Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents press board to reverse ban and insist on transparency after unsigned letter; trustees say they were not consulted
Summary
Public speakers urged the East Ramapo board to rescind a six‑month ban on community activist Terry Rodriguez and criticized an unsigned letter sent ‘on behalf of the board’; several trustees said they were not consulted before the letter was issued.
Parents and community members used the July 1 board meeting’s public‑speaking period to ask trustees to reconsider disciplinary action that community members say restricted a frequent commenter’s ability to attend meetings.
Mark Pessin, who identified himself as a former parent and longtime East Ramapo teacher, urged trustees to withdraw what he described as a six‑month ban on Terry Rodriguez, saying her advocacy brought improvements on asbestos, lead and other health issues in district schools. “We need her here, not somewhere else,” Pessin said, asking the board to replace an extended exclusion with a warning so she could continue to speak on school safety and facilities matters.
During and after public comments several trustees said they had not been included in the decision to send the letter to Rodriguez and that the letter was unsigned but stated it was issued ‘on behalf of the board.’ One trustee said publicly that they had not been part of any board conversation that led to the letter, and another trustee said they learned of it only after it was sent.
Trustees questioned whether the letter had legal force. A board member advised the public that, in their view, the letter had “no legal bearing,” and several trustees said the board should adopt a standard process for handling incidents that might lead to restrictions on public participation. Trustees also said they would raise the matter for board discussion at a future meeting and asked administration to ensure that board communications on such matters be coordinated with trustees.
No formal board action to reverse or modify the letter was taken during the meeting. Members discussed the need for a joint process involving the full board and administration before sending letters that appear to represent the board’s position.
The item remained a matter for future consideration; trustees said they would place it on a subsequent agenda to review the incident, relevant policies and any recommended next steps.
