consulting agreement.
There is no delay for the Board to consider a report from the Purchasing Agent that the RFP was
a failure because only one bid was received. There is no opportunity given to the Board, and no
time taken to reflect on the options available to the Board, to consider whether the District
should put the service contract out to bid again, to see if there aze other vendors with more
experience, or better pricing, or alternate approaches, so that the District can have the benefit of
true competitive bidding. Accordingly, on your request, made with Board President Maribel
Toure's support, John Sheahan sends to Lorraine Scorsone a form consulting agreement at 3:56
p.m., which is within two hours of the open date and time at 2:00 p.m. See, Exhibit 8, a copy of
June 23, 2017, 3:56 p.m., email from John Sheahan to Lorraine Scorsone, with the draft
consulting agreement, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-1739 — p. MW-NAI-1748.
On Sunday evening, June 25, 2017, at 9:29 p.m., Lorraine Scorsone sends back a draft
consulting contract to John Sheahan Esq., by email, for his review and approval. See, Exhibit
10, a copy of June 25, 2017, 9:29 p.m. email, from Lorraine Scorsone to John Sheahan, Esq.,
together with the draft consulting agreement she forwarded back to him, produced in discovery
The Sunday, June 25, 2017, 929 p.m. email, from Loraine Scorsone to John Sheahan,
Esq., and the draft contract she sent back to him, is evidence that you were jumping the gun, and
pushing to get a contract signed by the District in haste, and that you were working with Loraine
Scorsone against the District to benefit the NAI. The contract that she sent back was
preemptively dated as June 27, 2017, instead of being sent back with a blank space, as is
customarily the case when still negotiating terms and exchanging drafts (such as, June _,
2017), which indicates that you were working with her to have the contract executed on or before
the regulaz Boazd meeting that was scheduled for June 27, 2017, when you had the NAI
engagement on the docket.~l
~ ~ You caused the District's Board of Education to pass a resolution to award a $450,000 engagement in favor of the
NAI, regazdless of the fact that a contract was no[ even fully negotiated and approved yet by John Sheahan, Esq.,
General Counsel for the District. See, Exhibit 12, a copy of June 27,2017 Boazd meeting minutes, at p.2.
Page 50 of 172
Thus, you were working with and through Lorraine Scorsone to fast track a contract in
favor the NAI, and against the District, and to bypass the authority of the Purchasing Agent and
the Board of Education to evaluate bids before a contractis awazded and work is assigned to a
prospective vendor of the District, all for the benefit your pet project, the NAI, in which you
remained vested and interested.
You engaged in bid rigging by permitting and enabling NAI to draft the language for the
RFP, instead of allowing the District to prepare an RFP that would draw a pool of qualified
applicant vendors to compete for the opportunity to provide services to the District as a vendor.
See, Exhibit 74, a copy of the NAI emails by Dini Gourarie to Robert Cialone.
You engaged in bid rigging by purposely directing the Districts Purchasing Agent to
publish the RFP within the narrowest possible time period to restrict competition, instead of
allowing the District to publish the RFP for a more reasonable period of time to draw a pool of
qualified applicant vendors to compete for the opportunity to provide services to the District as a
vendor. See, Exhibit 73, a copy of the RFP publication in Newsday.
You engaged in bid rigging by giving the Districts Purchasing Agent a list of individuals
and entities that you directed the Districts Purchasing Agent to send the RFP, which entities you
controlled or had influence over or which you expected would not be able to submit a bid within
five days. This list included individuals or entities connected to and related to NAI. See,
Exhibit 75, a copy of the list.
You engaged in bid rigging by engaging in pre-RFP discussions with the District's legal
counsel to seek guidance as to how you could award a contract to the NAI. See, Exhibit 71, a
copy of the June 2017 timesheets of the Hamburger law firm.
You engaged in bid rigging by allowing the NAI to participate in drafting the bid
specifications and prepared them to be narrow and restrictive so that only the NAI would be the
only qualified entity. See, Exhibit 74, a copy of an email from Dini Gourazie to Robert Cialone,
dated June 15, 2017, with attachments, paginated MW-NAI-0002689 through 0002692, marked
CONFIDENTIAL.
You engaged in bid rigging by reviewing the NAI's response to the RFP before NAI
submitted its RFP response to the District, even though you were then the District's
Superintendent of Schools. See, Exhibit 80, a copy of an email from Dini Gourarie to Shimon
Waronker (on his "thenewamericanacademy" email account), dated June 22, 2017, with
attachments, paginated MW-NAI-0004196 through 0004210, mazked CONFIDENTIAL.
You engaged in bid rigging by causing Dini Gourarie, your secretary at the NAI, to
submit a bid for the NAI that she prepared while working at the District and which she submitted
twice, once with letterhead indicating you were the CEO and Founder before the open date, and
then one with the letterhead "scrubbed" to remove you as bein¢ listed as the NAI's CEO and
Founder AFTER the oven date. See, Exhibits 59 and 60, a copies of the two different
submittals of RFP paperwork by the NAI.
Page 51 of 172
You engaged in bid rigging by your conduct on June 22, 2017, which exposed your
intention to cause the District to award the contract to the NAI, regardless of any other bidder.
You exposed your bid rigging intentions when, prior to the RFP open date on June 23, 2017, you
emailed the District's General Counsel on June 22, 2017, asking John Sheahan Esq., to review
the NAI's proposed contract, as if it was a foregone conclusion the day before the "open date"
that the NAI would be the winning bidder on the RFP to be opened the next day. In response to
your inquiry, precisely because it was outrageously presumptuous and improper to ask if the
NAI's proposed contract could be reviewed by the District's counsel before RFP packets were
even opened, w the District's General Counsel asked you whether you had been awazded the
contract prematurely and regardless of the RFP process. See, Exhibit 7, a copy of the June 22,
2017 email from John Sheahan, Esq., to you, concerning your inquiry whether the NAI proposed
consulting contract "was kosher."
You manipulated the bid and your conduct constituted bid rigging in favor of the NAI.
See, N.Y. General Municipal Law § 103.
Narrowing the bid specifications to make it that only the NAI would be qualified is bid-
rigging.
Providing only entities or individuals connected to or related to the NAI were sent to the
RFP, allowing the NAI to participate in the drafting of the RFP and then reviewing the NAI's
RFP response before it was submitted to the District was bid-rigging.
Causing a proposed contract to be submitted to the Districts Counsel, in favor of your

affiliated entity, the NAI, the day before the RFP open date, to determine whether the NAI's
proposed consulting contract "was kosher," when there should have been no presumption that the
NAI would be the winning bid, is evidence that you engaged in bid rigging.
Since the only entities or individuals who obtained copies of the RFP were connected
with the NAI, you ensured that there would no responses from any other competitors to the RFP,
ensuring that the NAI would receive the awazd and the contract for $450,000.00, you facilitated
the NAI being the only bidder responsive to the RFP, which is bid rigging.
You usurped the power and discretion of both the Purchasing Agent and the Boazd of
and by preventing the Purchasing Agent from doing his job to protect the integrity of the
purchasing process, as mandated by:
• Board Policy #6700-R (Purchasing Regulation),
• Board Policy #6710 (Purch'asing Authority),
• Boazd Policy #6720-R (Bidding Requirement [Competitive] Regulation).
Your conduct manipulating the bid and the rigging violated N.Y. General Municipal Law
§ 103 and therefore was a material breach of your Contract.
Page 52 of 172
A. y
Witnesses To Sunaort Charee #2
• Robert Cialone
• Patricia Wright
• John Sheahan
• Richazd Hamburger
• Ana Lovasz
• Dini Gourarie
• Jack Bierwiirth, Distinguished Educator
Documents To Sunuort Charge #2
• Exhibits 1-79
• Waronker Litigation, Index #2018-CV-0393(DRH), Discovery #0001 — 1023
• Larry Dobroff Interview Transcripts, with Exhibits 1-87
• Shimon Wazonker Interview Transcripts, with Exhibits 1-19
• District email mailbox for Shimon Wazonker
• The Districts Request for Proposal;
• New American Initiative's response to the District's Request for Proposal;
• Boazd resolutions
• Board Policies
• NAI emails
• District emails
• Hamburger law firm June 2017 billing
Page 53 of 172
i
CHARGE #3:

REGENTS
(CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING THE NAI —

AWARDINGCONTRACT TO THE NAI
EVEN THOUGH THE VENDOR FILED FALSE INSTRUMENTS FOR THE BID
DUE TO COLLUSIONI
Specifications:
On June 22, 2017, your secretary at the NAI, Dini Gourarie, wrote to John Sheahan, Esq.,
of Guercio & Guercio, the District's General Counsel, forwarding to him a proposed contract for
the NAI, as if it had already won the RFP and had been awarded the service contract opportunity.
The timing of the email prompted Mr. Sheahan to write in response, at 4:02pm on June 22, 2017,
as follows: "Has there been a determination to award the RFP to the New American Academy?"
See, Exhibit 7.
Even worse, on June 22, 2017, you reviewed the NAI's response to the RFP before the
NAI submitted its RFP response to the District, even though you were then the District's
Superintendent of Schools. See, Exhibit 80, a copy of an email from Dini Gourarie to Shimon
Waronker (on his "thenewamericanacademy" email account), dated June 22, 2017, with
attachments, produced in discovery in the Federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI
0004196 through 0004210, mazked CONFIDENTIAL. Worse, still, she and you were writing
clandestinely, to your "[email protected]¢" email address, evidencing an
intent to conceal this improper behavior.
On or about June 22, 2017, your emails via Dini Gourarie pursuing contract for the NAI,
even though you were the District's Superintendent of Schools, prompted John Sheahan, Esq., to
reject discussing the NAI contract with Dini Gourarie or you. He will testify that your conduct
had exposed to him that you were too involved for a normal vendor procurement exercise.
However, he will testify that he had no idea that you were still workine for NAI and that you
were utter] conflicted in those discussions because you were an undisclosed de facto Officer of
the NAI at that time. John Sheahan Esq., merely considered it to have an "appeazance of
impropriety" for him to be negotiating with either you or Dini Gourarie, the terms of any
contract between the District and the NAI, especially on June 22, 2017 (the day before the open
date, as if you know something you should not know and are absolutely certain that you shall
win because there will be no other bidders), and especially given your purported "history" as a
recently resigned CEO and founder of the NAI. So, he asked to engage with a different person
than you concerning the NAI. In response, you rolled out Lorraine Scorsone for him to interact
with for the NAI, holding her out to be a successor CEO to you at the NAI.
Page 54 of 172
On June 23, 2017, within an hour prior to 2:OOpm, Robert Cialone, the Purchasing Agent,
called Dini Gourarie to lament the fact that he was rushed to publish for the RFP, generate RFP
packets for vendors, emailed the RFP packets to the vendors on the list you provided for him to
send direct solicitations, and no responsive submittals had been received by the BO as of 1:OOpm
that day. Thus, within an hour of the open time of 2:OOpm, you were informed, as a person
interested in the bidding outcome for the NAI, via your personal secretary from NAI working
inside the Districts AO that there were no responsive bids, and the solicitation was a "bust" in
his opinion. Thus, you gave the NAI the competitive advantage of having inside information,
and you disadvantaged the District by undercutting its interest in soliciting the most competitive
bids possible, by allowing the NAI to know that there was no competition to its price quotes. By
so acting, you were assuring the NAI had an unfair advantage to monitor its competition and
know whether there was price pressure or other quotes to compete against, which is information
that no vendor should have when submitting and RFP for work.
On June 23, 2017, at approximately 1:30 p.m., Robert Cialone, the Purchasing Agent,
observed Dini Gourazie walk into the BO and attempt to tender to him an RFP package that was
unsealed that he rejected, because an unsealed submittal did not comply with the RFP directions.
She left the BO and returned shortly thereafter, but before 2:00 p.m., to drop off an RFP
submittal package for the NAI, together with her business card, which identified her as being
affiliated with the NAI.
On June 23, 2017, the open date for the District's RFP for "Reflective-Practice," the NAI
submitted an RFP response that perfectly matched the RFP terms that you narrowly drafted for
the District so that the NAI could be hired and become a vendor to the District. The submittal of
the NAI documentation included letterhead that indicated that you still were the founder and
CEO of the NAI. See, Exhibit 59, a copy of June 22, 2017 letterhead indicating only you as
Founder and CEO.
The RFP packet submitted by NAI contains sworn sheets, including allon-Collusive
Bidding Certification. See, Exhibit 81, a copy of June 23, 2017 RFP Package submitted by
NAI, including forms with attachments, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
commenced, at p. MW-NAI 000933 through,000959, marked CONFIDENTIAL.
NAI submitted Bid proposal certifications including a "Non-Collusive Bidding

Certification. See, Exhibit 81, at p.0949.
Due to your behavior with Dini Gourarie, the NAI engaged in collusive conduct with
you.
You engaged in collusive bidding by conspiring with the NAI to provide it with
information that the remainder of the public did not have.
Your efforts to conceal your involvement in the bidding process to make sure that the
NAI obtained the award of the work, shows that you sought to clandestinely make the NAI the
winner, by chicanery and by deceit.
Page 55 of 172
e
A
Your conflicting continuing interest in the NAI, and your willingness to collude with Dini
Gourarie to make sure the NAI was awarded the bid, establishes that your conduct was deceitful,
manipulative, and a violation of law.
regarding the collusion you engaged in to make sure the NAI was the winning bidder, establishes
that you had an egregious ethical lapse in favor of the NAI, your judgment was poor, your
discretion was clouded by improper motivations, and you engaged in conduct of moral turpitude.
Witnesses To Suonort Char¢e #3
• Robert Cialone
• Patricia Wright
• John Sheahan
• Richard Hamburger
• Ana Lovasz
• Dini Gourarie
Documents To Suaport Charge #3
• Exhibits 1-80
• NAI Discovery from McGuire Woods, p.0000001— 0025274
• Board resolutions
• Board Policies
• NAI emails
• District emails
Page 56 of 172
CHARGE #4:

REGENTS
(CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING THE NAI —

AWARDING CONTRACT TO THE NAI
EVEN THOUGH THE VENDOR FILED FALSE INSTRUMENTS FOR THE BID
DUE TO FALSE SIGNATURESI
Specifications:
The RFP packet submitted by the NAI contains certification sheets that were blank, that
had to be filled in by the bidder and signed by an officer, who as required to fill in-his/her officer
title and date his/her signature, and which form required pen written responses and signatures on
those sheets, including:
(1) allon-Collusive Bidding Certification sheet;
(2) a Legal Construction sheet; and
(3) a Proposer's Certification of Compliance with the Iran Divestment Act of
2012.
See, Exhibit 81, a copy of June 23, 2017 RFP Package submitted by NAI, including
forms with attachments, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI 000933 through 000959, marked CONFIDENTIAL.
The NAI submitted its bid proposal certifications that contained forged signatures for
Lorraine Scorsone. Specifically:
• The Non-Collusive Bidding Certification sheet beazs initials, not a

signature, on the line that calls for her signature, and handwriting that is
not her own. See, Exhibit 81, at p.0949.
• The Legal Construction sheet bears initials, not a signature, on the line that
calls for her signature, and handwriting that is not her own. See, Exhibit
81, at p.0950.
• The Proposer's Certification of Compliance with the Iran Divestment Act

of 2012 sheet bears initials, not a signature, on the line that calls for her
signature, and handwriting that is not her own. See, Exhibit 80, at p.0951.
Lorraine Scorsone was not present in the District on June 23, 2018.
Page 57 of 172
~ t
At the time that the NAI RFP package was being put together in the District, Lorraine
Scorsone was not present in the District.
Lorraine Scorsone's signature was forged.
Handwriting samples and signature analysis will prove that the pen written text and the
purported signatures for Lorraine Scorsone aze not her handwriting, are not her penmanship, and
are not her signatures, on (1) the Non-Collusive Bidding Certification sheet, (2) the Legal
Construction sheet; and (3) the Proposer's Certification of Compliance with the Iran Divestment
Act of 2012. See, Exhibit 80, at p.0949 — 951.
Due to your behavior with Dini Gourarie, the NAI engaged in filing an RFP Packet
bearing false signatures, meaning, NAI filed a false instrument.
Due to your behavior with Dini Gourarie, the NAI engaged in filing an RFP Packet
bearing forged signatures, NAI filed a false instrument.
Since Dini Gourazie was the person who filed the NAI's RFP Packet with Robert
Cialone, the District's Purchasing Agent, she filed documents bearing false signatures, meaning,
Dini Gourarie filed a false instrument.
Your efforts to award a contract to the NAI, despite the filing of signatures, shows that
you sought to make NAI the winner of the RFP,even if by chicanery and/or by deceit.
Your efforts to award a contract to the NAI, despite the forged signatures, shows that you
sought to make NAI the winner of the RFP, even if by chicanery and/or by deceit.
Your conflict of interest in favor of the NAI, and your willingness to make sure the NAI
winner of the RFP, regardless of false signatures, or forgeries, establishes that your conduct was
regarding the NAI's submittal of its bid package in order to make sure the NAI was the winning
bidder, establishes that you had an egregious ethical lapse in favor of the NAI, your judgment
moral turpitude.
Witnesses To Suunort Charge #4
• Robert Cialone
• Patricia Wright
• John Sheahan
Page 58 of 172
~ ~ e
tl
• Richazd Hamburger
• Ana Lovasz
• Dini Gourazie
Documents To Suaaort Charge #4
• Exhibits 1-81
• The District's Request for Proposal;
• New American Initiative's response to the Districts Request for Proposal;
• Board resolutions
• Board Policies
• NAI emails
• District emails
Page 59 of 172
CHARGE #5:

REGENTS
VIOLATION OF LAW —CONFLICT OF INTERST — NAI

(1)
(2) IMPROPER APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS TO NAI

(3) COERCION/IMPROPER EXPEDITING OF PAYMENTS TO NAI
Specification:
The District's Policy #6700, which implements General Municipal Law § 104-b, governs
Purchasing, and sets forth procedures to avoid conflicts of interest and to require fairness in
bidding and contracting for services by the RFP process.
District Policy #6700 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Goods and services which are not required by law to be procured by the district
through competitive bidding will be procured in a manner so as to ensure the
prudent and economical use of public monies, in the best interests of the
taxpayers, to facilitate the acquisition of goods and services of maximum quality
at the lowest possible cost under the circumstances, and to guard against
favoritism, imarovidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption.
Alternative proposals or quotations will be secured by requests for proposals,

written or verbal quotations or any other appropriate method of procurement,
except for procurements:
1. under a county contract;
2. under a state contract;
3. of azticles manufactured in state correctional institutions; or
4. from agencies for the blind and severely disabled.
5. under a BOCES contract
6. under a Cooperative Contract
The districPs purchasing activity will strive to meet the following objectives:
1. to effectively supply all administrative units in the school
system with needed materials, supplies, and contracted services;
2. to obtain materials, supplies and contracted services at the
lowest prices possible consistent with the quality and standards
Page 60 of 172
needed as determined by the Purchasing Agent in conformance
with state law and regulation and in cooperation with the
requisitioning authority. The educational and physical welfare
of the students is the foremost consideration in making any
purchase;
3. to ensure that all purchases fall within the framework of
budgetazy limitations and that they are consistent with the
educational goals and programs of the district;
4. to maintain an appropriate and comprehensive accounting and
reporting system to record and document all purchasing
transactions; and
5. to ensure, through the use of proper internal controls, that loss
and/or diversion of district property is prevented.
Despite the District's Policy #6700, which implements General Municipal Law § 104-b,
and despite the fact that NAI was in deep financial distress in June 2017, you manipulated the
RFP/bidding process and made sure that NAI was awarded a $450,000.00 contract by the
District.
Due to your prior employment with NAI, you knew that NAI was on the verge of going
out of business due to the cash flow problems that NAI was experiencing, inasmuch as it was
operating at a 4 854.23 monthly deficit for months, and had been operating in the red for four
months since March 2017.
Also in breach of the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" to deal honestly
with the District, you misleadingly failed to disclose a material fact, and thereby deceived the
HUFSD in the absence of such disclosure, that the NAI was going insolvent before it entered
into a contract with the District, and would have needed to close down without District funding
because the NAI was no longer a viable program or a sustainable educational initiative without
the District's funding. See:
Exhibit 29, a copy of 2016-17 Cash Flow analysis for NAUTNAA in

excel spreadsheet format, showing NAI was in operating at a deficit of
4 854.23 per month, was in red stazting in Mazch 2017, and going deeper
and deeper into the red each month into June 2017, which document was
produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, p.
MW-NAI-0025158: and
Exhibit 23, a copy of 2016-17 Projected Budget for NAUTNAA in excel

spreadsheet format, showing NAI was forecasted to operate in the red in
the 2016-17 school year, showing a forecasted deficit by June 30, 2017 of
$22.163~0, which sum would have been $89.358.20 if NAI not had a
surplus carry forward of $67,195.00 from the year prior, which document
was produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at
p. MW-NAI-0025157; and
Page 61 of 172
Exhibit 40, a copy of the "White Paper" written by Loraine Scorsone on
Februazy 1, 2018, after she resigned as CEO of NAI on January 16, 2018
after she determined that the NAI was on a negative financial trajectory
and was not a viable educational model for the reasons set forth in her
analytical assessment, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that
you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-01101 - p. MW-NAI-01116, and p. MW-
NAI-01117 - p. MW-NAI-01132.
The payments were made in such a rush to the NAI, by the District, only because you put
undue pressure upon the District's employees in the BO to process it and pay it on a "fire drill
basis," and undue pressure upon the Districts External Claims Auditors, namely, Cerini &
Associates, due to your conflict of interest.
You violated the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" in your Contract, by
foisting upon the District a contractual relationship with the NAI, which was not a viable
program without District funding, and by causing the District to underwrite the operations of the
NAI.
You needed the District to enter into a contract with the NAI to enable the NAI to survive
financially, and you forced the District to hire the four (4) Master Teachers that had been on the
NAI payroll through June 30, 2017 with funding from the NYCDOE, because the funding
sources for NAI from other clients and for TNAACS from the DOE, were drying up. You
caused the District to award a contract to the NAI and to hire four (4) Master Teachers in a rush
on June 27, 2017 (see, Exhibit 4, the 6-27-17 BOE Minutes at page 2), thereby promoting NAI's
interests over the interests of the District, which exposes your conflict of interest, because of
NAI's financial distress evidenced by the following:
First, NAI and you, Dr Waronker, had been engaged to help save and turn
azound the Jewish Academy of Suffolk County. See, Exhibit 82, the May
22, 2017 article profiling both Dr. Waronker and the Jewish Academy of
Suffolk County.
The Jewish Academy of Suffolk County, unfortunately, was forced to

close on June 23, 2017, due to low enrollment. See, Exhibit 83, the June
13, 2017 azticle announcing the closure of the Jewish Academy of Suffolk
County effective June 23, 2017.
Second, NAI and you, Dr Waronker, had been assessed as having

produced poor exam results, even though your educational model was
fashioned as a "21" century schoolhouse," and the NYCDOE decided to
slash TNAACS funding as a result. See, Exhibit 84, the November 4,
2013 article in the Daily News announcing the NAI's and TNAA's poor
exam results, despite Master Teachers being "paid $125,000.00 a year to
help [mentor] their less experienced colleagues," and reporting that the
growth of the NAI and TNAA model was frozen and the city had
withdrawn a proposal for a middle school expansion (beyond just the
Page 62 of 172
elementazy school in the Bronx [PS 274] and a Chazter school in
Brooklyn) before a vote was held on the topic on Wednesday, May 17,
2017.
Third, the NYC Leadership Academy, which you touted as being one of
four (4) organizations with which you were proudly associated (in 9[15 of
your Contract), was reported on July 27, 2017 and July 30, 2017, to have
failed an NYC Comptroller's audit and could not account for $10] million
dollazs paid to it from the NYCDOE with even basic receipts, time sheets,
or records of services provided, or other basic accounting information,
regarding the money paid to the NYC Leadership Academy for
development and training of principals in the NYCDOE system. See,
Exhibit 85, a copy of the July 29, 2017 NY Post article reporting that
$101 million dollars paid by the NYCDOE to the NYC Leadership
Academy could not be tracked; see nlso, Exhibit 86, a copy of the July 30,
2017 CBS News article reporting that the City Comptroller's Audit was
unable to show how the $101 million dollars was spent.
Fourth, on September 24, 2017, the NYC DOE announced that it was
pulling the funding for the payment of $125,000.00 per year salaries for
the Master Teachers that are at the core of the NAI and TNAA educational
model, resulting in nearly two dozen teachers taking pay cuts of
approximately $50,000.00 each. See, Exhibit 87, a copy of the September
24, 2017 NY Daily News article reporting on the NYSDOE's decision
implementing this cut in funding to the TNAA schools.
The NYCDOE had already cut the TNAA and TNAACS funding from
$250,000.00 down to $100,000 per year for funding of the NAI model,
and additional cuts were foreseeable and feazed. See, Exhibit 40.
In anticipation of the September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017

NYSED CSO Site Renewal Visit, you had been informed by TNAACS
headmaster Lisa Pazquette Silva, that the test results in ELA and Math
were not as positive as comparable schools, and that a talking points
memo was needed to try to convince the NYSED CSO to issue a renewal
certification for the Charter School. See, Exhibit 34, a copy of the
September 24, 2017 email, together with the talking points memo,
produced n discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-0577 - p. MW-NAI-583.
• Fifth, as of June 1, 2017, the NAI was operating at a monthly deficit of

over $4,800.00 per month, had burned through a surplus from the prior
year's operations of over $67,000.00, and was in an operational deficit of
over $16,0000 for the end of the 2016-2017 school yeaz. See, Exhibit 29.
Page 63 of 172
your Contract, you prioritized your loyalty to the NAI, and continued to be involved in setting
Board agendas for the board meetings of the NAI and TNAA. See, generally, Charge #1, infra.
your Contract, and instead of meeting with the High School Principal and discharging your duty
as the Receiver for the District's High School, by focusing on securing the needed support for
your High School Principal for the success of the ,High School, which was designated a
Persistently Struggling School by the NYSED, you focused on burdening the District with
carrying the cash flow burdens of the NAI, which was a failure of a program and which needed
to be saved by the District, since the NAI was going bankrupt without the Districts infusion of
cash.
your Contract, you focused on propping up NAI (the organization you founded, and for which
you had been CEO for 3 years since 2014), by shifting over ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000.00) in budgetazy burden from the NAI to the District, including:
(1) $450,000.00 in cash flow by contract award to the NAI, which you caused
to be given to the NAI by Board resolution on.June 27, 2017.
See, Exhibit 12, at page 4;
(2) $540,000.00 in salary, plus benefits for the Master Teacher salaries for four
(4) teachers who had been NAI staff prior to June 2, 2017, and
had remained the NAI staff until June 30, 2017, and two (2) of
which had been members of the NAI Board of Directors, and
one of which was the Chairperson of the NAI Board of
Directors See, Exhibit 12, at page 7; and
(3) $180,000.00 in salazy to Varleton McDonald, your former Mentor at the
NYC Department of Education (hereinafter,"NYCDOE"), who
you pretended you did not know when you caused NAI to
select him to be the person selected to become the District's
Deputy Superintendent, but who, after he was hired, you
admitted was your former boss. See, Charge #10, below.
TOTAL: 1.170.000.00 plus benefits for the Master Teachers
your Contract, you focused on making sure that NAI should apply for an RFP to win a contract
from the District, and then engaged in bid rigging to make sure that NAI was awarded the
contract. See, Charge #2, below.
your Contract, you pursued your conflict of interest prioritizing the interests of NAI over the
interests of the District, you caused the Board to hire NAI on June 27, 2017, by Board resolution,
and to commit to paying NAI $450,000.00 per annum, without a contract yet agreed to between
NAI and the District. See, Exhibit 12, a copy of the June 27, 2017 Boazd Minutes, at p.2(NAI)
and p.7 (Master Teachers).
Page 64 of 172
your Contract, you pursued your conflict of interest prioritizing the interests of NAI over the
interests of the District, when you convinced the School Board to pass two resolutions, one
hiring NAI for $450,000.00, and one to hire four (4) teachers you defined as "Master Teachers,"
for a cost of $540,000.00 (4 x $135,000 plus benefits, per Master Teacher). See, Exhibit 12 a
copy of the June 27, 2017 Board Minutes, at p.2(NAI)and p.7 (Master Teachers).
On June 27, 2017, you caused the District to incur $990,000.00 plus benefits in costs
relating to the NAI that were not in the budget for the 2017-2018 school year that was approved
by the voters on May 16, 2017. See, Exhibit 12, a copy of the June 27, 2017 Board Minutes, at
p.2(the NAI)and p.7 (Master Teachers).
On July 25, 2017, the District entered into a consulting contract with the NAI. See,
Exhibit 17, the NAI Contract, dated June 27, 2017 on page 1 in the preamble pazagraph, but
dated July 12, 2017 on the top of page, but signed by Maribel Toure on July 25, 2017.
On August 3, 2017, you caused the NAI invoice dated July 31, 2017, but not received by
the BO until August 3, 2017, to be processed for immediate payment that day, which was the
result of undue pressure you placed on the Purchasing Agent, to generate a Purchase Order for
the NAI on the same day as the date the invoice was received. You caused such priority of
processing of the NAI invoice by manipulating the new Assistant Superintendent for Business,
Larry Dobroff who only started working for the District on Tuesday, August 1, 2017, and you
pressured him to make sure your organization, the NAI, was paid that day. You prioritized
payment being made to NAI that day because you were going on two weeks' vacation starting
Thursday night, August 3, 2017 (you did not return to work at the District until Monday August
21,.2017), and because you had a direct interest in the money flowine from the District to fund
NAI's operations. See, Exhibit 28, the NAI payment packet for the NAI invoice #1.
On August 3; 2017, you not only caused the NAI invoice dated July 31, 2017, to have a
Purchase Order generated out of sequence compazed to other vendors' invoices that in many
cases were 90 to 120 days delayed in processing, but also you caused a check to be cut and
prepared for delivery to the NAI that day, which was the result of undue pressure you placed on
the Accounts Payable Clerk to generate such payment and undue pressure you caused to be
exerted upon the claims auditors, Cerini &Associates. You manipulated the new Assistant
Superintendent for Business, Larry Dobroff who was only in his 3à day at work for the District
on Thursday August 3, 2017,(having started his employ on Tuesday, August 1, 2017), to process
the payment to the NAI as a "£ire drill," directing the Accounts Payable Clerk to process a check,
and scan and email the whole payment paperwork packet to Cerini &Associates, for Cerini to
approve the payment via email. Larry Dobroff pressured Suzette McMillan to attach the
approving email to the back of the payment packet, so Cerini could see the evidence of advance
approval when Cerini came into the District on August 10, 2017, to approve checks for the then
next scheduled check run. Again, you prioritized payment being made to the NAI that day
because you were going on two weeks' vacation starting Thursday night, August 3, 2017 (you
did not return to work at the District until Monday August 21, 2017), and because you had a
Page 65 of 172
} ~ ~
direct interest in the money flowine from the District to fund NAI's ouerations. See, Exhibit 28,
the NAI payment packet for the NAI invoice #1.
On August 3, 2017, the processing of the check was under such pressure that Suzette
McMillan was forced to stay at work almost 2 hours beyond the end of her work day at 4pm,
sending emails to Cerini for approval of checks, the first one processed in error for the full
$74,550.00 sum billed, but disallowed by Cerini due to a cap of $37,500.00 per month in the
NAI contract, so the first check was voided and then a 2"d check was cut that day that was
approved for $37,500.00. During the "fire drill" to get the NAI paid that day, the new Assistant
Superintendent for Business, Larry Dobroff told Ms. McMillan that, "if the Superintendent wants
the NAI to be paid, then the NAI will be paid." You dispatched Dini Gourarie to sit in the BO
and wait there to collect payment that day, which she did, until Ms. McMillan received the
approval to release the check and tendered it to her.
The rushed payment to the NAI on August 3, 2018, is made all the worse due to your
continued involvement in the NAI's operations as a de facto officer of the NAI, even after
Lorraine Scorsone agreed to serve as your "Interim" de jure CEO, was shown on August 4,
2018, when you performed a cash flow analysis for NAI after the District's check, dated August
3, 2017, was cashed on August 4, 2017. See, Exhibit 30, a copy of the August 4, 2017 email
that you sent to Lorraine Scorsone, together with the.cash flow analysis in excel spreadsheet
format attached thereto, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-0457 - p. MW-NAI-0458. Worst of all, you sent the cash flow analysis for the NAI to
her, from your "swaronkC~thenewamericanacademv.ore" email address, evidencing that you
were engaging in NAI management activity for her, in a clandestine fashion. Your efforts to fast
track the payment of the District's cash to the NAI, and to conceal your involvement in
management of the cash flow of the of the NAI by conversing with Lorraine Scorsone from your
"swaronkCathenewamericanacadem~org" email address, proves your continuing stewardship
role and defacto officer position in NAI after June 2, 2017.
Your behavior relating to the August 3, 2017 check issued to the NAI, the pressure you
applied upon the District's Business Office personnel and the District's Claims Auditors to
process the District's payment to NAI, and your performance of a cash flow analysis for the NAI
and you sending to her the same day that the NAI check was cashed, shows that you had a
continuing interest in the NAI, and a conflict of interest with the District.
On August 31, 2017, you again manipulated the new Assistant Superintendent for
Business, Larry Dobroff who was only in his third week at work for the District on Thursday
August 31, 2017, (having stazted his employ on Tuesday, August 1, 2017), to process the
payment to the NAI as a "fire drill," directing the Accounts Payable Clerk to process a check,
and scan and email the whole payment paperwork packet to Cerini &Associates, for Cerini to
approve the payment via email. Larry Dobroff pressured Suzette McMillan to again attach the
approving email to the back of the payment packet, so Cerini could see the evidence of advance
approval when Cerini came into the District after August 31, 2017, to approve checks for the
then next scheduled check.run. Again, you prioritized payment being made to the NAI because
you had a direct interest in the money flowine from the District to fund NAI's operations. See,
Exhibit 88, the NAI payment packet for NAI invoice #2.
Page 66 of 172
The August 31, 2017 payment to the NAI was improper because it again was drawn from
the Persistently Struggling School Grants (hereinafter, "PSSG")for 2016-17, even though there
was no way to justify such payment for 2 reasons:(1) the Grant year had closed out on June 30,
2017, and no pazt of the services being paid at this stage were for services rendered prior to June
30, 2017, and (2) aside from bad timing, the services of the NAI were not supported by or
covered by the grant and could not be approved. See, Exhibit 89, a copy of the July 11, 2017
email to Regina Armstrong from Sylvia Sulowski, of the NYSED Office of Accountability; see
also, Exhibit 90, the Final Expenditure Summary, dated September 28, 2017; see also, Exhibit
91, the August 1, 2018 email from Acting Superintendent Regina Armstrong, reporting that the
NYSED will allow the District to use mis-spent PSSG funds in 2016-17 in the 2018-19 school
year.
The payment to NAI on August 31, 2017 was especially improper for 2 reasons:
(1) You knew, from the exchanged emails with Pauline Simpson, the clerk
assigned to grant writing and submission, that you cannot amend the
grants previously approved, to cover payments to NAI or the Master
Teachers, despite your claim that you were advised otherwise, but only
verbally, by Ira Schwartz and with LoriAnn Curtain of the NYSED. See;
Exhibit 92 a copy of the email exchange on June 29, 2017, with Pauline
Simpson), and
(2) Any funds mischazged to grant funds aze later flagged as misspent, and
then back-chazged to the General Fund, and potentially the grant dollazs
are disallowed to be used for any other purpose and are lost to the District,
which makes such improper charges to grant funding not only "stupid" but
also unethical, improper and inappropriate. See, Exhibit 99 through
Exhibit 106, the Transcripts of Larry Dobroff's interview at eight days of
questioning in this investigation; see also Exhibit 107, a copy of the 87
exhibits to the Larry Dobroff interview transcripts.
On September 1, 2017, Larry Dobroff directed Suzette McMillan to cut a special check
for the NAI, not in the check run for September 28, 2017, but on September 30, 2017. The
September 30, 2017 date was Yom Kippur and Fell on a Saturday. The special processing of the
3`d payment to the NAI, by check dated September 30, 2017, was peculiar because it once again
was improperly paid out of the 2016-17 PSSG. See, Exhibit 94, the NAI payment packet for the
NAI invoice #3.
On September 28, 2017, you signed a "Chief Administrator's Certification for the PSSG,
swearing that, "By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the
report is true„ complete and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are
for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal (or State)
award. I am aware that any false, fictitious or fraudulent information, or the omission of any
material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false
statements, false claims, or otherwise (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections
Page 67 of 172
3729-3730 and 3801-3812)." The problem is that you had been repeatedly told and warned that
the NAI Program, at a cost of $450,000.00 per annum, and the Master Teachers, at a cost of
$540,000.00 per annum ($135,000.00 plus benefits x 4 = $540,000.00 plus benefits), were not
allowed expenses of the PSSG because they were not written into the narrative for the award,
and you had to know that no part of such costs were incurred prior to June 30, 2017, and yet you
submitted the PSSG Final Expenditure Summary for the grant year July 1, 2016 —June 30, 2017,
containing chazges for payment of the Harvard Trip and other expenses incurred and billed by
NAI that had no relationship to, and could not be approved as allowable costs under, the PSSG.
See, Exhibit 89, a copy of the July 11, 2017 email to Regina Armstrong from Sylvia Sulowski,
of the NYSED Office of Accountability; see also, Exhibit 90, the Final Expenditure Summary,
dated September 28, 2017; see also, Exhibit 93, a copy of the July 20, 2017 email to you from
John Sheahan, Esq., with a "cc" to Regina Armstrong, counseling you that "expenditures for
grants must be pre-approved by SED ... Please advise if you wish to modify the contract to add
language re SED pre-approval of expenditures."
On September 30, 2017, and notwithstanding the above warnings, your pressure to cause
NAI to be paid on as fast a schedule as possible, resulted in the relatively new Assistant
Superintendent for Business, Larry Dobroff to process the payment to the NAI as a "fire drill"
again, this time outside of a normal check nn that was set for September 28, 2017. He should
have known better by now than to continue this fire drill process every month for the NAI, since
this was the nearing the end of his 2"d month at work for the District as of September 30, 2017
(having started his employment on Tuesday, August 1, 2017), but he did not want to disappoint
his boss, and felt compelled to pay NAI and keep his boss, you, satisfied with his performance by
prioritizing your priorities. See, Exhibit 94, the NAI payment packet for the NAI invoice #3.
The September 30, 2017 check was the third special check run for the NAI in three
payments made to date as of September 30, 2017. The NAI had just been paid $74,550.00 in two
payments in August 2017, the 2"d check (dated August 31) having been issued not even 30 days
after the 1" check was tendered on August 3, 2017, and to directing the Accounts Payable Clerk
to process a check, and scan and email the whole payment paperwork packet to Cerini &
Associates, for Cerini to approve the payment via email. Larry Dobroff pressured Suzette
McMillan to again attach the approving email to the back of the payment packet, so Cerini could
see the evidence of advance approval when Cerini came into the District after September 30,
2017. Again, you prioritized payment being made to the NAI ecause you had a direct interest
in the money flowine from the District to fund the NAI's operations. See, Exhibit 88, the NAI
payment packet for the NAI invoice #2.
An analysis of the dates when the checks paid to the NAI, and tendered to Dini Gourarie
by hand each time by Suzette McMillan, including once by her walking the check over from the
BO to the Superintendents office to tender it to Dini Gourarie at the AO, shows that the NAI
cashed the check on the next available business day in each instance. See, Exhibit 95, the chart
of the NAI payments.
On November 3, 2017, an email exchange again occurred between Larry Dobroff, Regina
Armstrong, and you, but this also including Jack Bierwirth, regazding the NAI payments being
disallowed under the PSSG or any grant for which the services were not included in the narrative
Page 68 of 172
for the use of the grant funds, and were not approved by the NYSED in advance. See, Exhibit
96, the November 3, 2017 emails.
From and after the September 30, 2017 payment, the two final payments made to the
NAI, on November 30, 2017 and December 22, 2017, were paid out of General Funds. See,
Exhibit 95, the chart of NAI payments; see also, Exhibit 97, the NAI invoice and payment
packet #4 (payment dated November 30, 2017); see also, Exhibit 98, the NAI invoice and
payment packet #5 (payment dated December 22, 2017).
Payment #5 to the NAI, dated December 22, 2017, was particularly wrongful, inasmuch
as the Boazd directed that all payments to the NAI be suspended as of December 21, 2017. See,
Exhibit 67, a copy of the Patricia Wright letter to the NAI, dated December 22, 2017, enclosing
a copy of the December 21, 2017 Board resolution. You were in attendance at the December 21,
2017 Board meeting, so you knew that the December 22, 2017 check to the NAI should not have
been released. Nonetheless, you permitted the December 22, 2017 check to the NAI to be
released and paid to the NAI. That decision by you was both insubordinate and as a direct
product of your conflict of interest in favor of the NAI and against the District.
All of the payments made to the NAI suffered from the same defect that is related to your
conflict of interest; you retained an indirect and undisclosed continuing interest in the NAI,
despite your assertions to the contrary in public.
Your behavior relating to the payments made to the NAI shows that you had a continuing
interest in the NAI, and a conflict of interest with the District, and that your conduct was
regazding the NAI contract, establishes that you had an egregious ethical lapse, your judgment
moral turpitude.
Witnesses To Sunaort Char¢e #5
• James Clark
• Ana Lovasz
• Dr. David B. Gates, Trustee
• Lamont Johnson, Trustee
• Randy Stith, trustee
• Dr. Jack Bierwirth, Distinguished Educator
Page 69 of 172
e e 1 ~
• Larry Dobroff
• Suzette McMillan
• Brigid Villareale
• Ed Cullen
• Frank Dragone
• Keith Halop
• Robert Cialone
• Sylvia Sulowski
• Chumi Diamond and staff at Cerini &Associates
Documents To Suuport Charee #5
• Exhibits 1-98
• Exhibits 99 -106, the Interview transcripts of Larry Dobroff
• Exhibit 107, the Larry Dobroff interview exhibits 1-87
• NAI RFP Packet
• NAI Contract with the Disffict
• Hamburger Firm billing records
• Waronker Calendar entries and emails
• NAI emails
• NAI Payment Packets
• John Sheahan Emails, memos and draft documents
• Sylvia Sulowski emails
~ Witness statements
• Suzette McMillan files notes
• Robert Cialone file notes
• Board Policies
Page 70 of 172
CHARGE #6:

REGENTS
NAI,TNAA AND TNAACS.ON 9-24-17 AND 9-25-17)
Specifications:
By letter dated August 11, 2017, the NAI, TNAA and TNAACS staff were notified by
the NYSED CSO would conduct a site visit to inspect the TNAACS on September 25, 2017 and
September 26, 2017,. See, Exhibit 32, a copy of August 11, 2017 letter, produced in discovery in
the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0437.
As the Superintendent of Schools for the HUFSD,if you had resigned fully from, and had
no interest in, NAI and TNAA and the TNAACS, then you would have had no need to attend a
renewal site visit by the NYSED CSO on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 at the
TNAA Charter School, which was being led by Lisa Parquette Silva, as the Head Master, and
which was under the supervision of its Boazd of Trustees, which was being led by your mentor,
Vazleton McDonald ("Mac"), as the President of the Board of Trustees of TNAACS.
On August 13, 2017, Lisa Pazquette Silva forwazded the August 11, 2017 email sent from
the NYSED CSO'.s Kimberly Santiago, to Lisa Pazquette Silva, as the Head Master, and,
Varleton McDonald ("Mac"), as the President of the Board of Trustees of TNAACS, to eleven
(11) recipients involved in the operations of NAI, TNAA and TNAACS, notably includin¢ you,
but notably further, not to your Hempstead schools email address, but to your still active NAI
and/or TNAA email account, namely, [email protected]. See, Exhibit 32,
a copy of August 13, 2017 email, with attachments, produced in discovery in the federal
litigation that. you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0421 - p. MW-NAI-0436.
You did not remove yourself form the email chain.
Instead, on August 14, 2017, you continued to be among eleven (11) recipients involved
in the operations of NAI, TNAA and TNAACS, to whom Erin Farley, a Master Teacher at
TNAACS, sends out a reply email, which was notably sent to you again at your NAI and/or
TNAA email account, namely, [email protected]. See, Exhibit 33, a copy
of August 14, 2017 email, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at
p. MW-NAI-0439 - p. MW-NAI-0440.
Page 71 of 172
On August 23, 2017, you submitted for time off on September 25, 2017 and September
26, 2017. See, Exhibit 35, a copy of August 23, 2017 "Administrator's Absence Report," signed
by you, requesting 2 days off during the 3 day period from "9/24 — 9/26", to be used as
"conference/workshop" time off from work, which request was approved by Maribel Toure, then
the Boazd President on August 24.
You took paid time off from work on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017, not
as vacation days, but as "work shop" days. See, Exhibit 26, a copy of your Attendance Record
in the District's Finance Manager database, maintained by the District's Business Office
(hereinafter, "BO"), for the 2017-2018 school year, showing you took September 25, 2017 and
September 26, 2017 as paid days off as "workshop" days.
You took September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 as paid days off as "workshop"
days, but you did not attend a "workshop" or a "conference:
' Instead, you attended the renewal
site visit by the NYSED CSO on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 at the TNAA
Charter School.
No part of the two days that you took off from work at the District, was for professional
Development, or for skills training for your professional growth.
You did not take those days off, to attend a "work shop" of any kind.
There was no "work shop" to attend on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 at
the TNAA Charter School.
You did not take those days off, to/for the benefit of the District in any way.
interests to grow your investment as the founder and as a person with a continuing interest in
The renewal site visit on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 at the TNAA
Charter School was ONLY for the purpose of securing a renewal of the permit from the NYSED,
for TNAACS to operate as a Charter School.
No part of the renewal site visit on September 25, 2077 and September 26, 2017 served
the interests of the District.
Worse, you are not even entitled to "conference" days or "workshop days" under your
Contract, since no such benefits were agreed to in your contract. See, Exhibit 1, at 9[6, Benefits.
While your contract would entitle you to be reimbursed for expenses incurred while
attending a "professional conferences and meetings on the national, State and local levels, and
other expenses related to [your] employment," you were not entitled to take paid days off to
attend conferences or workshops. See, Exhibit 1, at y[6, Benefits, at §§J thereof.
Page 72 of 172
But 9[6, §§J of your Contract would be inapposite in any event, since you did not attend a
professional conference or meeting on the national, State and local levels, related to [your]
employment as the Superintendent of Schools for the District, when you attended the renewal
site visit on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017, since the ONLY purpose of those 2
days was to convince the NYSED to issue a renewal permit to TNAACS, so it could continue to
operate as a Charter School.
Thus, by taking "conference/workshop" days off as paid days, you breached your
contract.
But, worse, you lied to the District.
You took the time off on false pretenses: (1) You did not take those days off, to attend a
"work shop" of any kind; and (2) there was no "work shop" to attend on September 25, 2017 and
September 26, 2017 at the TNAA Charter School.
Accordingly, you stole time from the District:

• You took time off under false pretenses.
• You did not have work shop days to take.
• You preserved two(2) vacation days by lying about what you were taking
the time off to do, which was to serve your conflicted interest, which was
to grow NAI and TNAA and TNAACS, at the expense of the District.
• By lying about attending a work shop, and submitting your absences for
those 2 days as "work shop" days, you tried to conceal the truth that you
were serving another master, within the meaning of the disloyal servant
doctrine, when you were on the clock and beholden to the District for
those paid days.
• By taking "work shop" paid days off from the District, so you could serve
the best interests of NAI, TNAA and TNAACS, you stole an economic
benefit from the District, and engaged in theft of time and theft of pay.
Worse still, by taking September 25, 2017, and September 26, 2017 off from work at the
District, so you could attend the renewal site visit at the TNAA Charter School, you were derelict
in your duty and violated your obligations to the District as set forth in ~[1 of your Contract,
because as a result of those two days off from work, you took five (5) days ofF from work out of
seven days, from September 21, 2017 through September 29, 2017. While the District does not
begrudge you taking the Rosh Hashanah days off from work on September 21, 2017 and
September 22, 2017, or taking the whole of the day of erev Yom Kippur (as compared to just the
afternoon) on September 29, 2017, it does have a legitimate complaint about your poor exercise
of discretion and your poor judgment to make yourself absent on September 25 2017 and
September 26, 2017 to serve the best interests of NAI, TNAA and TNAACS, and to prioritize
NAI's and TNAACS's needs over the District, when you could have been at work in the District
for all (4)four days from Monday, September 25, 2017, through Thursday, September 28, 2017.
Worse yet still, as you knew all too well, you submitted your bogus request for "work
shop" paid days off from work, on August 23, 2017, at a time when you had just returned from
Page 73 of 172
two weeks' vacation in August, stazting August 4, 2017, after you suspended Dr Strachan as the
High School Principal, and after you were absent from the District for mediation training at
Hofstra from Sunday, August 20, 2017 through Tuesday, August 22, 2017, and you still did not
have an interim High School Principal hired as of August 23, 2017. One month later, on
September 23, 2017, you knew, and certainly had to know, that Kenneth Klein was not able to
suppress the fights and riots that started occurring at the High School on a nearly daily basis.
On Friday, September 8, 2017, the High School was closed when Kenneth Klein found
out that gang fights/gang initiation activities were occurring in the High School. The high school
administration, under Kenneth Klein, had no ability to stop the gang initiation problem that was
discovered, whereby gang prospects needed to find a classmate and punch someone in the face,
which was occurring that day. Unable to deal with the problem, Kenneth Klein shut down the
High school and sent the students out, into the streets of Hempstead.
On Sunday, September 17, 2017, you invited Randy Weingarten to visit the schools. You
invited CBS news into the High School to film a documentazy; not about the schools, but about
you~Z. The school looked calm, under your leadership, for the cameras that were rolling that day,
but then again, there were no students in the building on a Sunday.
On Monday, September 18, 2017, there were numerous fights in the High School. There
were 3 fights by noon, 6 for the day, at the High School. The Principal, Kenneth Klein had just
given a speech in the morning to try to address the problem of violence in the building, when the
first of the three fights in the morning took place; after his speech, six fights took place, showing
that the students sensed he had no control of the situation, and the students had no respect for
Kenneth Klein. In the meantime, you were MIA that day, only one day after you tried to pretend
you were heroically engaged and personally invested in stopping the violence at the High
School.
From September 19, 2017 through September 28, 2017, there were daily fights at the
High School, and Kenneth Klein proved singularly ill equipped to address the problem, as he
was not seen in the hallways, but rather was observed staying seated in his personal office.
On September 27, 2017, the NYSED asked to obtain specific information regarding
Kenneth Klein's appointment as a High School principal in a receivership High School. The
NYSED asked for his resume, for NYSED to review what body of work he had in his experience
to be qualified to serve as a turnaround or transformation principal in a receivership High School,
12 The day that you toured [he building with Randy Weingarten stands in stazk contrast to the day in late October,
2017, when you invited the CBS news crew back into the building for your documentary, and when fights broke out,
seemingly as you predicted, and instead of protecting the image of the District, you seemingly reveled in the chaos,
as if to showcase bad behavior, so you could try to burnish your image as an administrator [hat cleans up bad
schools. You acted as if you could "spring into 1c[ion," and feigned a deep involvement by you in trying to stop
violence in the high school, when up until [hen, the truth is that you were "missing in action" while the fights
continued daily, and the District had no violence suppression plan The irony is [hat prior to the day when Dr
Bierwirth strongly recommended ro you, that you make it your business to be personally present in the High School
ro help quell the violence, which was the day after the Board's regular Board meeting in October 2017, you had a
near zero presence in the High School other than on September 17, 2017.
Page 74 of 172
as compared to the SIG language regarding "competencies of school leadership," as required by
the express terms of the SIG, section D. Thus, the violence problem highlighted your error in
judgment, as Receiver, by selecting Kenneth HIein as a leader of a High School in receivership,
and you thus were imperiling $4,500,000.00 in grant money under the PSSG due to ffiein being
not qualified for the job.
On Friday, June 29, 2017, at the High School, there were there were 12 fights in the
building, one arrest, a TA assaulted, and one student taken to hospital."
Thus, your decision to take five days off during the period of September 21, 2017
through September 29, 2017, was a dereliction of duty.
The decision you made on August 23, 2017, to take time off on September 25, 2017 and
September 26, 2017, to attend a renewal site visit by the NYSED at the TNAACS, should have
been reversed, and you should have stayed in the District, and been present at the High School,
where leadership was needed, at a time when leadership was desperately lacking due to your
sacking of Dr. Strachan.
Taking September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017, to attend a renewal site visit by the
NYSED at the TNAACS, despite the swell of violence in the High School, showed that you
elevated your personal interests in the well-being of the NAI, TNAA and TNAACS ventures you
founded and remained interested in, over the well-being of the District.
Your conduct on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 showed a wanton
disregard for the needs of the students at the High School in the District, especially after the
documentary and media stunt you pulled on September 17, 2017.
Your decision to lie to the District about "work shop" attendance on September 25, 2017
and September 26, 2017, was conduct that demonstrates moral turpitude.
Your dishonest conduct on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017, amounted to a
conflict of interest that violated law and violated your contract.
Your dishonest conduct on September 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017, warrants the
termination of your employment.
Witnesses To Support Charee #6
• James Clazk
• Dr. Ahuna Akoma
• High School Hiring Committee
• John Sheahan
• Dr. Jack Bierwirth
Page 75 of 172
• Ana Lovasz
• Randy Stith
• Dr. Rodney Gilmore
• Christina Brown
• Lois Johnson
• Andrea Bibbs
• Ed Cullen
• Yolanda Adams,BO attendance record keeper
Documents To Support Charge #6
• Exhibits ]-98
• Wazonker Calendar entries and emails
• Witness statements
• Yolanda Adams File notes
• Shimon Wazonker personnel File
• Board Policies
Page 76 of 172
CHARGE #7:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW —CONFLICT OF INTEREST - NAI

STEALING TIME FROM THE DISTRIST TO SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF
NAI. TNAA AND TNAACS.ON 7-25-171
Specifications:
On July 25, 2017 and July 26, 2017, a panel discussion was hosted by the Consortium of
Jewish Day Schools (hereinafter, "Consortium" or "CoJDS"), which was held in Cedarhurst,
New York. See, Exhibit 108, a copy of the flyer sent out by the CoJDS to "save the date" for the
conference. You attended the conference on July 25, 2017.
The District's records indicate you took two (2) days off from work that week, as paid
days, denoted as "conference," but mazked for July 24, 2017 and July 25, 2017. See, Exhibit 36,
a copy of your Attendance Record in the District's Finance Manager database, maintained by the
BO, for the 2017-2018 school yeaz, showing you took July 24, 2017 and July 25, 2017 as paid
days off from work as "conference" days.
As the Superintendent of Schools for the HUFSD,if you had resigned fully from, and had
no interest in,.NAI and TNAA and the TNAACS,then you would have had no need to attend the
CoJDS and make a presentation on July 25, 2017 in behalf of NAI.
On Monday, July 17, 2017, you were at work at the District, ostensibly to serve the
District's best interests as its Superintendent of Schools, but instead, you were also doing NAI
business promotion work, using Dini Gourarie, your private personal secretary, to arrange for
you to make a presentation at the CoJDS, so you could pitch the NAI model to attendees and
potentially to advance the NAI recruitment of more schools as clients. See, Exhibit 109, a copy
of July 17, 2017 email, with a copy of the agenda highlighting the "New American Academy
Paper" and "Reflection" exercises that were part of the presentation you made at the CoJDS,
which documents were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p.
MW-NAI-0376 - p. MW-NAI-0381.
After you attended the CoJDS conference, whereat you pitched the NAI model to
potential clients and attendees, you received contacts from yeshiva heads, seeking to do business
with NAI, showing that your attendance at the Consortium served NAI's best interests, and not at
all the Districts interests.
Page 77 of 172
For example, on August 28, 2017, you received an email from Rabbi Yehuda Green
([email protected]), who was an attendee at your presentation at the Consortium. A google
seazch of Rabbi Green reveals his educational program's contact information is as follows:
Cheder Menachem Director: Rabbi Y. Green

1212 Scott St. Kingston, PA 18704
Phone:347-760-2133
Email: [email protected]
Email: ygreen770C~smail.com
Founded 2007
In his August 28, 2017 email to you, he stated, "I was out [sic] [at] Shimon Wazonker's
cojds summer workshop. There you mentioned that we should consider becoming a tna school.
I don't see us becoming one full on this yeaz. However, .... Can you please advise, what you
think and where we should stazt? ... Thanks so much for the fascinating work-shop." See,
Exhibit 110, a copy of August 28, 2017 email from Yehuda Green, which document was
produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0401.
On September 25, 201713, you received an email from Danielle Bloom, relating to a
Jewish Day School in Suffern New York, by which she expressed an interest in NAI, from
having listened to your presentation at the Consortium back in the summer, which would have
been on July 25, 20]7. The email was sent to you at your private email address,
uspwazonkerC~¢mail.com, which indicates that you made that appearance in your personal
capacity, and spent the day pitching the program and services of NAI, and did not appeaz thereat
as an emissazy of the District. See:
Exhibit 41, a copy of the September 25, 2017 emails between you and
Danielle Bloom, produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0613; and
Exhibit 42, a copy of the follow up emails on September 25, 2017 through
September 27, 2017, sent by NAI staff to pursue the business lead that you
generated for NAI by making the presentation at the Consortium on July
25, 20]7, which documents were produced in discovery in the federal
litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0619 - p. MW-NAI-0622;
and
Exhibit 43 and Exhibit 44, copies of the follow up emails from October
16, 2017 through October 29, 2017, by which more follow up with
consortium leads continued to be pursued to grow NAI's business, which
documents were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you
commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0624 - p. MW-NAI-0637
~~ The irony is not lost on the District that September 25, 2017, being the date of the subject email, is also date [hat
you took a paid day off from work from the Dis[ric[, feigning it was a "workshop" day, when in truth it was the first
of 2 days designated by the NYSED CSO for a renewal site visit by the NYSED CSO at TNAACS.
Page 78 of 172
_ _
Your attendance and delivery of a presentation at the Consortium on July 25, 2017 only
served the best interests of NAI, TNAA and TNAACS; indeed, the District has no interest in, or
affiliation with, the Consortium.
No part of the two days that you took off from work at the District, on July 24, 2017 and
July 25, 2017, which were paid as "conference" days, was for professional Development, or for
skills training for your professional growth.
You did not take those days off, to attend a "work shop" or "conference" that benefitted
the District in any way.
interests to grow your investment as the founder and as a person with a continuing interest in
Worse, you aze not even entitled to "conference" days or "workshop days" under your
Contract, since no such benefits were agreed to in your contract. See, Exhibit 1, at 9[6, Benefits.
While your contract would entitle you to be reimbursed for expenses incurred while
attending a "professional conferences and meetings on the national, State and local levels, and
other expenses related to [your] employment," you were not entitled to take paid days off to
attend conferences or workshops. See, Exhibit 1, at ~[6, Benefits, at §§J thereof.
But ~[6, §§J of your Contract would be inapposite in any event, since you did not attend a
professional conference or meeting on the national, State and local levels, related to [your]
employment as the Superintendent of Schools for the District, when you attended the Consortium
gathering on July 25, 2017, since the ONLY purpose of you attending that conference was to
serve your personal interests to grow your investment as the founder and as a person with a
continuing interest in NAI,TNAA and TNAACS.
Thus, by taking "conference/workshop" days off as paid days, you breached your
contract.
Your decision to take "conference" days on July 24, 2017 and July 25, 2017, when those
days were NOT used by you for professional Development, or for skills training for your
professional growth, but rather were used for making a presentation at an event to sell NAI and
its educational program, is proof that you stole time from the District, for your personal gain and
your conflicted interest to promote NAI while you are on the District's clock.
If you had taken vacation days to use that time to pursue your own private agenda, then
the conflict of interest would have remained, but the abusive stealing of time at least would not
have been an issue.
Page 79 of 172
tl ~
Your attendance at the Consortium on July 25, 2017 to make a presentation for NAI, and
taking the day as a paid conference day when no part of your use of time that day served the best
interests of the District, was conduct that demonstrates moral turpitude.
Your dishonest conduct on July 25, 2017, when you attended the Consortium for NAI,
and not for the District, so you could make a presentation for NAI, amounted to a conflict of
interest that violated law and violated your contract.
Your dishonest conduct on July 25, 2017, warrants the termination of your employment.
Witnesses To Support Charge #7
~ James Clark
• Dr. Ahuna Akoma
• John Sheahan
• Ana Lovasz
• Randy Stith
• Christina Brown
• Lois Johnson
• Andrea Bibbs
• Ed Cullen
• Brigid Villazeale
Documents To Sunnort Charge #7
• Exhibits 1-98
• Exhibits 108-110
Page 80 of 172
• Shimon Waronker personnel File
• Board Policies
Page 81 of 172
CHARGE #8:

REGENTS
NAI,TNAA AND TNAACS.ON 7-9-17 throu¢h 7-14-17)
Specifications:
From July 9, 2017 through July 14, 2017, the New American Initiative hosted a five (5)
"Summer Training Institute" at Harvazd University.
On its face, your effort to host members of the District at the New American Initiative's
"Summer Training Institute" at Harvard University is arguably innocuous, since you could
contend that you were trying to introduce your educational program to the District for
enrichment purposes.
However, the real truth is that you were selling the NAI product and acting as its chief
salesman, billing not just the District at a cost of $50,000.00 for the conference, but also billing
other clients of NAI, including TNAACS, at a rate of $5,000.00 per attendee.
On From July 26, 2017 through July 31, 2017, you enmeshed yourself in the efforts
undertaken by Matthew Harrington and Lisa Pazquette Silva, on the one hand, for TNAACS,and
Lorraine Scorsone and Dini Gourarie, on the other hand, for NAI, to work out a consulting
contract between them, to enable TNAACS to pay NAI. See, Exhibit 25 through Exhibit 27.
On or about August 30, 2017, NAI and TNAACS negotiated a $70,000.00 contract price,
based on a unit price of $5,000.00 per attendee14, for a separate contract for the "Summer
Training Institute" hosted by the New American Initiative for five (5) days at Harvard University
from July 9, 2017 through July 14, 2017. See, Exhibit 112,the August 30, 2017 email from Dini
Gourarie, to Loraine Scorsone, with the draft "summer contracP' to be entered into between NAI
and TNAACS and. the summer training itinerary attached thereto, which documents were
produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-0483 - p.
MW-NAI-0501.
14 The glaring discrepancy is obvious to the District: (1) NAI charged the District $50,000.00 as a unit price,
regardless oC the number of attendees, when it only sent 8 people, not including you, since you were a presenter of
the program; and (2) NAI charged TNAACS $5,000.00 per attendee. If the unit pricing were [he same, the District
should have been charged only $40,000.00, excluding you, since you were not an attendee, but rather, a presenter.
Page 82 of 172
NAI billed TNAACS, by invoice dated July 31, 201715, for $70,000.00, at a unit cost of
$5,000 per person, covering the cost of 14 people to attend the "Summer Training Institute"
hosted by the New American Initiative for five (5) days at Harvazd University from July 9, 2017
through July 14, 2017. See, Exhibit 112, the July 31, 2017 invoice from NAI and TNAACS,
with the program sheets and sign in sheets for each day of programming attached thereto, which
documents were produced in discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-
NAI-0504 - p. MW-NAI-0526.
The District's records indicate you took five (5) days off from work that week, as paid
days, denoted as "conference," covering July 10, 2017 through July 14, 2017. See, Exhibit 36, a
copy of your Attendance Record in the District's Finance Manager database, maintained by the
BO, for the 2017-2018 school year, showing you took July 10, 2017 through July 14, 2017 as
paid days off from work as "conference" days.
As the Superintendent of Schools for the HiJFSD, you had no basis for taking those days
as conference days, since you did not attend that NAI "Summer Training Institute" as a mere
participant or as a mere lecturer, but rather, you attended it as the host, as the founder of NAI, as
a fully interested person who was vested in the development, growth and future success of NAI
and TNAA and the TNAACS, and for the purposes of "selling" the NAI educational model, and
charging the guests $5,000 per head to attend the NAI"Summer Training Institute."
Indeed, you outrageously counted yourself in the head count of nine (9) persons for
whom NAI billed the District, when in fact you were not sitting in attendance and acting as a
participant, but rather, you were playing the role of host. Moreover, you were not just the host
for the eight(8) people you brought up as your contingent from the District, but also you played
host to the fourteen (14) people that travelled up to Harvard from TNAACS, for which you
chazged $5,000.00 per head to help fill the coffers of NAI by another $70,000.00.- Thus, you
hosted the NAI "Summer Training Institute" in July 2017 and generated at least $120,000.00 for
NAI from the District and TNAACS alone. If you had any other participants in attendance, then
NAI would have earned even more revenue for the event.
Your attendance and delivery of multiple presentations at the NAI "Summer Training
Institute" at Harvard University from July 9, 2017 through July 14, 2017 only served the best
interests of NAI, TNAA and TNAACS. You did. not attend the NAI "Summer Training
Institute" at Harvard for the refinement of your skills as an educator or administrator or for your
professional skills and growth, but rather, so that you could sell the NAI brand. Indeed, the
District sent almost no staff members that might have benefitted from such training. There were
no teachers in attendance from the HUFSD.
Indeed, the people selected to attend the NAI "Summer Training Institute" at Hazvard
University from the District, added little to no value to the District, even if viewed with the most
15 Again, [he irony is not lost on the District [hat, by invoice dated July 31, 2017, the NAI billed the District
$50,000.00 for 9 people to attend the New American Initiative's "Summer Training Institute" at Harvard University
from July 9,2017 Uvough 7uly 14, 2017.
Page 83 of 172
generous and forgiving eye as to whether the program is effective. The contingent you brought
up from the District included NO CLASSROOM TEACHERS. Nor did it include any content
specialists in the Teachers bazgaining unit (the HCTA)or the Administrators bargaining unit (the
HSAA). Instead, it offered nearly zero value because, of the eight (8) people who did travel up
from the District to Harvard from July 9, 2017 through July 14, 2017, there were no people
directly involved in the education of students in the District. The eight people were:
1. James Clazk — an Administrator in the AO, who only indirectly impacted
students' performance, since he was in supervision of the
secondary schools;
2. Mary Crosson — a BOE trustee who had absolutely zero to do with student
inshuction, so that the training provided to her could not
have had less value to the District. Worse, she was an
appointee to the BOE who never should have been a
Trustee on the BOE, and within 3 months and thirteen
days from the end of the NAI summer training, she was
off the Board;
3. Rodney Gilmore - an Administrator in the AO, who works in Human
Resources, and who has zero direct impact on students'
performance in the District, since his domain is dealing
with adults;
4. Natalie Gonzalez — a former NAI employee, and a Master Teacher who as an
employee in the District since the passage of the June 27,
2017 Board resolution that hired Master Teachers, had
not spent any time in direct contact with students, since
the HCTA did not come to an agreement with the
District, to allow you to deploy them in the classrooms,
so that you were using them to perform surveys, to
rewrite (but mess up) grants being submitted by the
District (such as the Community Schools Grant), and
other non-instructional tasks that you touted as very
valuable service, but in truth, did not justify such training
at the Districts cost;
5. Andrew Hazdwick -the Director of Security, and who has zero direct impact
on students' academic performance in the District, since
his domain is dealing with adults;
6. Gwendolyn Jackson a BOE trustee who had absolutely zero to do with student
inshvction, so that the training provided to her could not
have had less value to the District;
7. Sazah Kugelman — a former NAI employee, and a Master Teacher, who as an
employee in the District since the passage of the June 27,
2017 Board resolution that hired Master Teachers, had
not spent any time in direct contact with students, for
same reasons set forth above regarding Natalie Gonzalez;
8. Maribel Toure - a BOE:trustee who had absolutely zero to do with student
instruction, so that the training provided to her could not
have had less value to the District; and
Page 84 of 172
a
No part of the five (5) days that you took off from work at the District, from July 9, 2017
through July 14, 2017, which were paid to you as "conference" days, were properly payable to
you as "conference days, for 2 reasons:
1. Your time spent at the NAI "Summer Training Institute" at Hazvud

University was not spent to promote your professional Development, or to
augment your professional skills, but rather, was spent by you acting as the
host of the conference, and by you selling NAI as an educational program to
generate revenue for NAI. Thus,
a. You did not take those days off, to attend a "work shop" or
"conference" that benefitted the District in any way; and
b. You only took those days off to advance your interests in, and serve
your personal interests to grow your investment as the founder and as a
person with a continuing interest in NAI, TNAA and TNAACS; and
2. You aze not even entitled to "conference" days or "workshop days" under
your Contract, since no such benefits were agreed to in your contract. See,
Exhibit 1, at 9[6, Benefits. It should be noted, that while your contract would
entitle you to be reimbursed for expenses incurred while attending a
"professional conferences and meetings on the national, State and local levels,
and other expenses related to [your] employment," you were not entitled to
take paid days off to attend conferences or workshops. See, Exhibit 1, at 9[6,
Benefits, at §§J thereof; and
Thus, by taking the five (5) days from July 9, 2017 through July 14, 2017, as paid
"conference/workshop" days off from work, you breached your contract.
Further, since those five (5) days from July 9, 2017 through July 14, 2017 were NOT
used by you for professional Development, or for skills training for your professional growth, but
rather were used for making a presentation at an event to sell NAI and its educational program,
you actually stole time from the District, for your personal gain and your conflicted interest to
promote NAI while you are on the Districts clock.
Your attendance at the NAI "Summer Training Institute" at Harvard University, to host
the program and make multiple presentations for NAI, and taking the days as paid conference
days from the District even though you were working for NAI, is conduct that demonstrates
moral turpitude.
Your dishonest conduct from July 9, 2017 through July 14, 2017, when you took paid
days From the District to go work for NAI and make presentations for NAI, and to generate
revenue for NAI,amounted to a conflict of interest that violated law and violated your contract.
Page 85 of 172
Your dishonest conduct from July 9, 2017 through July 14, 2017, warrants the
termination of your employment.
Witnesses To Sunnorf Charge #8
• James Clark
• Dr. Ahuna Akoma
• John Sheahan
• Ana Lovasz
• Randy Stith
• Christina Brown
• Lois Johnson
• Andrea Bibbs
• Ed Cullen
• Exhibits 1-98
• Wazonker Calendar entries and emails
• Shimon Waronker personnel File
• Boazd Policies
Page 86 of 172
j
CHARGE #9:
YOU HAVE MATERIALLY BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO

PERFORM THOSE DUTIES AS SET FORTH IN THE EDUCATION LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK,OTHER STATUTES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OR
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OR
BOARD OF REGENTS
Specification:
In August 2017, without a bidding process, you unilaterally approved a mediation

reaining session to be held with Professor Bazuch Busch costing the District $50,000.00.
You failed to disclose to the District and the Board that Mr. Busch is a Board member of
NAI. See, Exhibit 113, a copy of July 31, 2017 email sending notice to District Administrators
of the mediation training that was then to be held from Sunday August 20, 2017 through Tuesday
August 22, 2017.
Indeed, Mr. Busch is a member of the Board of Advisors of NAI and is a listed service
provider in the NAI RFP materials that had been submitted in June 2017. See, Exhibit 81, at
pages 22 of 28, consisting of the letterhead for NAI, and the listing of Professor Bush as a
service provider associated with NAI.
At the end of August 2017, you caused the District to provide Mediation Training to not
more than 12 staff persons, with Professor Bush, at Hofstra University, the cost of which was
exorbitant, and the benefits of which were dubious, inasmuch as the District should have sought
out such services, if needed at all, on a less costly basis, and need not have provided such
training to the staff members selected to fill the seats in the program offered by Professor Bush,
when Trustees Gates and Stith declined to participate. Payment of $25,000.00 to Professor Bush
was exorbitant and presented a conflict, since he is a service provider connected with NAI, and
was not engaged via Hofstra University on a more cost-contained basis. See, Exhibit 81, the
NAI RFP Response submittal dated June 23, 2017; see also, Exhibit 88, the NAI billing packet
#2, including the sign in sheets and mediation; see also, Exhibit 113, the July 31, 2017 cover
email from Dini Gourarie to Board members and administrators, with an attached course
description for the 3 day mediation training session.
Worse, as was the case with the Hazvazd trip, spending District resources on providing
training to BOE members Toure, Jackson and Crosson, was a pure waste of precious PSSG grant
dollars, since none of their training could be even argued to have been geared towards improving
student achievement in the schools covered by such grant funding, since they have no role to
play in teaching or providing administrative oversight to teaching in the Middle School or High
Page 87 of 172
School. See, Exhibit 89, a copy of the July 11, 2017 email to Regina Armstrong from Sylvia
Sulowski, of the NY5ED Office of Accountability; see also, Exhibit 90, the Final Expenditure.
Summary, dated 9-28-17; see also, see also, Exhibit 93, a copy of the July 20, 2017 email to you
from John Sheahan, Esq., with a cc to Regina Armstrong, counseling you that "expenditures for
grants must be pre-approved by SED .,. Please advise if you wish to modify the contract to add
language re SED pre-approval of expenditures."; see also, Exhibit 96, the November 3, 2017
email regarding the PSSG budget code being improperly used to try to cover such expenses.
The mediation [raining was a featured component part of NAI's August 2017 billing to
the District, which was paid improperly with grant funds under the 2016-17 PSSG. See, Exhibit
88, the NAI billing packet #2, including the August 2017 Invoice, with sign in sheets and
mediation course description sheets. Payment of such mediation training expenses and services
under the 2016-17 PSSG was wrongful for the same 2 reasons as identified above:(1) the Grant
year had closed out on June 30, 2017, and no pazt of the services being paid at this stage were for
services rendered prior to June 30, 2017, and (2) aside from bad timing, the services were not
supported by or covered by the pre-approved uses of the grant funds as determined by the
NYSED. See, Exhibit 89, a copy of the July 11, 2017 email to Regina Armstrong from Sylvia
Sulowski, of the NYSED Office of Accountability; see also, Exhibit 90, the Final Expenditure
Summary, dated 9-28-17.
N.Y. General Municipal Law § 103 requires all contracts with the District in excess of
$35,000.00 to be put out to public bid. Your conduct in awazding Mr. Busch the sum of
$50,000.00 for services without public bid was a violation of N.Y. General Municipal Law §
103.
Your conduct in violating N.Y. Municipal Law§ 103 was a material breach of your
Contract.
• Attendees to the mediation training

• Reina Jovin
• Dr. David B. Gates
• Randy Stith
Documents To Supuort Charge #9
• Exhibits 1-98
Page S8 of 172
h a ~
• Exhibit 113
• Boazd Policies
• Mediation sign-in sheets
• NAI contract
• Mediation course offerings by Professor Bush
• SIG-6 Billing
Page 89 of 172
CHARGE #10:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW —CONFLICT OF INTEREST - NAI

CRONYISM -IMPROPER HIRING OF NAI PERSONNEL —MASTER
TEACHERS
{
, ~ HIRING UNDER FALSE PRETENSES:SHAM HIRING PROCESS:
CRONYISM — TO HIRE NAI ASSOCIATE - VARLETON McDONALD
Specification:
A. Master Teachers
On June 8, 2017, you caused the District to post job openings for a job title that did not
exist in the Districts table of organization, or that was covered by the teachers' unit contract,
namely, "Master Teachers." See, Exhibit 114, a copy of the June 8, 2017 Job Posting.
The job posting offered a salazy of $135,000.00 for the newly created Job Title. See,
Exhibit 114.
In response to the Master Teachers job posting, several dozen people applied for the job,
with a total number of applicants via OLAS and by electronic communication and by dropped
off resumes numbering approximately eighty (80) applicants. See, Exhibit 115, the job applicant
file maintained by the Districts Human Resources Depaztment.
Of the approximately eighty (80) applicants, eleven finalists were interviewed for the
position. See, Exhibit 115, the job applicant file.
Of all the applicants, you recommended only four (4)candidates to be hired. See, Exhibit
12, a copy of the June 27, 2017 Board Meeting Minutes; see also, Exhibit 115, the job applicant
file maintained by the Districts Human Resources Department.
As it turns out, all four (4) of the applicants that you recommended be hired by the
District are former employees of TNAA or TNAACS, and have had working experiences with
members of the NAI, TNAA and/or TNAACS staff that you worked with prior to you becoming
employed by the District. See, Exhibit 115, the job applicant file maintained by the Districts
Human Resources Department.
It is virtually statistically impossible for the District to have hired four candidates who
each worked at NAI, TNAA and TNAACS, out of an applicant pool over of eighty (80)
Page 90 of 172
applicants who sought to be hired for the job, without some manner of favoritism being at work
in the hiring process.
The hiring process you engaged in, to hire the Master Teachers, was neither fair nor
impaztial, and was the product of cronyism, favoritism and pre-determined selection of
candidates to be hired as employees.
In terms of base salary only, the cost of hiring the Master Teachers was $540,000.00 to
the District ($135,000.00 x 4 -_ $540,000.00). See, Exhibit 12, the June 27, 2017 docket.
In actuality, the cost to the District of hiring the four Master Teachers amounted to a
cronyism expense of $540,000.00 in salazy cost to the District, plus an additional sum estimated
to be another $160,000.00 in benefits and employer burden for hiring employees, so that the total
cost was approximately $700,000.00.
The expense incurred was exorbitant, compazed to the cost paid by TNAACS to Master
Teachers it employed during the year of 2016-17. See, Exhibit 115, the TNAA salazy expense
budget for Master Teachers for the 2016-17 School year, which document was produced in
discovery in the federal litigation that you commenced, at p. MW-NAI-Ol 110.
You had a duty to the taxpayers in the District to minimize expenses to the District for'
new expenditures, as you were advised by John Sheahan, Esq., in writing on June 15, 2017. See,
Exhibit 6.
The expense of the Master Teachers was not approved by the taxpayers when they voted
for the Budget on May 16, 2017.
The work of the Master Teachers to perform supervisory and mentoring services to
fellow teachers was not approved by the teachers' union in the District.
As a result, the Master Teachers were not able to perform the job duties you had
envisioned when you hired them, and instead performed clerical tasks and quasi-administrative
tasks in the AO, under your direct supervision, such as stuffing envelopes (clerical duties) and
managing surveys (secretarial work), rather than working in the classrooms mentoring teachers
as you had sold the concept to the community.
As a result, fire hiring of the Master Teachers was a massively wasteful and inefficient
use of taxpayer funds, and was the worst form of cronyism, which was due to your conflict of
interest, since you wanted to hire staff from NAI, TNAA and//or TNAACS, since your program
was in deep distress and on the verge of financial collapse. See, Exhibit 40; see also, Exhibit
29.
B. Varleton McDonald
From July 2017 through September 2017, you manipulated the hiring process and used
NAI to pretend that Vazleton McDonald was unrelated to you, and had been selected by natural
Page 91 of 172
processes to be recommended to be hired as the Deputy Superintendent, when in fact the NAI
hiring process ensured that Varleton McDonald was the candidate selected to be hired as the
Districts Deputy Superintendent.
Dozens of applicants applied for the Deputy Superintendent position, but you ended up
hiring the applicant that you knew, who was associated with NAI, TNAA and//or TNAACS.
You had a duty to the taxpayers in the District to minimize expenses to the District for
new expenditures, as you were advised by John Sheahan, Esq., in writing on June I5, 2017. See,
Exhibit 6.
The expense of the Deputy Superintendent was not approved by the taxpayers when they
voted for the Budget on May 16, 2017.
You treated the hiring of a Deputy Superintendent, at a cost of $180,000.00 per annum,
as if it was a discretionary expense you could incur like the Master Teachers.
You treated the hiring of the Deputy Superintendent, and the Master Teachers, like it was
a hiring party at the District for persons associated with NAI, TNAA and//or TNAACS.
In September 2017;Trustee Stith challenged the 211-f waiver application that you caused
to be filed by the District in support of the manipulative hiring of Varleton McDonald to serve as
the Districts Deputy Superintendent. See, Exhibit 116, the Dish-icYs Human Resources file on
the hiring of the Deputy Superintendent.
In November 2017, after his 211-f waiver application was approved by the NYSED, you
stopped pretending that Varleton McDonald was selected by a neutral hiring practice conducted
by the NAI to be hired by the District as your Deputy Superintendent, and then admitted to the
Hempstead community that in truth, he had been your mentor and former boss, and that you had
a long-standing relationship with him..
You caused the District to incur $180,000.00 in salazy expense for the hiring of Varleton
McDonald, as a Deputy Superintendent, even though such position was not in the budget
approved by the voters on May 16, 2017, for the 2017-18 school yeaz.
You engaged in cronyism by the hiring of Varleton McDonald, as a Deputy

Superintendent, who not only was your former boss at the NYCDOE, but who also was the on
the Boazd of Directors at NAI, and was a former Chairman of the Board of Directors at NAI.
During his period of employment with the District, from the time he was hired until his
employment was terminated in January 2018, you permitted Varleton McDonald to abuse taking
vacation time, and you permitted his attendance to suffer from excessive absenteeism, including
a trip he took to California with his daughter in furtherance of her singing career aspirations,
within his first week of work for the District.
Vazleton McDonald's employment with the District was terminated in Januazy 2017.
Page 92 of 172
a
Varleton McDonald is now litigating his termination from employment. Thus, your
wrongful hiring of Varleton McDonald created lawsuit liability to the District.
You breached your contract with the District by causing the District to incur unnecessary
and excessive payroll expense, due to your hiring of Varleton McDonald, your former boss and
your former Chairman of the Board of Directors at NAI, which was cronyism in hiring practices,
and the result of your conflict of interest, prioritizing the best interests of NAI, TNAA and
TNAACS,over the interests of the District.
Witnesses To Suaaort Charge #10
• James Clark
• Dr. Ahuna Akoma
• John Sheahan
• Ana Lovasz
• Randy Stith
• Business office attendance record keeper
Documents To Suuuort Charge #10
• Exhibits 1-98
• Exhibit 113
• Master Teacher job applicant file maintained by the District's HR Dept
• Deputy Superintendentjob applicant file maintained by the Districts HR Dept
Page 93 of 172
n

• Boazd Policies
• Mediation sign-in sheets
• NAI contract
• Mediation course offerings by Professor Bush
• SIG-6 Billing
• Deputy Superintendent hiring search file maintained by the Districts Human Resources
Depaztment
• NAI recommendation emails
• Dr Waronker recommendation emails
• District 211-f waiver application
• Randy Stith Objection letter dated September 2017
• NYSED approval of 211-f waiver application
• Dr. Waronker November 20171etter to the community
• .Boazd resolution. Hiring Varleton McDonald
Page 94 of 172
CHARGE #11:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW —CIVIL SERVICE LAW.& CERTIFIED PAYROLL FRAUD)
Specification:
As Superintendent of Schools you hired and/or employed and/or engaged the services of
Dini Gourarie, as your personal secretary, but her hiring did not comply with the New York Civil
Service Law or the Nassau County Civil Service regulations for her to provide employee services
in support of your work as Superintendent of Schools. See, N.Y. Constitution Article V,§ 6.
Ms. Gourarie served in a position that required Nassau County Civil Service Commission
approval before she was hired. You did not obtain Nassau County Civil Service Commission
approval to hire Ms. Gourarie. You violated the law by permitting Dini Gourazie to work in the
Districts Administrative Offices (hereinafter, the "AO"), effectively supplanting the work to be
performed by confidential secretaries in the District's AO, when Dini Gourarie was not permitted
to perform such secretarial duties:
Ms. Gourarie served in a.position that required Nassau County Civil Service approval of
her engagement to perform work as an employee in the workplace. You authorized Ms.
Gourazie to work for you, performing job duties belonging to a secretarial position that may only
be filled by a person who is approved by the Nassau County Civil Service Commission. See,
N.Y. Civil Service Law §§ 100 and 101.
You violated the law, and thus breached our contract, by permitting Ms. Gourarie to work
in the District's AO, performing job duties belonging to a secretarial position, that may only be
performed by a person who is approved by the Nassau County Civil Service Commission, and by
not causing her to be listed as an employee of the District, by instead creating the fiction that she
was an employee of NAI, as an independent contractor, as if she was not acting as your personal
secretary, even though she was performing the functions of a personal confidential secretary to
you in the District's administrative offices, just as she had served you in the immediate past
when she worked as your personal secretary at NAI. By engaging her on the false pretense that
she was not working as an employee, but rather was working as a "project manager" from NAI,
you effectively circumvented the law, and thereby violated it. See, N.Y. Civil Service Law §§
100 and 101.
By permitting Ms. Gourarie to work in the Districts administrative offices, as your

personal confidential secretary, which.position requires Nassau County Civil Service approval
Page 95 of 172
before she could be paid for such work, or be permitted to perform such work, you engaged in
fraudulent and misleading behavior, you pursued a dishonest engagement of her services that
displaced the work of Ana Lovasz who is a Nassau County Civil Service Commission approved
confidential secretazy assigned to work for the Superintendent of Schools, and thereby caused the
District to submit false certified payroll reports. See, N.Y. Civil Service Law §§ 100 and 101
You violated the law, and thus breached our contract, by permitting Ms. Gourarie to work
in the District's AO, performing job duties belonging to a secretarial position, pretending she
was an independent contractor, when in fact she was performing the job functions of an
employee, in the District's workplace, which reduced the work that had historically been
performed by Ana Lovasz who is a Nassau County Civil Service Commission approved
confidential secretary assigned to work for the Superintendent of Schools. You thereby caused
the District not to disclose to the Nassau County Civil Service Commission the truth that Dini
Gourarie was performing civil service governed work, that she should have been paid as an
employee working in the civil service job title, that she was effectively working surreptitiously
and in violation of law. See, N.Y. Civil Service Law §§ 100 and 101
You authorized Ms. Gourazie to work, and to be paid via NAI, without obtaining Nassau
County Civil Service approval to allow her to work, or to be paid for work she performed as a
personal assistant to you while you worked in the workplace of the Districts AO, which
amounted to your dishonest attempt to evade the requirements of the law. See, N.Y. Civil
Service Law §§ 100 and 101.
Tn September 2017, you attended a meeting held at the Administrative Offices in the
District, with William Johnson, the Superintendent of Schools of the highly successful Rockville
Centre School District, at which time, he observed Dini Gourazie sitting in your offices and
taking notes and serving as your personal confidential secretary. At that time, he asked you
about her work for you. During that meeting, Mr. Johnson informed you of his concern that she
was working as an employee, as your personal confidential secretary, in your office, in the
District, but was not hired in accordance with the Civil Service Law and with the approval of the
Nassau County Civil Service Commission. He explained to you that you cannot employ Dini
Gourazie regardless of the Civil Service Law rules and regulations that govern the hiring of
clerical staff and regudless of obtaining the approval of the Nassau County Civil Service
Commission.
Despite the guidance you received from William Johnson, the Superintendent of Schools
of the Rockville Centre School District, you continued to allow Dini Gourarie to serve as your
personal confidential secretary, from September 2017 through December 21, 2017 (when the
Boazd of Education directed that she not be physically present on School grounds thereafter),
during which time she continued to make appointments for you, sit in your offices and take notes
during meetings she attended with you, and otherwise perform tasks for you that should have
been performed by Ana Lovasz, the long-time confidential secretary in the AO who has worked
for each of the District's. prior Superintendent of Schools over the last ten or more years, from
Dr. Clay, to Pat Garcia, to Susan Johnson to Dr Atiba-Weza.
Page 96 of 172
By allowing and authorizing Ms. Gourazie to work in the District's AO, and to be paid
via NAI, without obtaining Nassau County Civil Service Commission approval to allow her to
work, or to be paid for work she performed as a personal assistant to you while you worked in
the workplace of the District's AO,and by contending that she was a "project manager for NAI,"
when you engaged her services as an employee, you:
1) obfuscated the truth as to the true nature of her employment and misled and
defrauded the Nassau County Civil Service Commission.
2) allowed the District to submit willfully false payroll certification documents to

the Nassau County Civil Service Commission for the time periods including
June 2, 2017 through January 9, 2018
3) caused the District to fail to make true, accurate and complete disclosure to
the Nassau County Civil Service Commission as to all of the employees who
were working at the District during the payroll certification period that
included the periods June 2, 2017 through Januazy 9, 2018.
Your violation of the Civil Service Law was knowing an intentional, since on June 7,
2017, the District's Associate Superintendent for Human Resources, Dr. Rodney Gilmore,
sought legal counsel from the District's Labor Counsel, and you were informed by Dr Gilmore
that Ms. Gourarie could not be permitted to work in the District's AO, or to be paid via NAI,
without obtaining Nassau County Civil Service Commission approval to allow her to work, or to
be paid for work she performed as a personal assistant to you while you worked in the
workplace. See, Exhibit 117, a copy of the July 11, 2017 billing from the Hamburger law firm,
at the June 7, 2017 billing entry.
The District submitted Certified Payroll to the Nassau County Civil Service Commission
on December 12, 2017, for the payroll period of November 23, 2017, which payroll was
materially false, because you allowed Dini Gourarie to work at the District during that pay
period, and she was not included on the list. See, Exhibit 118,the Certified Payroll submitted by
the District to the Nassau County Civil Service Commission on December 12, 2017.
As "Chief Executive Officer of the DistricP'(see, Exhibit 1, at § 2), you were responsible
to ensure that the hiring and/or employment and/or engagement of work to be performed by
workers, who work in the District's workplace as employees, complied with the New York State
Civil Service Law and Nassau County Civil Service regulations.
The District must submit Certified Payroll to the Nassau County Civil Service
Commission for approval, which must be certified by the president of the Board of Education.
Each yeaz, the District submits a representative sample of its payroll to the Nassau County Civil
Service Commission, which is certified to be true accurate and complete, by the Board President,
in accordance with N.Y. Civil Service Law §§ 100 and 101. The submittal of a false certified
payroll is unlawful, is punishable as a criminal act and subjects the Officer certifying it to
personal liability for the sum of money paid as wages to employees who were not eligible. to
work and/or who were improperly included or excluded from the certified payroll.
Page 97 of 172
~~ c ~
d
Your conduct, allowing Dini Gourarie to work inside the Districts AO, but on the
premise that she was an employee of NAI, constitutes a knowing attempt to circumvent the law,
and is a violation of the Civil Service Law and the regulations of the Nassau County Civil
Service Commission. See, N.Y. Civil Service Law §§ 100 and 101
Your conduct in violating N.Y. Civil Service Law.and the Nassau County Civil Service
Regulation was a material breach of your Contract.
• Dini Gourarie
• Jack Bierwirth, Distinguished Educator
• William Johnson, the Superintendent of Schools of the Rockville Centre School District
• Larry Dobroff
• James Cluk
• Rodney Gilmore, Ed.D.
• Lois Johnson
• Christina Brown
• Ms. Andrea Bibbs
• Ana Lovasz
Documents To Suunort Charge #11
• All documents previously identified in Chazges and Specifications #1-10 above

• Dini Gourarie's employment file
• Job Description of Clerical Staff
• Job Description for Confidential Secretary
• The District's Certified Payroll during the period from June 2, 2017 -- Januazy 9, 2018
(specifically, Dated December 12, 2017,for the payroll November 22, 2017)
Page 98 of 172
CHARGE #12:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW —IMPROPER ACCOUNTING FOR GRANT FUNDS —

PAYMENTS TO NAI IN VIOLATION OF THE PSSGI
Specification:
As Superintendent of Schools you were aware that the District was not permitted to use
Federal or State grant monies approved for use in the 2016-2017 school year to pay for the
services of the New American Initiative ("NAI") because the services of NAI were not included
in federal or State grant applications for the 2016-2017 school year, and none of the NAI's
services were actually rendered prior to June 30, 2017.
Yet, in August 2017, the District paid NAI Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($74,550.00)
to NAI from the Persistently Struggling Schools Grant allocated for the 2016-2017 school year,
which was violative of both (1) the budget year for which the funds could be expended, since
none of the NAI services were rendered prior to June 30, 2017, and (2) none of the services
provided or to be provided by NAI were permitted uses of the funds under the Persistently
Struggling Schools Grant that had been written the prior year and approved by the NYSED for
use under the Persistently Struggling Schools Grant("PSSG")as submitted previously.
Indeed, NAI's contract was not approved by Board action until June 27, 2017, and its
terms were still being negotiated as late as July 11, 2017. See, Exhibit 4, a copy of the June 27,
2017 Board meeting minutes; See, Exhibit 44, a copy of the June 2017 emails exchanged
between John Sheahan and Lorraine Scorsone.
The first services provided to the District by NAI (other than the deceptive engagement
of Dini Gourarie as an allegedly "unpaid pro bono service providing consultant of NAI, when in
truth, she was just continuing to perform the duties of Shimon Waronker's private secretary or
personal assistant, as she had been when he worked for the NAI, prior to Shimon Waronker
becoming Superintendent of Schools at Hempstead) were not rendered until July 2017, when the
Harvard trip was hosted by NAI for certain District personnel. See, Exhibit 20, a copy of the
July 31, 2017 invoicing from NAI, received by the District on August 3, 2017, and processed and
paid by the District on August 3, 2017.
The services billed by NAI on July 31, 2017, and paid on August 3, 2017, were not
approved nor were approvable as expenses covered by the PSSG with a grant period ending June
30, 2017.
Page 99 of 172
The first payment by the District to 1VAI on August 3, 2017, improperly using the grant
monies awarded to the District under the 2016-17 PSSG. See, Exhibit 20, a copy of the July 31,
2017 invoicing from NAI, received by the District on August 3, 2017, and processed and paid by
the District on August 3, 2017.
On August 3, 2017, the NAI payment was coded by Luz Valentin to be paid out of the
2016-17 PSSG grant. See, Exhibit 21, the Luz Valentin August 3, 2017 email.
On August 3, 2017, the NAI was paid $37,500.00 in a "fire drill" type priority, using
PSSG funds, in accordance with Luz Valentin's approval to pay it out of the 2016-17 PSSG
grant, even thoueh the NYSED had informed the District that grant funds cannot be used in such
a manner and even though John Sheahan Esq., forewarned NAI was not permitted to be paid
from grant funds unless pre-approved by the SED. See, Exhibit 21, the Luz Valentin August 3,
2017 email; see also, Exhibit 13, a copy of the July 11, 2017 email to Regina Armstrong from
Sylvia Sulowski, of the NYSED Office of Accountability; see also, Exhibit 18, a copy of the
follow-up July 20, 2017 email from John Sheahan Esq., to the NAPS Lorraine Scorsone.
The second payment by the District to NAI on August 31, 2017, improperly used the
grant monies awarded to the District under the 2016-17 PSSG. See, Exhibit 20, a copy of the
July 31, 2017 invoicing from NAI, received by the District on August 3; 2017, and processed and
On September 25, 2017, you knew that the 2016-17 PSSG grant code line could not be
used any further for paying any vendors,
The third payment by the District to NAI on September 30, 2017, improperly used the
grant monies awarded to the District under the 2016-17 PSSG. See, Exhibit 20, a copy of the
July 31, 2017 invoicing from NAI, received by the District on August 3, 2017, and processed and
These payments violated the terms and conditions for the PSSG's grant language
approved by the NYSED and therefore, violated law, and resulted in all of the funds paid to NAI
under the PSSG to be not allowed as proper PSSG covered expenditures.
On September 28, 2017, you signed a Chief Administrator's Certification for the PSSG,
swearing that, "By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the
report is true, complete and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts aze
for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal (or State)
award. I am aware that any false, fictitious or fraudulent information, or the omission of any
material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false
statements, false claims, or otherwise (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections
3729-3730 and 3801-3812)." The problem is that you had been repeatedly told and warned that
the NAI Program, at a cost of $450,000.00 per annum, and the Master Teachers, at a cost of
$540,000.00 per annum ($135,000.00 x 4 = $540,000.00), were not allowed expenses of the
PSSG because they were not written into the narrative for the award, and you had to know that
no pazt of such costs were incurred prior to June 30, 2017, and yet you submitted the PSSG Final
Page 100 of 172

~r, 4
Expenditure Summary for the grant year July 1, 2016 —June 30, 2017, containing chazges for
payment of the Harvard Trip and other expenses incurred and billed by NAI that had no
relationship to, and could not be approved as allowable costs under, the PSSG. See, Exhibit 13,
a copy of the July 11, 2017 email to Regina Armstrong from Sylvia Sulowski, of the NYSED
Office of Accountability; see also, Exhibit 25, the Final Expenditure Summary, dated September
28, 2017; see also, Exhibit 56, a copy of the July 20, 2017 email to you from John Sheahan,
Esq., with a cc to Regina Armstrong, counseling you that "expenditures for grants must be pre-
approved by SED ... Please advise if you wish.to modify the contract to add language re SED
pre-approval of expenditures."
The payments were processed incorrectly due to the pressure you personally applied upon
the Business Office to expedite payment to your company, NAI.
Your conduct violated applicable law concerning the proper use of grant funds and was a
material breach of your Contract.
Your false Chief Administrator's Certification for the PSSG, violated applicable ]aw
concerning the proper use of grant funds and was a material breach of your Contract.
Witnesses To Sunaort Charge #12

• Larry Dobroff
• Ed Cullen
• John Sheahan
• Robert Cialone
• Reina Jovin
• Stephen Strachan
• Luz Valentin
• Sylvia Sulowski, Educational Associate, NYSED,Office of Accountability
Documents To Suonort Charge #12

• August 3, 2017 payment documents for New American Initiative
• August 31, 2017 payment documents for New American Initiative
• September 30, 2017 payment documents for New American Initiative
• July 11, 2017 emails exchanged with Sylvia Sulowski, Educational Associate, NYSED,
Office of Accountability, and District personnel, regarding the use of PSSG funds
• July 2017 emails between John Sheahan, Esq. and NAI personnel
• September 28, 2017 submitted "Final Expenditure Summazy" for the PSSG
Page 101 of 172

CHARGE #13:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW —IMPROPER ACCOUNTING FOR GRANT FUNDS —

PAYMENTS TO MASTER TEACHERS IN VIOLATION OF TITLE Il
Specification:
As Superintendent of Schools you recommended the hiring of "Master Teachers." The

District's 2017-2018 budget did not provide any allocations for the "Master Teachers." As a
result, the "Master Teachers" were paid from New York State grant monies, more specifically
Title I grant monies.
It was determined by the New York Education Department that the payment of monies to
the "Master Teachers" violated the law, regulations, and guidance and therefore disallowed such
payments as an expense under the Title I grant funds.
These payments violated grant language and therefore, violated applicable law.
In an email exchange that you had on June 29, 2017 with the late Pauline Simpson, who
was a clerical staff member who worked with grants, you stated that have the authority, as
Superintendent of Schools, to use grant money as you want. See, Exhibit 57, a copy of the email
you sent to Pauline Simpson.
The email you sent to Pauline Simpson demonstrated a callous disregard for compliance
with the law pertaining to grants and the proper and limited use of grant funds for permitted
purposes.
Despite your contractual and legal and ethical obligations not to be engaged in the hiring
of a vendor that involves a conflict of interest for you, you caused the District to hire NAI even
though you remained directly and/or indirectly interested in NAI.
In June 2017, you tried to secure funding for the Master Teachers using Title I grant
funds. See, Exhibit 4, a copy of the June 27, 2017 Board Minutes, at p.2(NAI) and p.7 (Master
Teachers).
Despite being informed by email by Pauline Simpson, on June 29, 2017, that the District
could not use Title I funds for the covering the payroll expense of the Master Teachers, you
persisted
Page 102 of 172

On July 5, 2017, you made a presentation to the District claiming the NAI program is a
success and the cost of the Master Teachers is justified because "you get what you pay for." See,
Exhibit 12, a copy of the July 5, 2017 cover email and power point presentation, which
presentation you made after the Re-Organization Docket was concluded on July 5, 2017.
From July 9, 2017 (Sunday) through July 14, 2017 (Friday), you caused the District to
spend $50,000.00 in funds for a nip to Harvard to introduce NAI to the District's staff, but you
wasted the money providing utterly useless and needless training to nine (9) people, of which six
(6) were uninvolved in teaching students, including 3 Board members (Crosson, Toure and
Jackson) for whom such training was absolutely worthless in terms of grant funds being spent to
cover such costs because they had no relationship to teaching students, and three members of AO
staff that had no connection to teaching students in the District's receivership schools (the HS
and the MS)(namely, Hazdwick, Gilmore and you, Dr. Waronker). In addition, the Master
Teachers were not approvable (thus, knocking out Natalie Gonzalez and Sarah Kugelman) in
terms of an allowable use of funds under Title I or the PSSG funding because their services were
not approved as part of the grant narratives or as part of Receivership grant programs previously
approved without Master Teachers being included. Specifically, the Master Teachers were
determined to be not coverable by such grant Funds because they were not in the "prior approved
School and District goals and approved program narratives included in the Consolidated
Application submitted." See, Exhibit 13, the email from Sylvia Sulowski, of the NYSED Office
of Accountability, identifying disallowed costs under the grants; see also, Exhibit 14, NAI's 1"
invoice to the District, dated July 31, 2017.
On July 11, 2017, the District was informed by Sylvia Sulowski, of the NYSED Office of
Accountability, that the Master Teachers could not be funded using Title I grant funds. See,
Exhibit 13, a copy of the July 11, 2017 email to Regina Armstrong from Sylvia Sulowski, of the
NYSED Office of Accountability.
On July 11, 2017, the District was also informed by Sylvia Sulowski, of the NYSED
Office of Accountability, that the Hazvard trip for NAI would not be properly billed to the open
2016-17 grants, and that any such charges posted would be disallowed. See, Exhibit 13, a copy
of the July 11, 2017 email to Regina Armstrong from Sylvia Sulowski, of the NYSED Office of
Accountability.
As of July 20, 2017, NAI was placed on notice, by John Sheahan, Esq.'s email, that most
if not all of its services would not be covered by grant funding under Title I, or other previously
drafted and submitted grants, and recommending that the contract be modified to add language
regarding SED pre-approval of expenditures. Additionally, NAI was informed of the need to be
paid after services were rendered and the need for such services to be reviewed by an
independent reviewer of services. See, Exhibit 18, the July 20, 2017 email and attached contract.
Your conduct in violating applicable law, by using Title I funds to pay the "Master
Teachers" for their work at the District, was a material breach of your Contract.
Page 103 of 172

~~ n.
• Larry Dobroff
• Reina Jovin
• Luz Valentin
• Sylvia Sulowski, Educational Associate, NYSED, Office of Accountability
Documents To Support Charee #13

• Letters from the New York Education Department relating to Title I funding and
payments made by the District to the "Master Teachers."
• Emails from Regina Armstrong to Dr Waronker, Larry Dobroff
• Emails from John Sheahan, Esq., to Dr Waronker, Larry Dobroff
• Email to Pauline Simpson
Page 104 of 172

CHARGE #14:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW REGARDING DISENROLLEMNT)
Specification:
In October and November 2017 you knowingly dis-enrolled 316 students, of which 294
students were potential High School graduates, from the Hempstead Union Free School
District's ("DistricP') High School in violation of the students' due process rights set forth in
New York Education Law §3202.1-a..
The District's employees charged with enrollment responsibilities and attendance

responsibilities informed you on numerous of occasions that your plan to dis-enroll students
from the Districts High School that the procedure you directed them to follow to dis-enroll 294
students in the High School violated New York Education Law and the students' due process
rights.
You told the District's employees that you would "take the hiP'for dis-enrolling students.
You admitted in your Declaration to the Federal Court in the matter of Waronker v.
Hempstead Union Free School District, et al., pending in the Eastern District of New York under
Docket Number 18-cv- 393(DRH)(SIL) that "294 students were no shows(meaning they had
not been attending school for over 20 consecutive days (in some cases a couple of years)[)]
and had to be disenrolled from school." Exhibit 58, a copy of your Declaration dated January
19, 2018, at ~[ 49(emphasis in original).
You knew exactly what you were doing and could not be dissuaded from your chosen
course of action, despite staff objections. You tried to justify seeking to dis-enroll students
promptly, arguing swift mass dis-enrollment was necessary because "the District was billing the
State for students it did not have attending school."
However, the District's staff suspected and believed that your true reason for 316
students, of which 294 students were potential High School graduates, was to increase the
Districts High School graduation rate, as you told the District's staff, by "scrubbing" the data.
You knew that if you dis-enrolled 316 students, of which 294 students were potential
High Schoo] graduates, without complying with the applicable law, then you would be
subjecting the District to liability, just as the District had faced liability before in 2014, for
enrollment violations, and had been compelled to enter into a Stipulation of Assurance with the
Page 105 of 172

NYSED and the Office of the Attorney General in 2014, not to repeat such mistakes in
enrollment.
Over the District's employees' objections, you directed the Districts employees to dis-
enroll 294 students from the District's high school without due process and in violation of the
N.Y. Education Law § 3202.1-a.
Over the Districts employees' objections that your directives violated law and policy,
you failed to obtain legal counsel from the District's General Counsel, to guide your conduct so
as to ensure that the District complied with the law.
Thus, without the benefit of counsel that was available to you from the District's General
Counsel, you failed to provide the dis-enrolled students with the proper due process, inasmuch as
you failed to:
• Schedule and notify, in writing and at the last known address, both the
student and the person in parental relation to the student of an informal
conference.
• Hold a conference to determine both the reasons for the pupil's absence
and whether reasonable changes in the pupil's educational program would
encourage and facilitate his or her re-entry or continuance of study.
• Inform orally and in writing the pupil and the person in parental relation of
the pupil's right to re-enroll at any time in the public school maintained in
the district where he or she resides, if otherwise qualified.
Only after the pupil and the person in parental relationship fail, after reasonable notice, to
attend the informal conference, the pupil may be dropped from enrollment provided that he or
she and the person in parental relation are notified in writing of the right to re-enter at any time,
if otherwise qualified.
You acknowledged that the. High School attendance and guidance staff involved in
enrollment validation had not performed any such massive disenrollment exercise in the past,
and yet you failed to supervise their work nor assigned anyone the task of supervising the
disenrollment actions that you directed be undertaken, thereby demonstrating gross negligence as
to compliance with the law.
Your conduct has opened the District to liability for violation of the students' due process
rights and has caused the New York State Education Depaztment ("NYSED") to open an
investigation into the matter, which may lead to punishment by the NYSED or other agency of
the New York State government. .
Your conduct constitutes a material breach of the Contract because you knowingly
directed staff to violate N.Y. Education Law § 3202.1-a.
Page 106 of 172

a d
• Albert Williams
• Douglas Davis
• Latisha Graham
• Michael Higgins
• Jason Noone
• Unique Redd
• Rachel Elias
• Robert Rodriguez
• Carolina Perez
• James Clark
Documents To Suuuort Charge #14
• All documents previously identified in Charges and Specifications #1-13 above

• Declaration of Shimon Wazonker, dated January 19, 2018
• Interview transcript of Shimon Waronker
Page 107 of 172

CHARGE #15:
YOU HAVE MATERIALLY BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO

PERFORM THOSE DUTIES AS SET FORTH IN THE EDUCATION LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK,OTHER STATUTES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OR
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OR
BOARD OF REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW DELAYING OR DENYING RE-ENROLLMENTI
Specification:
After you directed 316 students to be disenrolled, of which 294 students were potential
2018 graduates, in violation of N.Y. Education Law § 3202.1-a., you did not permit certain
students to re-enroll with the District.
The students who sought to re-enroll were younger than 21 years of age. These students
had a New York State constitutional right to an education. See, N.Y. Constitution Article XI. §
1.
In the months following your decision to direct the District's staff at the High School to
follow your directives, rather than directing them and supervising their work to ensure
compliance with the law, approximately 40 students of the 294 students that you caused to be
unlawfully disenrolled returned to the District to resume their studies, and engaged in a course of
study at the Districts alternative school setting located at 100 Main Street, Hempstead, NY.
N.Y. Education Law § 3202.1-a makes clear that the students that were dis-enrolled had a
statutory right "to re-enrol] at any time in the" District, if the student resides in the District.
In addition, by denying the students re-enrollment you violated 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.2(y).

By denying students re-enrollment in the District, even though you knew that they were eligible
to be enrolled in the District, you violated the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioner of
Education.
In addition, by barring the re-enrollment of students, you violated the settlement between
the District and the New York State Attorney General. See, Exhibit 59, a copy of the District's
agreement with the New York State Attorney General("AG Agreement").
In the AG Agreement, the District agreed to comply with Commissioner's Regulation

100.2(y) and any other applicable laws and regulations. The AG Agreement did not expire until
June 30, 2018.
Page 108 of 172

a ~
f
Your misconduct in violating 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.2(y) was a material breach of the

Contract.
• Albert Williams;
• Douglas Davis;
• Latisha Graham;
• Michael Higgins;
• Jason Noone;
• Unique Redd;
• Rachel Elias;
• Robert Rodriguez;
• Cazolina Perez; and
• James Clazk
Documents To Suanort Charge #15

• Agreement between the Hempstead Union Free School District and the New York State
Attorney General regarding enrollment
• Declaration of Shimon Waronker, dated January ]9, 2018
• Statements by witnesses
• Interview transcript of Shimon Waronker
Page 109 of l72

CHARGE #16:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW NOT FOLLOWING SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS)
Specification:
As Superintendent of Schools you were also the Receiver of the District's High School
and Middle School. See, N.Y. Education Law § 211-f.1.(c)(i). See also, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.19.
On January 4, 2018, more than seven months after you executed the Contract and more
than six months after commencing the performance of your duties as the District's
Superintendent of Schools and thus, as Receiver of the District's High School and Middle
School, you requested (apparently for the first time) copies of the District's High School's and
Middle School's improvement plans.
In the January 4, 2018 email you state that you need the school improvement plans
because "[t]his is pazt of being a receiver School."
Your failure to have possession of the District's High School's and Middle School's
school improvement plans from June 2017, when you commenced your duties as Superintendent
of Schools, through January 4, 2018 reveals that you failed to comply with N.Y. Education Law
§ 211-f.1.(c)(i) and 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.19 in the performance of your duties as Superintendent
of Schools and Receiver to carry out your duties as Receiver by implementing the State-
approved school improvement plays.
In addition, on August 3, 2017, you suspended and then thereafter terminated the High
School principal who had been integral to the writing of the District's School Improvement
Grant submitted on July 22, 2014 as it pertains to the High School (the "SIG-6 Plan") and then
you went on vacation for two weeks, from Friday, August 4, 2017 through Monday, August 21,
2017, which resulted in the High School being without a qualified Principal to lead it in its third
yeaz of being in Receivership just prior to its doors opening for students for the start of school
two week later on September 5, 2017. By so doing, you impaired the Districts ability to comply
with and excel at implementing the Districts SIG-6 Plan as it pertains to the High School.
Just before school opened for students on September 5, 2017, you hired Kenneth Klein to
be the District's High School principal, even though he never served as a principal of any school
in the past, had not been granted tenure as an Assistant Principal in his immediately previous
employment(after only 2 years at North Babylon), and was neither suitably experienced nor well
suited to handle the unique challenges presented when serving as the Principal of a High School
Page 1 l0 of 172
in Receivership. By so doing, you impaired the District's ability to comply with and excel a[
implementing the Districts SIG-6 Plan as it pertains to the High School.
On Januazy 4, 2018, more than four months after you hired Kenneth Klein, and after he
commenced performance of the duties as the Principal of the Districts High School that was in
Receivership from day #1 of his employment, Kenneth Klein also requested (apparently for the
first time) a copy of the Districts High School's improvement plan. Thus, he was operating
without knowing or even having had in his possession, and thus must never have read, the SIG-6
Plan that he was responsible for implementing at the High School. Thus, by terminating Stephen
Strachan and hiring Kenneth Klein, you impaired the District's ability to comply with and excel
at implementing the Districts SIG-6 Plan as it pertains to the High School.
You gave the directive to Kenneth Klein and/or the High School administrative staff to
discontinue implementing and following the SIG-6 Plan for the High School as it relates to Small
Learning Communities ("SLCs"). You interrupted and interdicted the work of Sheena Lall, the
School Transformation Facilitator assigned to Hempstead High School by Johns Hopkins
University's Talent Development Secondary("TDS"), who was integral in the implementation of
the SLCs in the High School in accordance with the Districts SIG-6 Plan for the High School.
Only after you were placed on an Administrative Leave of Absence with Pay on Januazy
9, 2018, and only after Stephen Strachan was reinstated as Hempstead's High School Principal
later in January 2018, did the District re-implement and proceed with the work of the SLC's,
under the leadership of each SLC Lead Teacher, as per the approved plan that the NYSED
expected and continues to expect the District to follow and implement.
The interruption of that program, on your directive, jeopardized the Districts ability to
achieve school excellence in accordance with its SIG-6 Plan on record with the NYSED. By
such action, you violated the State-approved school improvement plan for the Districts High
School, you violated 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.19and placed at risk the Districts funding to aid the
District in helping the District's high school which has been labeled by the NYSED as
"persistently struggling."
Your failure to implement the school improvement plans in the District's High School
and Districts Middle School, as both Superintendent of Schools and as Receiver constitutes a
material breach of the Contract because you violate N.Y. Education Law § 211-f.1.(c)(i) and 8
N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.19.
Witnesses To Suaport Charge #16
• Kenneth I{lein
• Reina Jovin
• James Clark
• Daniel Russel, John Hopkins University, Talent Development Secondary
Page 1 I1 of 172
__ ____
~o
• Sheena Lall, John Hopkins University, Talent Development Secondazy
Documents To Sunnort Charee #16

• Your January 4, 2018 email
• Kenneth Klein's Januazy 4, 2018 email
• The Districts SIG-6 Plan submitted July 22, 2014
• NYSED correspondence concerning SIG-6 compliance
• NYSED correspondence concerning Receivership obligations
• Sheena Lall's Januazy 29, 2018 email
• Stephen Strachan emails
• Reina Jovin emails
Page 112 of 172

CHARGE #17:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NYS EDUCATION LAW

1 771(21(el- FATi,F,n Tn MANA(lF.THF.F.MPi,(1VMRNT ANn PF.RFf1RMANCF.!1
AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BOARD.)
Spec cation:
On June 2, 2018, your employment commenced for the District and you were obligated
as the Superintendent of Schools, to (1) perform all of the duties of such office as required by
applicable education law and regulations, including to manage personnel pursuant to Section 1 of
your Contract, and (2) supervise and direct the principals and other staff employed in the
management of the schools, ... and under the direction and management of the board of
education, ..."to report to such board violations of regulations and cases of insubordination, and
to suspend an associate, assistant or other superintendent, director, supervisor, expert, principal,
teacher or other employee until the next regulaz meeting of such boazd, when all facts relating to
the case shall be submitted to such board for its consideration and action," pursuant to
§1711(2)(2) of the NYS Education Law.
In addition to foregoing powers, under §211-f of the NYS Education Law, regazding the
Takeover and restructuring of Failing Schools, you became the Receiver of the Hempstead High
School, which was designated a Persistently Struggling School.
From June 2, 2017 through August 3, 2017, you met weekly with the leadership of the
District's teachers' union, namely, Betsy Leibu and Cheryl McCue of the Hempstead Classroom
Teacher Association (hereinafter, the "HCTA"), but never once met with High School Principal,
Stephen Strachan (hereinafter, "HSP Strachan" or "Dr. Strachan"), or his primary Assistant
Principal, Carey Gray (hereinafter, "AP Grav"), who headed the team of Administrators that
managed the Hempstead High School, in order to discuss with them any of the concerns they had
regarding the management of the High School's teachers, other employees, the direction of the
workforce, or the conditions within the building and grounds of the High School. During that
timeframe, while you invited HSP Strachan and AP Gray to attend and participate in
Receivership negotiations that you held with the HCTA, you never met with them to discuss
their concerns about master schedule, teacher grievances, teacher attendance and teacher sick
time abuse, student attendance issues, school violence issues or weapons issues as they pertain to
the operations of the High School. Instead, you barely communicated with them by email,
Page 113 of 172

thereby failing to help the high school leadership manage the building, the staff and help the
students attain greater academic achievements.
On June 13, 2017, at 10:55am, HPS Strachan reached out to you by email concerning
your failure to communicate with him regazding the high school's operations and his concern
that you were meeting with Ms. Leibu of the HCTA regularly, instead. He was forced to reach
out to you by email that morning because in the first 11 days of you being on the job as
Superintendent and Receiver, you had made no time to meet with HSP Strachan or AP Gray. On
June 14, 2017, you replied to his email of June 13, 2018, informing HSP Strachan that you
would keep him in the loop regarding discussions you were having with union leadership, to the
extent those discussions pertained to the High School. However, you did not follow up and keep
that promise with HSP Sffachan.
On June 13, 2017, you scheduled HCTA Receivership negotiations for June 14, 2017,
excusing Betsy L,eibu and Cheryl McCue of the HCTA from their normal duties, so they could
attend the negotiations, without coordinating such scheduling and personnel assignments with
HSP Strachan, who had to inform you that (1) the High School was conducting testing and
administering Regents exams at that time on June 14,(2) his High School administrative team
needed to contend with limited staff to score Spanish and Creole Regent exams,(3) urging you
to note that the staff members that were being requested to be given time off from testing duties
to attend negotiations that day would have disrupted the testing schedule for the high school
between the hours of 10-12, and (4) suggesting to you that another time after 4pm will allow for
flexibility with no impact to the testing schedule. Those types of exchanges showed your failure
to work with and support the High School leadership.
On June 15, 2017, instead of meeting with HSP Strachan and AP Gray to discuss issues
regarding the receivership intervention model and the SIG-6 programs adopted and implemented
at the High School relating to its school improvement plan, you communicated via Ana Lovasz
and exchanged emails with HSP Strachan regarding the role of Talent Development Secondazy,
as a paztner in the effort to transform the High School.
On June 23, 2017, the HCTA leadership at the high school demonstrated its insubordinate
manner of conversing with, and responding to, lawful directives from Dr. Strachan, who directed
Betsy Leibu to change student grades from a 5 to a minimum score of a 50 in accordance with
Boazd Policy, and instead of supporting the High School leadership, you stayed silent and
thereby conveyed support for insubordinate expression by subordinate staff to HSP Strachan.
On June 27, 2017, instead' of meeting with HSP Strachan and AP Gray to discuss the AP
vacancy that then existed at the High School, and the team leadership issues that they asked to
discuss with you, you communicated via email that a decision had already been made, without
their input.
On August 1, 2017, you requested information related to the information showing that
[here was a significant decrease in disciplinary incidents at the high school. Although HSP
Strachan was out of the country at the time, he responded to you by email that same day, and by
such email, he directed Mr. Glenn and Ms. Jovin to supply you with the updated information
Page 114 of 172

responsive to your query. This email exchange showed the willingness and effort undertaken by
HSP Strachan to have open lines of communication with you.
However, on August 1, 2017 and August 2, 2017, while HSP Strachan was out of the
country, you caused security staff under your leadership, and by your manipulative use and abuse
of Security Director Andrew Hardwick, to enter into HSP Strachan's office to search for
weapons, whereupon you claimed to have found weapons in his desk, and for which you decided
to terminate his employment.
You gathered witness statements from security staff employees, and from Mr. Hardwick,
to attest to an alleged improper handling of weapons by Dr. Strachan, and on August 1, 2017,
you directed Dr. Gilmore to issue an email to HSP Strachan to inform him that he would be
expected to meet with you on August 2, 2017, to discuss possible disciplinazy action against him.
Dr. Strachan responded that he was in transit from London and would be back in the District on
August 3, 2017.
On August 3, 2017, when Dr. Strachan returned to work at the District, you met with him
concerning the alleged investigation you conducted in his office while he was out of town, and
informed him that you had decided to investigate the matter after he denied the charges. Within
30 minutes, you tendered to Dr. Strachan a memo dated August 3, 2017, placing him on
suspension and informing him that you would be investigating the matter further.
On August 3, 2017, however, you took action that showed that you had already decided
to terminate Dr. Strachan, on bogus allegations of misconduct, by posting a job opening on the
Districts website and on OLAS, fora 2017-2018 School Year Temporary Vacancy for an
Interim High school Principal position.
Of course, you did not perform a meaningful investigation of the matter, nor could you
have, because you went on vacation from August 3, 2017 through August 29, 2017, and then
attended mediation training at Hofstra from Sunday, August 20, 2017 through Tuesday, August
22, 2017.
During the time that you were on vacation, you deprived the High School of the benefit
of its seasoned and proven leader, HSP Strachan, at the worst possible time, since Regents exams
were to be held August 16-17, 2017, the summer school graduation exercises were due to be held
on August 22, 2017, and pre-opening of school would start to ramp up in the last 10 days of
August ahead of the opening of the 2017-18 school year in September 2017 after Labor Day.
On August 7, 2017, Dr. Strachan asked for the reasons for your decision to recommend to
the Board to terminate his employment.
By letter dated August 10, 2017, you caused your secretary, Ana Lovasz to sign a letter
for you while you were away on vacation, offering two illogical reasons for terminating Dr.
Strachan's employment, since (1) you were away on vacation and had not conducted the
investigation you said you would conduct into the allegations of weapons being stored in Dr.
Strachan's office, and you thus failed to inquire as to what policies were being followed, what
Page 115 of 172

directives had been given to Dr Strachan by prior Superintendents Johnson and Atiba-Weza
regarding weapons confiscation protocols and how to manage students who were found to have
instruments that could be considered weapons (such as protractors, compasses, box cutters from
work, hair picks, and other instruments), or the fact that a box of weapons stored for years by a
Security Aide named JJ, in the video and security control room at the High School, had gone
missing; and (2) the number of grievances filed by the HCTA at the High School was more a
reflection of the broken standazds of conduct, such as rampant attendance abuse by teachers, than
it was a statement about Dr. Strachan's management style at the High School.
The first stated reason for terminating Dr. Strachan was deeply flawed. You never
adequately allowed for, or sought out, Dr. Strachan's explanation of what happened. You
ignored that he denied strong weapons in his desk, that he protested that confiscated weapons
were stored in the vault in the High School principal's office suite, not in his personal office, and
you ignored the challenges to the narrative presented against Dr. Strachan by security officers in
the botched initial investigation conducted by you and Mr. Hardwick, concerning alleged bias,
alleged personal animus, and motive to lie against the accusers you were relying upon as of
August 2, 2017, when you initially sought to justify your pre-determined decision to terminate
Dr. Strachan. You ignored the memo dated August 10, 2017, furnished to the District via the
Administrators' Union, the HSAA,by which Sionery Villar, a High School AP, documented that
one Security Aide admitted that the security staff that gave statements were coerced into doing
so. Worse still, there was no progressive discipline in Dr. Strachan's file, no evidence that he
had ever been informed that there was a problem with his performance in this regazd, no incident
of injury or safety breakdown, no failure to accept counseling or guidance, and no allowance to
adjust his conduct to the new directives of a new Superintendent, when there had been no
warnings or issues raised by either Superintendents Johnson or Superintendent Atiba-Weza in the
past. Dr. Strachan's file was notably devoid of ANY disciplinary warnings of ANY kind. Thus,
this singular basis for taking action against him exposed the District to liability for actions taken
that were arguably and seemingly azbitrary and capricious.
The second stated reason for terminating Dr. Strachan was even more deeply flawed,
since it did not address misconduct, but instead pertained to performance of his job duties, which
basis for terminating' a probationazy employee triggers APPR as a factor to be considered. The
problem is that neither Superintendents Johnson nor Superintendent Atiba-Weza gave Dr.
Strachan a negative performance evaluation, and all of the objective data supported a highly
effective rating for Dr. Strachan in the evaluation of his. performance in the past, and Dr Atiba-
Weza, on the eve of his departure, gave Dr. Strachan a glowing evaluation and recommended
him for tenure. Since you did not supervise Dr. Strachan's work, nor interacted with him on a
personal level during the month of June 2017, you had no basis for evaluating his performance
for the 2016-17 school year that was ending when you commenced your employment with the
District on June 2, 2017. Thus, Dr. Atiba-Weza's assessment of Dr. Strachan's work and
performance for the 2016-17 school year necessazily controlled.
On September 9, 2017, Dr. Strachan filed a Notice of Claim against the District.
On September 28, 2017, you recommended to the Board that Dr. Strachan's probationary
employment be terminated and the Board passed a resolution to ternunate him.
Page 116 of 172

The Board docket for the September 28, 2017 Board meeting contains evidence that you
corruptly obtained false statements from Security Aides that offered statements against Dr.
Strachan. You made recommendations to rewazd each and every Security Aide that was alleged
by Dr Strachan to be offering a false statement against him, with a promotion, wage increase, or
reinstatement to employment after a withdrawn resignation for retirement purposes. The draft
Board docket for the September 28, 2017 Boazd meeting even .shows that you were
recommending a $51,000.00 salary increase for Security Director Andrew Hardwick, as if to buy
his cooperation and his support to collect statements from his subordinates that you could by to
rely upon to justify your shameful decision to terminate Dr. Strachan's employment.
Undeterred in your decision to proceed with defaming Dr. Strachan's name and
reputation, you not only attacked his professional judgement and qualifications to hold the office
of High'School Principal by claiming he was huboring and storing weapons in his desk, but you
also attacked his credentials for having an Educational Doctorate, claiming that his Chelsea
doctorate was fake and bogus. You claimed he did not write a doctoral thesis. You claimed his
degree from Chelsea was a purchased degree and that he did not eam an "Ed.D." Your
statement, however, was belied by the fact that his Personnel File contained a 114 page doctoral
thesis addressing the challenges faced by African Americans in the traditional K-12 school
system. Thus, you expressed no concern, nor any awareness of your Stigma-Plus type
statements being made to damage his reputation, and the fact that you were exposing the District
to substantial liability because you lacked discipline when speaking about his termination, which
made him an employee that was suffering defamatory statements about his name and
professional reputation is the context of a termination action taken against him.
The irony is not lost on the Board that you asserted Stigma Plus claims against the
District for placing you on an Administrative Leave of Absence with Pay, even though it
refrained from discussing your employment record or matters relating to your professional
reputation, and yet you were critical of Dr. Strachan damaging his reputation without a care in
the world for the damage you were likely causing him in his professional lie, especially in terms
of being able to secure gainful employment after you unceremoniously terminated him and
discazded him without the courtesy of any discussion as to the quality of his performance and/or
how you could work with him and/or offer to mentor him.
On October 10, 2017, Trustee Stith asked you for the reasons for Dr. Strachan's
termination and demanded that you share with the bard the contents of your investigation related
to the weapons related grounds for your decision to terminate him. You never responded to
Trustee Stith. You never justified your actions with respect to Dr. Strachan. You simply
wielded the gavel and decided to terminate him. Whether on whim or not, you did not justify
your actions to the Board.
As a result of your actions with respect to Dr. Strachan, the High School suffered terrible
spasms of violence and had an atmosphere of being out of control from September 2017 through
the date that Kenneth Klein was terminated as the Interim High School Principal. Upon Dr.
Strachan returning to Hempstead High School in January 2018, the atmosphere in the building
and on the grounds of the High School changed. Even Dr. Bierwirth's quazterly reports
Page 117 of 172

a
a fi
document this transformation in the atmosphere and culture of the high school, after Kenneth
Klein was terminated as the Interim High School Principal and Dr. Strachan returned to the High
school as its Principal.
• Kenneth Klein .
• Carey Gray
• Olga Young
• O'Neil Glenn
• Sionery Villar
• Maria Luperon
• Dr. Gilmore
• Reina Jovin
• James Clazk
• Dr. Bierwirth
• Daniel Russel, John Hopkins University, Talent Development Secondary
• Sheena Lall, John Hopkins University, Talent Development Secondazy
• The Security Aides involved in the August 2017 through September 2017 investigation
Documents To Suauort Charge #17

• Stephen Strachan's personnel file
• Stephen Strachan's Notice of Claim filed September 2017
• Stephen Strachan's 50-H heazing transcript dated October 24, 2017
• Your August 2017 investigation file
• The August 3, 2017 job posting for Interim High School Principal
• Photographs and Witness Statements collected from security Aides in August 2017
• Dr. Bierwirth's emails and reports to the NYSED Commissioner
Page 118 of l72

„.
CHARGE #18:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW -FAILURE TO HONOR CONFIDENTIALTY

OF PERSONNEL MATTERS-
UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF STEPHEN STRACHAN TERMINATION
GROUNDS &LIABILITY FOR DEFAMATORY INFORMATION LEAKED TO
FORMER BOARD MEMBER MELISSA FIGUEROA)
Specification:
N.Y. General Municipal Law § 805-a.l.b. states that "[n]o municipal officer or employee
shall disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties or use
such information to further his personal interests.”
The Commissioner of Education in an opinion in the Matter ofNelson, 2009 N.Y. Educ.
Dept. LEXIS 111, Decision No. 15,964 (2009) applied N.Y. General Municipal Law § 805-a.l.b.
to a school board member who disclosed confidential personally identifiable data and
information relating to students with disabilities. The Commissioner of Education in Matter of
Nelson held that the disclosure of confidential information violated her duty to the district and
the board and that "these actions alone are a sufficient basis for petitioner's removal:' Matter of
Nelson, 2009 N.Y. Educ. Dept. LEXIS 111, at *8-9.
Personnel information related to employees of the District is confidential information.
Personnel matters are routinely discussed only in executive session, because such
information is confidential and exposure of such information, if erroneous, could subject the
employer to liability for defamation or for a liberty interest deprivation on a Stigma Plus theory
of liability for the employer,
~'°` On May 16, 2017, Melissa Figueroa lost the election against Randy Stith and her term as
a Trustee on the School Board ended on June 30, 2017.
On August 1, 2017 and August 2, 2017, you caused security staff to enter into Dr.
Strachan's office in the High School, and you collected statements from such security aide staff,
and from Security Director Andrew Hardwick, accusing Dr. Strachan of violating school policy.
Whether accurate or not, the information you collected regarding Dr. Strachan after July 1, 2017,
should not have been disclosed to, or shared with, Melissa Figueroa after June 30, 2017, since
she was no longer a trustee on the School Boazd.
Page 119 of 172

~A
On or about January 9, 2018, you were placed you on an Administrative Leave of

Absence with Pay.
On January 19, 2018, Melissa Figueroa gave an interview on CBS Channel 2 News,
wherein she repeated many of the statements you had made about Dr. Strachan's professional
reputation, including statements about weapons allegedly found in his personal office, and
statements about his doctoral thesis, all of which was personnel matters, which she neither had a
right to know about, nor was entitled to receive information about it from you.
You were derelict in your duty to maintain the confidentiality of the information you
obtained about Dr. Strachan's performance as an employee of the District, which you came to
know because of your employment with the District, by sharing such information with Melissa
Figueroa.
By failing to maintain the confidentiality of such information, and by sharing such

information with a former Board member who had no business need to know such information
about Dr. Strachan's personnel file, you wantonly and contumaciously created liability exposure
to the District, in violation of your obligations under law to protect confidential information from
disclosure.
Witnesses To Support Char¢e #18

• All witnesses identified in the investigation of this matter against Stephen Strachan and
identified in Stephen Strachan's Notice of Claims
• Melissa Figueroa
Documents To Suunort Charee #18

• The CBS Channel2 News from Januazy 19, 2018
• Stephen Strachan's personnel file
• Stephen Strachan's Notice of Claim filed September 2017
• Stephen Strachan's 50-H hearing transcript dated October 24, 2017
• Your August 2017 investigation file
• The August 3, 2017 job posting for Interim High School Principal
• Photographs and Witness Statements collected from security Aides in August 2017
• Dr. Bierwirth's emails and reports to the NYSED Commissioner
Page 120 of 172

CHARGE #19:

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW FAILURE TO HONOR CONFIDENTIALTY -

UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF THE PLANTE MORAN REPORT)
Specification:
N.Y. General Municipal Law § 805-a.l.b. states that "[n]o municipal officer or employee
shall disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties or use
such information to further his personal interests."
The Commissioner of Education in an opinion in the Matter of Nelson, 2009 N.Y. Educ.
Dept. LEXIS 111, Decision No. 15,964(2009) applied N.Y. General Municipal Law § 805-a.l.b.
to a school boazd member who disclosed confidential personally identifiable data and
information relating to students with disabilities. The Commissioner of Education in Matter of
Nelson held that the disclosure of confidential information violated her duty to the district and
the boazd and that "these actions alone are a sufficient basis for petitioner's removal." Matter of
Nelson, 2009 N.Y. Educ. Dept. LEXIS 111, at *8-9.
On or about September 28, 2017 Plante Moran entered into a contract with the District to
perform a forensic audit of the Districts books and records ("Plante Moran ContracP'). See,
Exhibit 60,a copy of the Plante Moran Contract.
The Plante Moran Contract contained specific confidentiality provisions relating to the
work that Plante Moran was performing and the information that Plante Moran disclosed to the
District as a result of their work. See, Exhibit 60,at 9[ 12.
On or about November 27, 2017, the NYSED Commissioner of Education rendered a

decision in favor of Lamont Johnson on his appeal. As if you meant to transpazently show your
calculations, you endeavored to use the Plante Moran investigation for your own purposes, trying
to use it to block Lamont Johnson's reappointment to the Board, and then trying to use it to
create/manufacture a basis for claiming "whistleblower status" or assert a "retaliation claim" if
the Board were to thereafter seek to terminate your employment.
Inexplicably, after months of the Distinguished Educator Jack Bierwirth asking for
information and an update as to the facts of the Plante Moran investigation, which he had asked
for repeatedly since his arrival at the District on October 2, 2017, which you and Trustees Toure
and Jackson consistently resisted and in response to which you repeatedly asserted the priority of
Page 121 of l72

keeping the investigation confidential so the lines of inquiry would not be disturbed, you
suddenly sought apre-preliminary, report from Plante Moran, which was supplied to you by
email on December 4, 2017, by Michele McHale of Plante Moran. See, Exhibit 61, a copy of
the December 4, 2017 email from Michele McHale of Plante Moran to you.
On or about December 6, 2017, the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, sent you an
email demanding that he (as an ex officio member of the Board of Education) and the rest of the
Boazd be provided an update as to the status of the Plante Moran investigation. Deceptively, you
failed to disclose the fact that you had requested and obtained from Michele McHale of Plante
Moran, only 2 days earlier, a report that would have sufficed to inform the Board as to the pre-
preliminazy information that was shared with you. Worse, you sat idle as Trustees Toure and
Jackson debated with the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, and insisted that no such
report should be given to him or the rest of the Trustees on the Board, for feaz of, and due to the
claimed risk that, confidentiality would be lost and/or potential wrongdoers would be tipped off,
and/or evidence might disappeaz or become destroyed. See, Exhibit 62, a copy of the December
6, 2017 emails exchanged between the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, and Trustees of
the Boazd, concerning the disclosure of the issues thus far being spotted (as potential red flags)
for further investigation and the status of the inquiries being made by Plante Moran.
Shortly after Plante Moran issued its December 4, 2017 pre-preliminary report (at your
request), and after the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, sent you email confirmation on or
about December 6, 2017, of his repeated demand for disclosure as to the investigations being
conducted by you and the Raiser & Kniff law firm, you wrote a letter to Commissioner Elia
protesting that confidentiality had to be maintained, stating that you were reluctant to release any
such information to the Board of Education or Dr. Bierwirth, and asking for guidance so that the
confidentiality could be protected so that the investigations would not be compromised before
they were completed. See, Exhibit 62.1, a copy of the letter you wrote to Commissioner Elia, at
pages 658-659 of your document production in the federal litigation, wherein you protested
about the need to protect the confidentiality of such investigative matters.
As it turns out, the December 4, 2017 pre-preliminary report contained a couple of pre-
preliminazy findings that were dropped by the time that you asked Plante Moran to provide a
preliminazy report on Januazy 10, 2018, which resulted in the Plante Moran preliminary report
being issued dated January 11, 2018.
Alarn~ingly, it also turns out that the December 4, 2017 pre-preliminary report also did
not contain information regarding a couple of topics that were reported in the preliminary report
dated Januazy 11, 2018. Compare, Exhibit 63, a copy the Januazy 11, 2018 Plante Moran
preliminary report —to- Exhibit 64, a copy the December 4, 2017 pre-preliminary report by
Plante Moran.
During your interview in April 2018, you testified that had never seen the January 11
2018 Plante Moran preliminary report prior to it being presented to you in that interview session.
During your interview in April 2018, you testified that you had only seen the December
4, 2017 report, and that nobody had furnished to you a copy of the January 11, 2018 Plante
Page 122 of 172

r 1
Moran preliminary report, and besides which, you had never viewed the January 11, 2018 Plante
Moran preliminary report prior to it being presented to you in April 2018 during that interview
session.
Contrary to your claims during your interview in April 2018, in or about Januazy 19,
2018 through January 24, 2018, you submitted sworn Declarations in Federal Court, in the public
record, in the litigation you commenced against the District, wherein you used and disclosed
information that was confidential and could only have been discerned from the January 11, 2018
Plante Moran preliminary report that you claimed not to have seen prior to April 2018, even
though the subjects of some of your contentions were not discussed in the December 4, 2017pre-
preliminazy memo furnished to you by Michele McHale of Plante Moran.
During your interview in April 2018, you testified that you considered yourself free to
release the confidential information set forth in the December 4, 2017 pre-preliminary Plante
Moran report, as soon as any report was shared with the Board, because you do not trust the
Board members to be capable of maintaining confidentiality once they receive such information.
Accordingly, during your interview in April 2018, you explained that you considered
yourself free to disclose confidential information set forth in the December 4, 2017 pre-
preliminary Plante Moran report because the Board could not be trusted to keep such information
confidential.
During your interview in April 2018, you explained further that you did not believe
confidentiality applied any longer to the December 4, 2017 pre-preliminazy Plante Moran report,
or to the Januazy 11, 2018 Plante Moran preliminazy report, because you considered
confidentiality waived as soon as a copy of any Plante Moran preliminary report would be
furnished to the members of the Board. You explained that, in your opinion, the Board members
could not be trusted to keep such information confidential, because they had a track record of
breaching confidentiality from executive session (without identifying who or when or relating to
what) and because you knew the information would be leaked anyway.
Thus, you admitted that you unlawfully disclosed confidential information contained in
Plante Moran's preliminazy report dated January 11, 2018 and/or from the December 4, 2017
pre-preliminary Plante Moran report, to the public when you included information from the
report in your public filings in your lawsuit against the District.
Your conduct, disclosing information reported in the January 11, 2018 Plant Moran
preliminary report, and/or in the December 4, 2017 pre-preliminary Plante Moran report,
violated 9[12, governing confidentiality, of the contract between the District and Plante Moran.
See, Exhibit 60, a copy of the Plante Moran Contract.
Your conduct, disclosing information reported in the January 11, 2018 Plant Moran
violated the District's right to maintain the confidentiality of such information, and the
confidentiality of the existence of such investigation, which was a primazy concern of the
District up until you decide to unilaterally alter the common understanding that confidentiality
Page 123 of 172

was a pazamount interest for the District. See, Exhibit 62, a copy of the December 6, 2017
emails regarding Dr. Bierwirth's queries about the Plante Moran project.
Indisputably, confidentiality was a paramount interest for the District prior to January 11,
2018, as evidenced by the arguments you made, and that Trustees Toure and Jackson made when
they debated with the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, and insisted that no such report
should be given to him or the rest of the Trustees on the Board, for feaz of, and due to the
and/or evidence might disappear or become destroyed. See, Exhibit 62, a copy of the December
6,2017 emails regarding Dr. Bierwirth's queries about the Plante Moran project.
Your conduct, disclosing information reported in the January 11, 2018 Plante Moran
preliminary report, and/or in the December 4, 2017 pre-preliminary Plante Moran report, caused
the District to be damaged in the form of extra legal costs incurred, and otherwise avoidable
disruptions of the District's operational effectiveness being overcome, because the Nassau
County District Attorney's office opened up an investigation of its own and has subpoenaed
documents from the District regarding the Plante Moran investigation.
Your conduct, disclosing information reported in the January il, 2018 Plante Moran
the District to be damaged in the form of placing a cloud of suspicion over employees heads
when no such suspicion is warranted, thereby creating distractions and disrupting the District's
operational effectiveness.
Your conduct in violating the confidentiality of the Plante Moran Contract and N.Y.
General Municipal Law § 805-a.l.b. was a material breach of the Contract.
Witnesses To Sunnort Charge #19
• Michele McHale of Plante Moran

• Larry Dobroff
• Varleton McDonald
• John Sheahan
• Lamont Johnson
• Maribel Toure
• Gwendolyn Jackson
• Randy Stith
• James Clark
• Dr Rodney Gilmore
Page 124 of 172

v
s ~
• 7oe Dragone
• Ed Cullen
Documents To Supuort Charee #19

• Plante Moran Contract
• Plante Moran reports
• Court filings in the federal court
Page 125 of 172

CHARGE #20

REGENTS
(VIOLATION OF LAW FAILURE TO PROTECT STUDENT IDENTITIES FROM

UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURE. AS REOUIRED'BY FERPA)
Specification:
In or about September 2017, you engaged local media, specifically, Carolyn Gusoff, of
CBS News, to produce a documentazy concerning your employment and engagement in the
Hempstead Union Free School District.
Starting in or about June 2017, you developed a media strategy to call the press,
specifically Newsday and Local 12 News, to report on stories you sought to highlight for your
own personal promotion, elevating your media aspirations over the needs of the District and the
students we serve.
Stazting on or about September 5, 2017, on the opening day of school, at the High
School, fights and acts of violence and in many instances, riots, occurred, wherein students
became involved in brawls, which took place in hallways, in the cafeteria, and elsewhere in the
building at the High School.
On or about October 2, 2017, the Distinguished Educator, Dr. Jack Bierwirth, started
work in the District, pursuant to the assignment of such oversight by the Commissioner of
Education pursuant to NYS Education law §211(c).
In or about October 2017 and into November 2017, you invited Cazolyn Gusoff, of CBS
News, to videotape your day while you were at the High School, in furtherance of her production
of a documentary about your work in Hempstead, and during such filming, a fight broke out in
the High School, which Cazolyn Gusoff, of CBS News, and her CBS news crew caught on
videotape.
In or about December 2017, you invited Carolyn Gusoff, of CBS News, to videotape
your day while you were at the High School, in Furtherance of her production of a documentary
about your work in Hempstead, and during such filming, a fight broke out in the High School,
which Cazolyn Gusoff, of CBS News, and her CBS News crew caught on videotape.
In or about October 2017 and into November 2017, you permitted students to videotape
fights among students that were taking place in the High School on a neazly daily basis.
Page 126 of 172

a b
You permitted video to be taken of students' images without obtaining the required
consendwaiver/release from the parents of such students, or if of age, then from such students,
before permitting the news media to take photographs and/or video of the students who were
photographed or filmed, in violation of the students' FERPA rights, and thereby creating liability
for the District.
In addition, in or about eazly January, 2018, you encouraged a student protest event to
occur at the High School, in support of your Superintendency, and you invited Cazolyn Gusoff,
of CBS News, to videotape the rally in support of you. By so doing, you permitted video to be
taken of students' images without obtaining the required consendwaiver/release from the parents
of such students, or if of age, then from such students, before permitting the news media to take
photographs and/or video of the students who were photographed or filmed, in violation of the
students' FERPA rights, and thereby creating liability for the District.
Witnesses To Supuort Charge #20

• Carman Ayala
• Patricia Spleen
• Leslie McShine
• Patricia McNeil
• Lamont Johnson
• Randy Stith
• James Clazk
• Unique Redd
• Carey Gray, AP at the HHS
• Lisaura Moreno, AP at the HHS
• Olga Young, AP at the HHS
• O'Neil Glenn, Dean at HHS
• Jarrian Berrios, Dean at the HHS

• Videotape on CBS
• Videotape on Channel 12 News
Page 127 of 172

Section II:
Charges wherein the District contends that

the alleged acts constitute
"neglect of duty"
Page 12S of 172

a P
CHARGE #21:
YOU HAVE NEGLECTED YOUR DUTY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
(FAILURE TO TIMELY DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN)
Specification:
You were brought into the District on June 2 to learn, adjust, and formulate plans.
You never read the SIG-6 or the CEP for the HS
You did not comprehensively develop a plan
You touted Transition Team, but did not do the work yourself, to formulate a plan.
You forecasted that the Transition Teams would meeting from September until January, and
have a plan by the end'of January, as if no urgency to develop an action plan
By contrast, Jack Bierwirth came to the District and developed a comprehensive plan addressing
10 azeas of remediation, within 45 days (from 10-2-17 through 11-17-18).
You neglected your duty by failing to develop an Action Plan for correcting the problems in the
District that you were brought to the District to fix.
Witnesses To Support Charse #21

• Cazman Ayala
• Patricia Spleen
• Leslie McShine
• Patricia McNeil
• Lamont Johnson
• Randy Stith
• James Clazk
• Unique Redd
Page 129 of 172

__
r t

• Dr: Robert Dillon
• All staff of the District interviewed by Dr. Jack Bierwirth

• Your facilities assessment report and binder of photos from September 2017
• Your Transition Team reports
• All reports generated by Dr. Jack Bierwirth
• All documents gathered by Dr. Jack Bierwirth in support of his reports
Page 130 of 172
i
CHARGE #22:
(FAILURE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THE HIGH SCHOOLI
Specification:
As Superintendent of Schools you were also the Receiver of the District's High School
and Middle School. See, N.Y. Education Law § 211-f.1.(c)(i). See also, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.19.
You engaged in a course of conduct that constituted neglect of duty to properly and
reasonably administer the High School as a Receivership School for the 2017-18 school year, as
evidenced by the following:
1) You settled multiple High School grievances with the HCTA without the
input of the High School Principal, Stephen Strachan, thereby undercutting the
efforts made by the HS principal to improve teacher attendance and
performance from the prior year (the 2016-17 school year), when you were
not present and with respect to which you had no personal knowledge nor
involvement in the management or administration of the High school.
2) You negotiated a Receivership MOA with the HCTA for the High School and
agreed to cut PD to 5 extended Wednesdays from llextended Wednesdays,
even though Receivership law and regulations emphasize the importance of
increased PD to improve the quality of instruction and to provide training to
improve the craft and professional skills of teachers in receivership Schools
3) You terminated the High School Principal, Stephen Strachan, on August 3,

2017, on the eve of the stazt of school for the 2017-18 school year
4) You went on vacation from Thursday night, August 3, 2107, through Sunday,
August 20, 2017, returning to the District on Monday August 21, 2017;
5) Just before school opened for students on September 5, 2017, you hired
Kenneth Klein to be the District's High School principal, even though he
never served as a principal of any school in the past, had not been granted
tenure as an Assistant Principal in his immediately previous employment
(after only 2 years at North Babylon), and was neither suitably experienced
nor well suited to handle the unique challenges presented when serving as the
Principal of a High School in Receivership. By so doing, you impaired the
District's ability to comply with and excel at implementing the District's SIG-
6 Plan as it pertains to the High School.
Page 131 of 172

6) Shortly after you hired Kenne[h HIein to serve as the High School Principal
for the 2017-18 school year, violence became a daily occurrence at the High
School
7) Kenneth Klein proved incapable of stopping the nearly daily fights, and on
many days, multiple fights and acts of violence at the High School during the
first two quarters of the 2017-2018 school yeaz.
8) Within days of his commencement of work at the District on or about October

2, 2017, the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, determined that Kenneth
Klein was incapable of stopping the nearly daily fights, and on many days,
multiple fights and acts of violence at the High School during the first two
quazters of the 2017-2018 school year.
9) Within days of his commencement of work at the District on or about October

2, 2017, the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, determined that Kenneth
Klein was "in over his head" and incapable of discharging the duties and
obligations of the office of Principal of the High School.
10)You did not interject yourself and become involved in trying to quell the
violence, and provide a safe and secure learning environment for the students
attending the High School, until the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth,
strongly recommended to you that you make yourself present at the High
School and report there daily yourself, precisely because the Distinguished
Educator, Jack Bierwirth, had determined that Kenneth Klein was incapable of
stopping the nearly daily fights, and on many days, multiple fights or riots,
and the atmosphere of violence at the High School during the first two
quarters of the 2017-2018 school yeaz.
1 1)Despite you being physically present, you were unable to quell the violence,
and provide a safe and secure learning environment for the students attending
the High School, and you failed to implement a violence suppression plan
capable of stopping the neazly daily fights, and on many days, multiple fights
and acts of violence at the High School during the first two quarters of the
2017-2018 school year.
12)While Stephen Strachan had been removed from service at the High School,
upon your misguided recommendation to the Board of Education that was
misled by your assessment of the High School's culture and environment
under Stephen Strachan's leadership, you coddled the teachers at the High
School and enfeebled the High School's administrative staff and eviscerated
their management of staff without Stephen Strachan
13)In addition, you gave the directive to Kenneth Klein and/or the High School
administrative staff to discontinue implementing and following the SIG-6 Plan
for the High School as it relates to Small Learning Communities ("SLCs").
Page 132 of 172

f
You interrupted and interdicted the work of Sheena Lall, the School
Transformation Facilitator assigned to Hempstead High School by Johns
Hopkins University's Talent Development Secondary ("TDS"), who was
inteeal in the implementation of the SLCs in the High School in accordance
with the Districts SIG-6 Plan for the High School.
14)On Januazy 4, 2018, more than four months after you hired Kenneth Klein,
and after he commenced performance of the duties as the Principal of the
District's High School that was in receivership from day #1 of his
employment, Kenneth Klein also requested (apparently for the first time) a
copy of the District's High School's improvement plan. Thus, he was
operating without knowing or even having had in his possession, and thus
must never have read, the SIG-6 Plan that he was responsible for
implementing at the High School. Thus, by terminating Stephen Strachan and
hiring Kenneth Klein, you impaired the District's ability to comply with and
excel at implementing the Districts SIG-6 Plan as it pertains to the High
School.
15)On January 4, 2018, more than four months after you hired Kenneth Klein,
and after he commenced performance of the duties as the Principal of the
Districts High School that was in receivership from day #1 of his
employment, Kenneth Klein also requested (apparently for the first time) a
copy of the Districts High School's improvement plan. Thus, he was
operating without knowing or even having had in his possession, and thus
must never have read, the SIG-6 Plan that he was responsible for
implementing at the High School. Thus, by terminating Stephen Strachan and
hiring Kenneth Klein, you impaired the District's ability to comply with and
excel at implementing the Districts SIG-6 Plan as it pertains to the High
School
16)On Januazy 4, 2018, more than seven months after you executed the Contract
and more than six months after commencing the performance of your duties as
the District's Superintendent of Schools and thus, as Receiver of the District's
High School and Middle School, you requested (apparently for the first time)
copies of the Districts High School's and Middle School's improvement
plans.
17)In the January 4, 2018 email you state that you need the school improvement
plans because "[t]his is part of being a receiver School."
18)Your failure to have possession of the District's High School's and Middle
School's school improvement plans from June 2017, when you commenced
your duties as Superintendent of Schools, through January 4, 2018 reveals that
you failed to comply with N.Y. Education Law § 211-f.1.(c)(i) and 8
N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.19 in the performance of your duties as Superintendent of
Page 133 of 172

~ r
Schools and Receiver to carry out your duties as Receiver by implementing

the State-approved school improvement plans.
19)In late Januazy 2017, Stephen Strachan returned to the High School, and the
violence dropped precipitously.
The failure to have possession of the District's High School's and Middle School's
school improvement plans between June 2017 when you commenced your duties as
Superintendent of Schools and January 4, 2018 reveals that you failed to comply with N.Y.
Education Law § 211-f.1.(c)(i) and 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.19 in the performance of your duties as
Superintendent of Schools and Receiver to carry out your duties as Receiver by implementing
the State-approved school improvement plans. Therefore, you neglected your duties as
Superintendent of Schools.
Your failure to adopt a violence suppression plan for the High School, and inability to
stop the violence, until Stephen Strachan returned to the High School, shows that you violated
your duty as both Superintendent of Schools and as Receiver, and constitutes neglect of duty.
• Kenneth Klein
• Carey Gray
• Reina Jovin
• O'Neil Glenn
• Olga Young
• James Clazk
Documents To Support CharEe #22

• January 4, 2018 email
• Reports from Dr. Jack Bierwirth
• Newsday reports
• Videos of violent events at the High School.
Page 134 of l72

t c
CHARGE #23:
(FAILURE TO PROPERLY MANAGE STAFF &

TAKING VACATION DESPITE CRISIS STAFFING ISSUES
ON THE EVE OF THE OPENING OF SCHOOL FOR STUDENTS)
Specification:
At your N.Y. General Municipal Law § 50-h heazing you testified that you first presented
the District's Board of Education with a proposal to rebuilding Rhodes School in November
2017 and that it could not be "done sooner given the fact that my number one priority in the
summertime was just making sure that we had staffing for the schools because we had four
principals to hire out of ten schools, we had a lazge number of staff that had to be hired and put
in place. So there was a lot of moving pieces taking place just to make sure that school would be
able to start on time...."
Additionally, you testified at your N.Y. General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that "the
Commissioner of Education came in July to see me and she sat in my office and she said
Shimon, you better get the staff you need to start opening day, and if you don't make that a
priority, you're not gonna have a school district to run."
While you testified that there was a lot of staffing issues that you were focused on in the
summertime, and that you needed to prioritize staffing needs so that schools could open, and that
you were even warned about this priority in a meeting with the Commissioner of Education, you
nonetheless took a two week vacation in August 2017, from August 4, 2017 through August 20,
2017.
Worse, on August 3, 2017, you suspended the Principal of the High School, Stephen
Strachan, who had been a Receivership Principal and had helped write (and substantially wrote)
the SIG-6 grant for the High School, and then placed an advertisement to hire an Interim High
School Principal on the same day, August 3, 2017.
Instead of staying in the District, to make sure the District hired a suitable interim High
School Principal, you took two weeks' vacation at the worst possible time, just before the High
School was to open for the stazt of School on September 5, 2017, and leaving on vacation despite
the fact that you threw the High School leadership in disarray on the eve of your vacation.
You prioritized taking two weeks' vacation over the paramount needs of the District for
stability and effective leadership in its Persistently Struggling High School, even though you had
completed only two months of work in the District (June 2, 2017 through August 3, 2017 = 2
months and 1 day).
Page 135 of 172

h
Compounding the problem, you took two weeks' vacation from August 3, 2017 through
August 20, 2017, even though you had just hired an Assistant Superintendent for Business, Larry
Dobroff, who was hired on July 27, 2017, but who did not stazt employment until August 1,
2017. The Business Office had been in disarray for years, but all the more so after you started
working at the District and one of your first moves was to terminate the former Assistant
Superintendent for Business, Mr. Eddy Joseph, so that you had almost 6 weeks of no effective
leadership in the Business Office immediately prior to you departing for 2 weeks' vacation.
Compounding the problem even further, the Business Office was critically understaffed,
had a new Purchasing Agent being trained, a new Business Official, and was notoriously delayed
in (1) processing purchase orders, (2) paying invoices overdue to vendors, (3) resolving
transportation issues for private and parochial students, and (4) did not have completed financials
for the 2016-17 school year, which promised to threaten the District's ability to finalize its ST-3
filings due on or about September 5, 2017, which placed at risk the District's ability to timely
file its required submittals to .then thereafter timely receive its State Aide, so there would be no
financial crises during the school year due to insufficient cash flow to pay the Districts bills as
and when they come due.
Knowing how important it was to hire staff, supervise the work of your Business Official,
prepaze for the opening of schools, and handle the moving pieces that you testified had to be
resolved, your two week vacation at a time of great upheaval in staff, and on the eve of the stazt
of the opening of school for the start of the school year for students, constitutes neglect of your
duty as Superintendent of Schools.

• Dr. Gilmore, Ed.D
• Robert Cialone
• Lany Dobroff
• Jack Bierwirth
• James Clark
• Unique Redd
Documents To Sunaort Charge #23
• Transcript of N.Y. General Municipal Law § 50-h (p. 15, lines 9-20; p. 47, lines 5-20)
• Lany Dobroff interview transcripts and exhibits
• Waronker Request for vacation
Page 136 of 172

C ~
CHARGE #24:
(FAILURE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THE CSG)
Specification:
In 2016, New York State passed a law establishing Community School Grants ("CSG")
for Districts with schools designated as either Struggling or Persistently Struggling. The purpose
of the grants was to aid and convert Struggling and Persistently Struggling Schools into
Community Hubs to deliver services to students and families. The District was entitled to
receive up to $5,418,134.00 in CSG funds, of which up to $3,565,945.00 could have been spent
on programmatic expenses and up to $1,852,189.00 could have been spent on capital expenses.
The funding for CSG was August 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. The District had urgent
needs to address that the CSG funding would have enabled the District to rectify and solve. The
funding was awarded to the District, so there was no risk of "losing" the grant funding unless we
failed to submit an application for it, but delays in applying for it risked delays in being able to
spend all of the funds awazded before the end of the period of time for the permitted spending of
such funds so awarded.
On or about September 28, 2017, the District's James Clark had been working on the
CSG and had most of it complete, and was interacting with LoriAnn Curtain of the NYSED to
try to complete it in a timely basis as of then, when you decided to take him off that assignment
and re-assign the task of completing the CSG application to the Master Teachers.
From September 2017 through on or about November 11, 2017, the Master Teachers
attempted to write themselves and NAI into the grant, which effort was not acceptable to the
NYSED. Feedback from the NYSED was ignored or not implemented or not replied to. As of
January 3, 2018, more than five months since the funding for CSG began, the NYSED's Office
of Innovation and School Reform ("OISR"), which administers CSG, had not yet received the
District sfinal/complete application for the funds.
From August 23, 2017 through January 3, 2017, the NYSED OSIR documented more
than ten (10) instances of communication with the District to request final CSG application
documents. On January 3, 2018, the NYSED communicated to the District that it had not
received a response to its November 3, 2017 communication and was inquiring why there had
been no response to its feedback.
Ironically, at the December 21, 2017 Boazd meeting, you, Dr. Waronker, praised the
Master Teachers for "saving the CSG" and misrepresenting to the public that the CSG funds
were almost lost to the District, but had been saved thanks to their work.
Page 137 of 172

On Januazy 3, 2018, the NYSED OISR stated that "[t]he district's appazent lack of
urgency regarding the use of these funds to benefit Hempstead's students is concerning."
In fact, on December 11, 2017, you were confused regarding the status of the CSG within
your administration. See, Exhibit 65, a copy of the December 11, 2017 email numbered MW-
NAI-0004847, marked CONFIDENTIAL.
On January 9, 2018, when the Board was considering whether to place you on an ALGA
with Pay, you were asked about the status of the CSG, and whether it had been completed yet, as
had been demanded of you at a prior Board meeting held on or about December 21, 2017, just
prior to the Christmas Holiday and new year's Holiday recess period for the Schools. You
represented that the CSG had been fully submitted to the NYSED as of that day, January 9, 2018,
but your answer seemed evasive with respect to the difference between an FS-10 and the other
parts of the CSG application, so James Clark was questioned about the grant in your presence,
which is when the Boazd learned that the CSG was NOT fully submitted as you had represented
earlier in the meeting with the Board.
Indeed, the CSG was never deemed Fully submitted nor were the pazts that were
submitted deemed acceptable or compliant with the terms of the CSG, so that after you were
placed on an ALGA with pay, the NYSED guided the District to re-submit the CSG application,
to strip it of the added and unacceptable text regarding NAI and the Master Teachers, and shortly
thereafter, the District was awarded the CSG funding.
Your failure, as "Chief Executive Officer of the District" to finalize the District's CSG
application documents from August 1, 2017 through Januazy 3, 2018, and secure the funding in a
timely and professional manner, constitutes neglect of duty and risked the Districts entitlement
to receive up to $5,418,134.00 in CSG funds on a timely basis so that it could be used without
losing any portion of it due to slow procurement of the funding.

• James Clark
• Jack Bierwirth
• Reina Jovin
Documents To Suuuort Charse #24

• NYSED Januazy 3, 2018 letter
• Draft CSG application
• Completed CSG application
• Communications from NYSED regarding CSG application rejection
• Communications from NYSED regarding CSG application approval
• NAI email dated December 11, 2017
Page 138 of 172

tl
.I '. S
CHARGE #25:
YOU NEGLECTED YOUR DUTY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
(FAILURE TO PROPERLY MANAGE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE &REPAIRS)
Specification:
In or about August 2017 you conducted a facilities review of all the District's facilities
and premises and produced a binder of photographs. At that time you learned that the District
did not have a boiler maintenance contract with any third pazty. From August 2017 until January
2018 you took no steps to obtain a boiler maintenance contract for the District with any third
party to service the District's boilers.
Yet, you testified at your N.Y. General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that "since the
district in decades had not done any maintenance, I had to really troubleshot quite a few
buildings that werejust really falling apart at the seams."
The arrival of cold weather and snow and challenges to the Districts boilers and ability
to provide heated buildings to enable our students to be educated in the winter months, was no
surprise to anyone and should have been no surprise to you, as Superintendent of Schools. .
You did not prioritize securing maintenance and repair contracts for our schools' boilers
and pipes, but by contrast, you did prioritize securing funding and prompt payment to NAI and
the Master Teachers, regardless of whether NAI and Master Teachers were actually having any
impact of the students in the District, whereas, buildings closed on January 5, 2018, due to
freezing weather and cracked pipes, surely did impact negatively students' ability to learn.
Your failure, as "Chief Executive Officer of the District" to take any steps to obtain a
boiler maintenance contract for the District was neglect of duty and risked the District's
facilities.
Witnesses To Suunort Charee #25
• Larry Dobroff
• Regina Armstrong,
• Timothy Gregg
• Prospect School Head Custodian
• High School Head Custodian
• Head Custodians of other schools in the District
Page 139 of 172


• N.Y. General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing transcript (page 15, line23 to page 16, line
6)
• Waronker 1-5-18 Open Letter to the Public
• Newsday Articles
• Facilities Assessment Binder
Page 140 of 172

-~
CHARGE # 26:
(FAILURE TO PROPERLY VALIDATE NAI BILLINGI
Specification:
From August 2017 through December 2017 you failed to review and validate the invoices
submitted by the New American Initiative("NAI").
The standard business practice in the District's business office is to "validate" services
and confirm that the vendor's billing is accurate and verified, and that the services were actually
rendered, before payment is approved.
The District's former Assistant Superintendent for Business, Larry Dobroff, testified at
length concerning the validation and verification process for vendors providing services to the
District, especially regarding the BOCES billing that the District receives each month.
As the Superintendent of Schools for the District, where you brought NAI into the
District, and where you continued to have a daily working relationship within NAI's operations
as revealed by NAI's email and document production in the litigation in Federal Court, you had
an obligation to make sure that staff other than you validated the NAI billing, but you did not do
so.
Instead, you vouched for the services performed by NAI, you failed to review their
invoices, you failed to validate whether or not the services being billed to the District were true
and accurate, and you directed your newly hired and beholden to you employee, the Assistant
Superintendent for Business, Larry Dobroff, to pay it upon receipt.
Your failure, as "Chief Executive Officer of the District" to review and validate the
invoices submitted by the New American Initiative was neglect of duty and resulted in the
District overpaying the New American Initiative for services not received (such as labor
negotiations support and media strategy implementation), and for services not properly billable
or billed at inflated pricing due to the wrong people being included in training (such as Board
members and non-instructional staff included in the Harvard trip and for mediation training).
• Larry Dobroff
• Sylvia Sulowski, NYSED, Office of Accountability
• Cerini &Associates
• Joe Dragone
• Ed Cullen
Page 141 of 172

e
• James Clazk
• Andrew Hazdwick
• Lamont Johnson
• Dr David B Gates
• Randy Stith
• Dr Ahuna Akoma
• Dr. JackBierwirth
• John Sheahan, Esq.

• Invoices from New American Initiative
• BOCES invoices
• Larry Dobroff interview transcripts &exhibits
• Shimon Wazonker interview transcripts &exhibits
Page 142 of 172

CHARGE #27:
(FAILURE TO PROPERLY MANAGE ABGS 6TH PERIOD TEACHING LIABILITY

ARBITRATION)
Specification:
In June 2017, you learned that there was an arbitration case pending between the District
and the teachers union, the HCTA, wherein the District faced a liability exposure of
approximately $2,000,000.00 for the classroom teachers that taught a 6`h period in the 2016-17
School yeaz.
In May 2016, then Superintendent Johnson opened receivership negotiations for the High
School and the Middle School, and sought to change the structure of the day in the Middle
School. She sought to change the periods taught in a day by teachers at the ABGS Middle
School from 5 periods of 48 minutes each in 2014-15, for a total of 240 minutes, to a schedule of
6 periods of 40 minutes each for the 2016-17 school year, which would have been the same 240
minutes of teaching per day. In the interim year, the 2015-16 school yeaz that was then just
ending, the teachers only taught 5 periods of 42 minutes each, which translated into teachers
having only 210 minutes of teaching time per day. For the betterment of the students,
Superintendent Johnson wanted to use receivership powers to secure a 6 period day, where
teachers teach 6 periods but only the same 240 minutes as they had to teach in the 2014-15
school year when they taught 5 periods of 48 minutes each.
On June 13, 2016, Superintendent Johnson submitted her receivership negotiations

documents to the NYSED, declazing impasse, and asking for the Commissioner to endorse her
plan for implementing significant changes that would yield demonstrable improvement at the
ABGS Middle School.
On August 18, 2016, the NYSED informed her successor, Dr Atiba-Weza, that the
District's submission was incomplete and not acceptable and that he would, as the Receiver,
need to resubmit the application for the NYSED to approve the District's plans to implement its
last offer going into declazed impasse. Dr. Atiba-Weza never resubmitted. The HCTA grieved
the schedule change, claiming an entitlement for teachers in the ABGS Middle School to 1/5 of
their base salazy for teaching a 6th class, claiming a past practice existed, regardless of the total
number of minutes being 240 minutes, which was historically acceptable in the District.
On May 4, 2017, the arbitration commenced before Arbitrator Marlene Gold.
On May 11, 2017, you, Dr Waronker started your employment at the District.
On August 8, 2017, the second day of arbitration commenced before Arbitrator Marlene
Gold.
Page 143 of 172

Prior to August 8, 2017, you Dr Waronker stazted and completed Receivership
negotiations and entered into a receivership MOA with the HCTA for the ABGS Middle School
that did not include a resolution of the District's liability exposure of approximately
$2,000,000.00 for the classroom teachers that taught a 6`h period in the 2016-17 School yeaz.
Instead of curing the $2,000,000.00 liability in receivership negotiations, which liability

was spawned from prior receivership negotiations, you ignored the issue.
If you had negotiated with the teachers union to resolve the dispute, then two million
dollars of potential liability would have been resolved in the District's favor.
Instead of focusing on solving the Districts problems with the HCTA's contract, and
disposing of this massive liability hanging over the District, you instead focused on cutting PD
sessions for the teachers at the ABGS Middle School from 11 extended Wednesdays to 5
extended Wednesdays, thereby relieving the teachers of much needed PD training, in the hopes
of securing the HCTA's agreement to allow you to hire and deploy the 4 Master Teachers in the
District, despite grounds for objecting to same in accordance with the HCTA contract, if the
teachers wanted to dispute your use of the 4 Master Teachers as quasi-administrators or as
supervisory professional evaluators of fellow teachers.
Instead of curing the $2,000,000.00 liability in receivership negotiations, you neglected

your duty to the District by failing to address the issue in the 2017-2018 Receivership
negotiations and MOA that was approved by the Board on your recommendation on July 27,
2018.
As a result, due to your negligence in addressing the 6'h period arbitration issue
concerning the 2016-17 School year, you cost the District the chance to avoid $2,000,000.00 in
liability that could have been negotiated in the 2017-18 receivership negotiations.
Witnesses To Suoaort Charee #27

• Rowena Acosta
• Susan Johnson
• Hank Williams

• Receivership negotiations 2016
• Receivership memo submitted to NYSED June 13, 2016
• NYSED letter dated August 18, 2018
• Arbitration File
• Arbitration Briefs
• Arbitration Award
Page 144 of 172

CHARGE #28:
(FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HCTA

TO DEPLOY MASTER TEACHERS IN RECEIVERSHIP NEGOTIATIONS)
Spec cation:
(1) ABGS
You negotiated a Receivership MOA for the ABGS, and gave the teachers what they
asked for in terms of cutting Professional Development extended Wednesdays from 11 times per
year to 5 times per yeaz, but did not even bargain for rights to deploy Master Teachers in the
classrooms with the approval of the HCTA
You could not deploy them in the Middle School in any event, because the Master
Techers were K-6 common curriculum certified, not secondary teachers.
(2) HHS
You negotiated a Receivership MOA for the HHS, and gave the teachers what they asked for
in terms of cutting PD, but did not even bargain for rights to deploy Master Teachers in the
classrooms with the approval of the HCTA
You could not deploy them in the MS anyway, because the Master Teachers were K-6
common curriculum certified, not secondary teachers
(3) Elementary Schools
In June 2017, came to the District with no contracts; gave a welcome speech to the staff
to say none had a contract
On Januazy 9, 2019, you held a meeting with the HCTA at the Admin Offices to roll out
the misguided concept of a suspension academy to be held at 100 Main, offering teachers
"combat pay," and describing the meeting as Receivership Negotiations, but the HCTA asked
why the negotiations session were being limited to Receivership Negotiations, and were not
being used for general negotiations, and at that time, the HCTA complained that no negotiations
had been held since June 2, 2017; thus, you brought the Master Teachers into the District, but
never negotiated with the HCTA, nor secured their agreement to permit Master Teachers to
provide oversight or management or leadership in classrooms with 45-60 students and 4 teachers
in a classroom.
Page 145 of 172

}
You could not deploy them in the elementazy schools, despite MTs being K-6 common
curriculum certified, not secondary teachers, because you never secured agreement with the
HCTA.
Witnesses To Sunuort Char¢e #28

• Jack Bierwirth
• Dr Gilmore
• Carey Gray
• HCTA bargaining committee
Documents To Support Charee #28

• November 17, 2017 Distinguished Educator's Report
• Receivership MOA For ABGS
• Receivership MOA for HHS
• Master Teacher resumes
Page 146 of 172

CHARGE #29:
(FAILURE TO PROPERLY MANAGE VIOLENCE AT HIGH SCHOOL)
Specification:
In August 2017, you hired Kenneth Klein to be the Interim High School Principal. From
September 2017 through January 2018, there was a very high level of violence occurring within
the District's High School on a daily basis.
As Superintendent of Schools you were unable to quell the violence and/or failed to take
resolute action or develop a plan to stop the violence that raged at the High School from
September 5, 2017 through at least January 20, 2018.
In January 2018, after you were placed on Administrative Leave of Absence with Pay by
the District's Board of Education, the District reduced the violence problem in the High School,
which came to a quick halt.
As a result of the District taking action to stop the violence in the High School, which
steps included dismissing Kenneth Klein to be the Interim High School Principal and re-hiring
Stephen Strachan as the High School principal, and by adopting policies and procedures put into
place to quell the violence, the District's High School saw a drastic reduction in violence in the
High School starting in late January 2018.
You neglected your duty to the District by failing to address the violence issue in the
District's High School and finding a solution to bring the violence under control.
You neglected your duty to the District by failing to address the violence issue in the
District's High School, which was a Demonstrable Improvement indicator for the High School
under its SIG-6 Plan, thereby endangering the District's ability to retain control of its High
School in Receivership going into the 2018-19 school year.

• Jack Bierwirth
• Kenneth Klein
• Carey Gray
• Andrew Hardwick
Page 147 of 172

Documents To Sunaort Char¢e #29
• All documents previously identiFied in Chazges and Specifications #1-28 above

• November 17, 2017 Distinguished Educator's Report
• Januazy 7, 2018 Commissioner Letter/Report
• Jack Bierwirth's April 13, 2018 report to the Commissioner
• Jack Bierwirth's July 13, 2018 report(due shortly) to the Commissioner
• Newsday Articles
• Video of fights in the High School during the fa112017
Page 148 of l72

F ~ ~
Section III
Charges wherein the District contends

that the alleged acts constitute
"gross misconduct"
Page 149 of 172

CHARGE #30:
YOU COMMITTED GROSS MISCONDUCT AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
(GROSS MISCONDUCT:DISENROLLMENT OF 316 STUDENTS

WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH LAWI
Specification:
"Gross misconduct ...requires a showing of something more than ordinary negligence. It

must be reckless and of a criminal nature as when the wrong doer has acted maliciously,
wantonly, or with a recklessness that is close to criminality." Matter of91st St. Crane Collnpse
Litig., 2015 NY Slip Op 31458[U], *5 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2015).
After you directed 316 students to be dis-enrolled in violation of N.Y. Education Law §
3202.1-a., of which 294 students were potential High School graduates, you did not permit
certain students to re-enroll with the District.
You knew that if you dis-enrolled 316 students, of which 294 students were potential
High School graduates, without complying with the applicable law, then you would be
subjecting the District to liability, just as the District had faced liability before in 2014, for
enrollment violations, and had been compelled to enter into a Stipulation of Assurance with the
NYSED and the Office of the Attorney General in 2014, not to repeat such mistakes in
enrollment.
1.

to be enrolled in the District you violated the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioner of
Education.
the District and the New York State Attomey.General.

June 30, 2018. See, Exhibit 59.
You have committed gross misconduct as Superintendent of Schools by knowingly,

purposely and without due care violating 8 N.Y.C.R.R § 100.2(y) and for knowingly, purposely,
and without due caze violated the AG Agreement.
Page 150 of 172

i q >
Witnesses To Suaaort Charge #30

• Albert Williams
• Douglas Davis;
• LatishaGraham;
• Jason Noone;
• Unique Redd;
• Rachel Elias;
• Robert Rodriguez; and
• Carolina Perez.

• Agreement between the District and the New York State Attorney General reguding
enrollment
• Declaration of Shimon Wazonker, dated Januazy 19, 2018
Page 151 of 172

{ ~ 7
CHARGE #31:
Specification:

wantonly, or with a recklessness that is close to criminality." Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse
In October and November 2017 you knowingly dis-enrolled 316 students, of which 294
students were potential High School graduates, by "scrubbing" the data and removing them from
the Hempstead Union Free School Districts ("DistricP') High School in violation of the
students' due process rights enshrined in New York Education Law § 3202.1-a.
The District's employees chazged with enrollment responsibilities and attendance

responsibilities informed you on numerous of occasions that your plan to dis-enroll students
from the Districts High School and the procedure you directed them to follow to dis-enroll 294
students in the High School, violated New York Education Law and the students' due process
rights.
You told the District's employees that you would "take the hiP'for dis-enrolling students.
You had actual knowledge that what you were doing by directing the Districts staff to dis-enroll
294 students was illegal, improper and violated the students' due process rights.
You admitted in your Declaration to the federal court in the matter of Wnronker v.
Hempstead Union Free School District, et al., pending in the Eastern District of New York under
Docket Number 18-cv- 393 (DRH)(SIL) that "294 students were no shows(meaning they had
not been attending school for over 20 consecutive days (in some cases a couple of years)[)]
and had to be disenrolled from school." Exhibit 58, at 9[ 49(emphasis in original).
You told the District's staff that you were "scrubbing" the data.
Over the District's employees' objections, you directed the District's employees to
disenroll 316 students, of which 294 students were potential High School graduates, from the
District's High School without due process and in violation of the N.Y. Education Law § 3202.1-
a.
Your conduct opened the District to liability for violation of the students' due process
rights and caused the New York State Education Department ("NYSED") to open an
Page 152 of 172

investigation into the matter, which may lead to punishment by the NYSED or other agency of
the New York State government.
Your conduct constitutes gross misconduct because you knowingly directed staff to
violate N.Y. Education Law § 3202.1-a. and violated students' due process rights.
Witnesses To Suanort Char¢e #31
• Douglas Davis;
• Latisha Graham;
• Jason Noone;
• Unique Redd;
• Rachel Elias;
• Carolina Perez.
Documents To Sunaort Charge #31

• Declaration of Shimon Waronker, dated Januazy 19, 2018
Page 153 of 172

a ~ r~
CHARGE #32:
YOU HAVE COMMITTED GROSS MISCONDUCT AS SUPERINTENDENT OF

SCHOOLS
(GROSS MISCONDUCT —BID RIGGING)
Specification:

wantonly, or with a recklessness that is close to criminality." Matter of 91st St. Crane Cdlapse
Litig., 2015 NY Slip Op 31458[U], *5(Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2015).
On June 2, 2017 you commenced working for the District as the District's Superintendent
of Schools. By June 27, 2017, you issued a Request for Proposal ("RFP"), received a response,
awarded a contract, drafted the contract and executed the contract with New American Initiatives
("NAI"). On June 27, 2017, the Board awarded NAI a contract for $450,000.00 per year.
You manipulated the bid and your conduct constituted bid rigging and unlawful self-
dealing by you in favor of NAI. See, N.Y. General Municipal Law § 103.
The District's Purchasing Agent was given a list by you of individuals and entities that
you directed the District's Purchasing Agent to send the RFP. This list included individuals or
entities connected to and related to NAI.
In addition, NAI aided in the drafting of the District's RFP that they ultimately were
awazded. See, Exhibit 48, a copy of an email from Dini Gourarie to Robert Cialone, dated June
15, 2017, with attachments, paginated MW-NAI-0002689 through 0002692, mazked
CONFIDENTIAL.
Additionally, you reviewed NAPS response to the RFP before NAI submitted its RFP
response to the District. See, Exhibit 66, a copy of an email From Dini Gourazie to Shimon
Waronker (on his thenewamericanacademy email account), dated June 22, 2017, with
attachments, and paginated MW-NAI-0004196 through 0004210, mazked CONFIDENTIAL.
You provided only entities or individuals connected to or related to NAI copies of the
RFP, permitting NAI to aid in the drafting of the Districts RFP and reviewing NAI's proposal
before it was submitted to the District, was bid rigging.
Since the only entities or individuals that you provided were connected with NAI had the
opportunity to bid, you ensured that there would be no responses from any other competitors to
the RFP,thereby ensuring that NAI would receive the award and the contract for $450,000.00.
Page 154 of 172

a e .r
a
Your conduct manipulating the bid and the rigging violated N.Y. General Municipal Law
§ 103 and therefore was gross misconduct.
Witnesses To Suonort Charee #32
• Rober[ Cialone
• John Sheahan,Esq.

• Board resolution.
• NAI Emails
• Hamburger Billing
Page 155 of 172

Y y
CHARGE #33:
(GROSS MISCONDUCT — HIRING NAI AND WASTEFUL SPENDINGI
Specification:

wantonly, or with a recklessness that is close to criminality." Matter of 9lst St. Crane Collapse
As Superintendent of Schools you funneled District monies to individuals and entities

that were connected to, related to, or employed by NAI, without disclosing the relationship
between NAI and these individuals.
In your Contract, you disclosed that NAI is one of four organizations that you "had
professional or financial relationship with" that you "may recommend that the District enter into
transactions in order to help the District attract, develop and retain talent to improve the
instruction for students." You further contracted with the District that you "will not draw any
compensation from [NAI] during the term of this Agreement in order to eliminate any possible
conflict of interest."
However, you used your authority and power to manage the Districts budget to pay for
services rendered by NAI that produced little or no benefit to the District.
For example, from July 9, 2017 (Sunday) through July 14, 2017 (Friday), you caused the
District to spend $50,000.00 in funds for a trip to Hazvard to introduce NAI to the Districts staff,
but you wasted the money providing utterly useless and needless training to nine (9) people, of
which six (6) were uninvolved in teaching students, including 3 Boazd members (Crosson, Toure
and Jackson) for whom such training was absolutely worthless in terms of grant funds being
spent to cover such costs because they had no relationship to teaching students, and three
members of AO staff that had no connection to teaching students in the District's receivership
schools (the HS and the MS)(namely, Hazdwick, Gilmore and you, Dr. Waronker). In addition,
the Master Teachers were not approvable (thus, knocking out Natalie Gonzalez and Sarah
Kugelman)in terms of an allowable use of funds under Title I or the PSSG funding because their
services were not approved as pazt of the grant narratives or as part of Receivership grant
programs previously approved without Master Teachers being included. Specifically, the Master
Teachers were determined to be not coverable by such grant funds because they were not in the
"prior approved School and District goals and approved program narratives included in the
Consolidated Application submitted." See, Exhibit 13, the email from Sylvia Sulowski, of the
Page 156 of 172

NYSED Office of Accountability, identifying disallowed costs under the grants; see also,
Exhibit 20, NAI's ]s` invoice to the District, dated July 31, 2018.
As another example, at the end of August 2017, you caused the District to provide
Mediation Training to not more than 12 staff persons, with Professor Bush, at Hofstra
University, the cost of which was exorbitant, and the benefits of which were dubious, inasmuch
as the District should have sought out such services, if needed at all, on a less costly basis, and
need not have provided such training to the staff members selected to fill the seats in the program
offered by Professor Bush, when Trustees Gates and Stith declined to participate. Payment of
$25,000.00 to Professor Bush was exorbitant and presented a conflict, since he is a service
provider connected with NAI, and was not engaged via Hofstra University on a more cost-
contained basis. See, Exhibit 46, the NAI RFP Response submittal dated June 23, 2017; see
also, Exhibit 24, the NAI billing packet #2, including the sign in sheets and mediation; see also,
Exhibit 54, the July 31, 2017 cover email from Dini Gourarie to Board members and
administrators, with an attached course description for the 3 day mediation training session.
Worse, as was the case with the Harvard trip, spending District resources on providing
training to BOE members Toure, Jackson and Crosson, was a pure waste of precious PSSG grant
dollars, since none of their training could be even argued to have been geared towards improving
student achievement in the schools covered by such grant funding, since they have no role to
play in teaching or providing administrative oversight to teaching in the Middle School or High
School. See, Exhibit 13, a copy of the July 11, 2017 email to Regina Armstrong from Sylvia
Summazy, dated 9-28-17; see also, see also, Exhibit 56, a copy of the July 20, 2017 email to you
from John Sheahan, Esq., with a cc to Regina Armstrong, counseling you that "expenditures for
grants must be pre-approved by SED ... Please advise if you wish to modify the contract to add
language re SED pre-approval of expenditures."; see also, Exhibit 29, the November 3, 2017
email regarding the PSSG budget code being improperly used to try to cover such expenses.
The mediation training was a featured component part of NAI's August 2017 billing to
the District, which was paid improperly with grant funds under the 2016-17 PSSG. See, Exhibit
24, the NAI billing packet #2, including the August 2017 Invoice, with sign in sheets and
mediation course description sheets. Payment of such mediation training expenses and services
under the 2016-17 PSSG was wrongful for the same 2 reasons as identified above:(1) the Grant
year had closed out on June 30, 2017, and no pazt of the services being paid at this stage were for
services rendered prior to June 30, 2017, and (2) aside from bad timing, the services were not
supported by or covered by the pre-approved uses of the grant funds as determined by the
NYSED. See, Exhibit 13, a copy of the July 11, 2017 email to Regina Armstrong from Sylvia
Summary, dated 9-28-17.
As another example, you hired "Master Teachers" who were employed by you as
Superintendent of Schools to complete the Community School Grant. The "Master Teachers"
are associated with and connected to NAI. However,-from August 23, 2017 through January 3,
2018, the NYSED OSIR documented more than ten (10) instances of communication with the
District to request final CSG application documents. The NYSED OSII2 stated that "[t]he
Page 157 of 172

Y ~ 1
district's apparent lack of urgency regarding the use of these funds to benefit Hempstead's
students is concerning."
If the "Master Teachers" were supposed to complete the Community School Grant, they
failed to perform the services they were hired to perform and in addition, they were paid
thousands upon thousands of dollars for work that did not benefit the District.
Your conduct in the funneling of District money to persons and entities associated with
NAI without disclosure to the Board of their relationship with NAI is gross misconduct as
• Larry Dobroff;
• Bob Cialone
• John Sheahan
• James Clark
• Robert Rodriguez
Documents To Sunaort Charee #33

• NAI Billing
• NAI emails
• Payments to NAI
• The CSG grant paperwork
Page 158 of 172

d ~ ~
65, a copy the January 11, 2018 Plante Moran preliminazy report —to- Exhibit 65, a copy the
December 4, 2017 pre-preliminary report by Plante Moran.
During your interview in April 2018, you testified that had never seen the Januazy 11,
2018 Plante Moran preliminary report prior to it being presented to you in that interview session.
During your interview in April 2018, you testified that you had only seen the December
4, 2017 report, and that nobody had furnished to you a copy of the Januazy 11, 2018 Plante
Moran preliminary report, and besides which, you had never viewed the January 11, 2018 Plante
Moran preliminary report prior to it being presented to you in April 2018 during that interview
session.
Contrary to your claims during your interview in April 2018, in or about Januazy 19,
2018 through Januazy 24, 2018, you submitted sworn Declazations in Federal Court, in Waronker
v. Hempstead Union Free School District, et al., pending in the Eastern District of New York
under Docket Number 18-cv- 393 (DRH)(SIL), wherein you disclosed information contained in
Plante Moran's Preliminary findings issued to you on January 11, 2018.
During your interview in April 2018, you testified that you considered yourself free to
release the confidential information set forth in the December 4, 2017 pre-preliminary Plante
Moran report, as soon as any report was shazed with the Board, because you do not trust the
Board members to be capable of maintaining confidentiality once they receive such information.
During your interview in April 2018, you explained further that you did not believe
confidentiality applied any longer to the December 4, 2017 pre-preliminazy Plante Moran report,
or to the Januazy 11, 2018 Plante Moran preliminary report, because you considered
confidentiality waived as soon as a copy of any Plante Moran preliminary report would be
furnished to the members of the Board. You explained that, in your opinion, the Boud members
could not be trusted to keep such information confidential, because they had a track record of
breaching confidentiality from executive session (without identifying who or when or relating to
what) and because you knew the information would be leaked anyway.
Thus, you admitted that you unlawfully disclosed confidential information contained in
Plante Moran's preliminary report dated January 11, 2018 and/or from the December 4, 2017
pre-preliminary Plante Moran report, to the public when you included information from the
report in your public filings in your lawsuit against the District.
violated 9[12, governing confidentiality, of the contract between the District and Plante Moran.
See, Exhibit 60, a copy of the Plante Moran Contract. It also violated the District's right to
maintain the confidentiality of such information, and the confidentiality of the existence of such
investigation, which was a primary concern of the District up until you decide to unilaterally
alter the common understanding that confidentiality was a paramount interest for the District.
See, Exhibit 62, a copy of the December 6, 2017 emails regazding Dr. Bierwirth's queries about
the Plante Moran project.
Page 163 of 172

CHARGE #34:
(GROSS MISCONDUCT —
REFERRING TO OUR STUDENTS IN DISPARAGING TERMS.
BY CALLING THEM AS"ROADKILL" AND"DEAD WEIGHT"1
Specification:

During your meetings with District employee regarding the dis-enrollment of 294
students you described those seniors at the District's high school who had little or no chance of
graduating as "roadkill" and "dead weight"
The language used to describe students of the District is gross misconduct as

Witnesses To Support Char¢e #34

• Douglas Davis;
• Latisha Graham;
• Jason Noone;
• Unique Redd;
• Rachel Elias;
• Cuolina Perez.
• Dr Rodney Gilmore
Documents To Sunnort Charge #34

• Witness statements in the Disenrollment investigation
• Dr. Gilmore's report
• Guercio & Guercio report
Page 159 of 172

e
CHARGE #35:
DENYING DISENROLLED STUDENTS THE RIGHT TO RE-ENROLLI
Specification:

1.

to be enrolled in the District you violated the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioner of
Education.
the District and the New York State Attorney General.

June 30, 2018. See, Exhibit 59.
You committed gross misconduct as Superintendent of Schools by knowingly, purposely

and without due care violating 8 N.Y.C.R.R § 100.2(y) and for knowingly, purposely, and
without due care violated the AG Agreement.
Witnesses To Suuport Charge #35
• Douglas Davis;
• Latisha Graham;
• Jason Noone;
• Unique Redd;
Page 160 of l72

.~
• Rachel Elias;
• Carolina Perez.
Documents To Suuport Charge #35

• District's agreement with the New York State Attorney General
Page 161 of 172

CHARGE #36:

SCHOOLS
(GROSS MISCONDUCT —PURPOSEFUL BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY)
Specit"ication:

wantonly, or with a recklessness that is close to criminality." Matter of 91s` St. Crane Collapse
You had actual knowledge of the contents of the District's contract with Plante Moran
("PM"). You had actual knowledge that the findings of Plante Moran were supposed to be kept
confidential. See, Exhibit 60, a copy of the contract between the District and PM.
On December 4, 2017, you suddenly sought apre-preliminary report from Plante Moran,
which was supplied to you by email on December 4, 2017, by Michele McHale of Plante Moran.
See, Exhibit 61, a copy of the December 4, 2017 email from Michele McHale of Plante Moran
to you.
On or about December 6, 2017, the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, sent you an
email demanding that he (as an ex officio member of the Board of Education) and the rest of the
Boazd be provided an update as to the status of the Plante Moran investigation. Deceptively, you
failed to disclose the fact that you had requested and obtained from Michele McHale of Plante
Moran, only 2 days earlier, a report that would have sufficed to inform the Boud as to the pre-
preliminary information that was shared with you. Worse, you sat idle as Trustees Toure and
Jackson debated with the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, and insisted that no such
report should be given to him or the rest of the Trustees on the Boazd, for fear of, and due to the
6, 2017 emails exchanged between the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, and Trustees of
the Board, concerning the disclosure of the issues thus faz being spotted (as potential red flags)
for further investigation and the status of the inquiries being made by Plante Moran.
The December 4, 2017 report contained a couple of pre-preliminary findings that were
dropped by the time that you asked Plante Moran to provide a preliminary report on January 10,
2018, which resulted in the Plante Moran preliminary report being issued dated Januazy 11,
2018.
The December 4, 2017 report also did not contain information regarding a couple of
topics that were reported in the preliminazy report dated January 11, 2018. Compare, Exhibit
Page 162 of 172

Indisputably, confidentiality was a paramount interest for the District prior to January 11,
2018, as evidenced by the arguments you made, and that Trustees Toure and Jackson made when
they debated with the Distinguished Educator, Jack Bierwirth, and insisted that no such report
should be given to him or the rest of the Trustees on the Board, for fear of, and due to the
6, 2017 emails regazding Dr. Bierwirth's queries about the Plante Moran project.
the District to be damaged in the form of extra legal costs incurred, and otherwise avoidable
disruptions of the District's operational effectiveness being overcome, because the Nassau
County District Attorney's office opened up an investigation of its own and has subpoenaed
documents from the District regarding the Plante Moran investigation.
the District to be damaged in the form of placing a cloud of suspicion over employees' heads
when no such suspicion is warranted, thereby creating distractions and disrupting the District's
operational effectiveness.
Your decision to publicly reveal the confidential contents of Plante Moran's Preliminary
Findings was gross misconduct as Superintendent of Schools.
Witnesses To Suunort Charge #36

• Larry Dobroff
• Varleton McDonald
• Plante Moran witness

• Plante Moran's Preliminary findings
• Court filings
• Waronker Interview
Page 164 of 172

. ~
CHARGE #37:
HIRING OF A WEAK BUSINESS OFFICIAL
TO ENABLE YOU TO MANIPULATE HIM TO PAY NAI AS YOU WISHEDI
Specification:

wantonly, or with a recklessness that is close to criminality." Matter of 91s~ St. Crane Collapse
You hired an inexperienced Business Official, In Larry Dobroff, and imperiled the
Dishict's finances, by failing to timely file ST-3s, thereby making the District unable to pay its
bills when they came due.
You rejected qualified candidates for the position, such as Ed Cullen, during the hiring
process, who later needed to be hired to mentor Larry Dobroff.
You hired Larry Dobroff over other more qualified candidates, because you wanted a
weak business official so you could manipulate him and make him succumb to your pressure to
pay NAI and hire the Master teachers, and hire Varleton McDonald, without constraints from
your Business Official.
Hiring Lany Dobroff, an inexperienced and unqualified Business Official, when you
knew that the District had BO operational problems, so you could have a free hand to engage in
financial activities that you wanted to pursue with minimal restraint, is gross misconduct.
Witnesses To Suuport Charge #37
• James Clazk
• Ana Lovasz
• Dr. David B. Gates, Trustee
• Lamont Johnson, Trustee
• Randy Stith, trustee
• Dr. Jack Bierwirth, Distinguished Educator
• Larry Dobroff
Page 165 of 172

b ~ e
• Ed Cullen
• Frank Dragone
• Keith Halop
• Robert Cialone
• Sylvia Sulowski
• Chumi Diamond and staff at Cerini &Associates

• the Interview transcripts of Larry Dobroff
• District email mailbox for Shimon Wuonker
• NAI RFP Packet
• NAI Contract with the District
• Hamburger Firm billing records
• NAI emails
• NAI Payment Packets
• Sylvia Sulowski emails
• Robert Cialone file notes
• Board Policies
Page 166 of 172

~ ~ 9
CHARGE #38:
APPROVAL OF UNDESERVING OVERTIME
TO EXEMPT MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEEI
Specification:

wantonly, or with a recklessness that is close to criminality." Matter of 91s` St. Crane Collapse
In July 2017, you authorized Timothy Gregg to be paid overtime compensation for his
work performed for the District, even though he is an employee who is exempt from overtime
compensation both under federal law and New York State law.
As a result of your authorization, Timothy Gregg received approximately $144,000.00 in

overtime payments.
Your decision to unilaterally authorize Timothy Gregg overtime payments have cost the
District in excess of $144,000.00 and was gross misconduct as Superintendent of Schools.
Witnesses To Suoaort Charge #38

• Larry Dobroff;
• Timothy Gregg
• Plante Moran witness

• Plante Moran's Preliminary findings
• Timothy Gregg's payroll history
• Timothy Gregg's time records
Page 167 of 172

~ 0
CHARGE #39:
(GROSS MISCONDUCT —ABUSE OF DISCRETION — NEGATIVE PUBLICITYI
Specification:

In September 2017 you were made aware that Theresa Cucina, a teacher in the District,
was involved in potential criminal activity involving the purchasing and shipping of computers
to and by the District.
The District arranged with the New York City Police Department to effectuate an arrest
of Ms. Cucina at the District.
You informed the media of the arrest and staged a "peril" walk of Ms. Cucina at the
District without informing the New York City Police Department.
By informing the media and placing the District in a negative light by focusing upon the
arrest of Ms. Cucina, you committed gross misconduct.
Your conduct constitutes gross misconduct because you knowingly and intentionally
brought negative press upon the District.
• Larry Dobroff
• NYPD Detectives

• Newsday article
Page 168 of 172

t . ~
CHARGE #40:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND UNDUE PRESSURE ON EMPLOYEESI
Specification:

wantonly, or with a recklessness that is close to criminality." Matter of 91st St. Crane Collnpse
On or about August 3, 2017 you pressured the Districts Business Office to pay the New
American Initiative ("NAI") on August 3, 2017 outside the ordinary course of business, in a
special check run.
As Superintendent of Schools you used you position of power to influence and pressure
the District into paying NAI, the organization that you founded and who used your name on its
first invoice to the District to obtain preferential payment. As Mr. Dobroff testified to, these
payments were made with "fire drill" speed.
In August 2017, the Districts Business Office was seriously behind paying the Districts
vendors. However, in order to satisfy the District's Superintendent of Schools and to bow to his
pressure, the District's Business Office paid NAI within one day of receiving its August 3, 2017
invoice, which was unprecedented in the Districts Business Office's experience.
pressured the District's Business Office to expedite payment to the New American Initiative, an
organization that you founded.
• Lany Dobroff;
• Suzette McMillan;

• New American Initiative August 3, 2017 invoice, payment, and other documents related
to the August 3, 2017 payment.
• Testimony of Larry Dobroff under oath
Page 169 of 172

a
Y 4 ~
CHARGE #41:

SCHOOLS
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND UNDUE PRESSURE ON CLAIMS AUDITORSI
Specification:

wantonly, or with a recklessness that is close to criminality." Matter of91st St. Crane Collapse
On or about August 31, 2017 you pressured the Claims Auditors, Cerini &Associates, to
pay the New American Initiative ("NAI") on August 31, 2017 outside the ordinary course of
business, in a special check run.
As Superintendent of Schools you used you position of power to influence and pressure
the District into paying NAI, the organization that you founded and who used your name on its
first invoice to the District to obtain preferential payment preference.
In August 2017, the Districts Business Office was seriously behind paying the Districts
vendors. However, in order to satisfy the District's Superintendent of Schools and to bow to his
pressure, the District's Business Office paid NAI twice in the month of August 2017.
pressured the District's Claims Auditors, Cerini &Associates, to expedite payment to the New
American Initiative, an organization that you founded.

• Larry Dobroff;
• Suzette McMillan;
Documents To Suuport Charee #41

• New American Initiative August 31, 2017 payment, and other documents related to the
August 31, 2017 payment.
Page 170 of 172

M P ~'~ a ~ ~
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you aze entitled to a hearing on the above Charges. In
accordance with your Contract, within five (5) days of your receipt of these Charges, the
District/Board and you shall submit to the District Clerk a list of names and addresses, in order
of preference, of five persons who aze acceptable and shall serve as the hearing officer. Within
two days of receipt, the District Clerk shall compaze the lists to see if the name of any individual
appears on both lists. If so, the first such name to appear on the list submitted by you shall be
selected as the hearing officer. In the event that no individual appears on both lists or in the
event both sides do not timely submit lists to the District Clerk, the hearing officer shall be
selected pursuant to the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association
established for labor arbitration.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE it is the intent of the parties to provide an effective due
process proceeding and to permit either pazty to appeal from any and all aspects of said
proceeding and from the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to Section 310 of the Education
Law or Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the cost of the hearing, including the heazing officer's
fees and expenses, will be borne by the District.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you and the Boazd shall have the right to seek discovery
with respect to the Chazges and any documentary evidence in the possession of either party.
Either pazty may petition the hearing officer for any additional documentary discovery you and
the Board deem necessary.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you have the right to select a public or private hearing in
your sole discretion, the right to a minimum of thirty days between receipt of the service of the
Charge and the commencement of any hearing hereunder; the right to be represented by counsel
at all stages of said proceeding; the right to have all testimony taken under oath and the right to
present witnesses on your own behalf; the right to question real and tangible evidence in any
form,including documents, papers and other such evidence.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board shall have the burden of proof and the burden
of proceeding with regard to the above described charges and heazing, and shall be required to
prove the Chazges by a preponderance of the evidence.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any Charge against you which was not received in
writing by you in accordance with the provisions of your Contract shall not be admissible at any
heazing against you.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the terms and conditions of your Contract, including but
not limited to salary and benefits, shall continue to be in full force and effect during the
pendency of the proceeding herein described until the final decision of the hearing officer, as
discussed below, or until full and final adjudication of any appeal in accordance with the law,
unless the District obtains a court order to the contrary based upon your delay in proceeding.
Page 171 of 172

d _
rt ,/~ .
~a ., r `,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the decision of the heazing officer shall contain express
findings of fact based solely on the record before the hearing officer and shall contain
conclusions of law as well as the hearing officer's detemunation as to guilt or innocence on each
Chazge. The determination of the hearing officer shall be binding upon the parties, subject to
their right to appeal in accordance with the law.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that if none of the Chazges'against you are sustained as a
result of the hearing and appeal, the Board- shall reimburse you for the attorneys' fees and
disbursements and other expenses incurred by you in defense of the Charges.
PLEASE TAKE FINAL NOTICE that the establishment of this contractual procedure
shall not be deemed to waive any rights which you or the Boazd have at law or equity.
Preferred this 7Ì` day of August 2018,
(_A,l1~~)~F G olnlrlG~.BoardMember
Page 172 of 172

Waronker Chgs Specs.08 07 18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waronker Chgs Specs.08 07 18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waronker Chgs Specs.08 07 18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What rights does the respondent have?

What rights does the respondent have?

Q J.

HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT

H$MPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT and

TO: SHIMON A. WARONKER,Ed.D.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE it is the intent of the parties to provide an

E FURTHER NOTICE; that if none of the Charges against you aze

Preferred this 7`h day of August 2018,

HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL

TO: SHIMON A. WARONKER,Ed.D.

"RESOLVED, that the District's Superintendent of Schools, Shimon

(1) the BOCES investigation of his involvement in and the

(2) the Districts Special Counsel's investigation of his involvement in

(3) the District's Special Counsel's [to be assigned] investigation of

(4) the Districts investigation of the Superintendent of Schools'

(5) the District's investigation of the Superintendent of Schools'

(6) the Districts investigation of the Superintendent of Schools'

(7) the Districts investigation of the Superintendent of Schools'

RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE MATTERS

Chaz e 21 Ne lect of Dut —Failure to Timel Develo an Action Plan

Charge 30 Gross Misconduct — Disenrollment of 294 Students without Compliance with

Charges wherein the District contends that

YOU MATERIALLY BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO PERFORM

(CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING NAI —

~ TNAA stands for "The New American Academy"

General Municipal Law Section 801, entitled, "Conflicts of Interest Prohibited,"

Except as provided in section eight hundred two of this chapter, (1) no

General Municipal Law Section 802, entitled, "Exceptions," at subsection (1)(b),

l.b. A contract with a person, firm, corporation or association in

General Municipal Law Section 803, entitled, "Disclosure of Interest," provides, in

1. Any municipal officer or employee who has, will have, or later

Any contract willfully entered into by or with a municipality in which

Any municipal officer or employee who willfully and knowingly violates

1. No municipal officer or employee shall:

• Board Policy #6700(Purchasing),

C. The Charade of Lorraine Scorsone acting as the NAI's "Interim CEO," as

1. Pursuing the NAI's Contract with TNAACS

$ See,footnote #7, infra.

2. The August 3,2017 Payment to the NAI from the District

3. The September 25 and September 26, 2017 NYSED Charter School

a. Yeshiva Ohr Reuven in Suffern, NY.

b. The Jewish Academy in Northport, NY.

As another example, on October 16, 2017, Lorraine Scorsone followed up on an existing

The Jewish Academy

c. The Chabad in Bayside, Queens, NY.

However, on Januazy 5, 2018, Vanessa Mazie Scorsone replied to Dina Blesofsky,

Exhibit 40, a copy of the "White Paper" written by Loraine Scorsone

Exhibit 62, a copy of March 7, 2018 email from Loraine Scorsone to

E. The resignation of Lorraine Scorsone as the NAI's dejure CEO,and your

Witnesses To Suaport Charee #1

Documents To Suanort Charee #1

YOU MATERIALLY BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO PERFORM

(VIOLATION OF LAW —BID RIGGING TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO THE NAIL

3. Cambridge Leadership Association

The fourth vendor, McKinsey &Company, is a world renowned management consulting