Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Water Dirt Hiring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises water‑damage, past settlement and hiring concerns during Eastchester public comment
Summary
Joseph San Maria, an Eastchester resident, told the board his Water Street home has sustained about $12,000 in basement damage he attributes to 'free dirt' placed in 2007 and said he believes a past $600,000 settlement linked to the issue was not shown in the district budget.
Joseph San Maria, an Eastchester resident, used the public comment period to raise two concerns: ongoing water damage he says began after “free dirt” was placed in 2007, and questions about the district’s handling of an athletic‑director appointment.
“I own a home on Water Street that's water in my basement that was from free dirt back in 02/2007 that's led to $12,000 worth of damages,” San Maria said, describing meetings with the district and correspondence with outside counsel. He told the board there was previously a lawsuit he referred to as the “Dirt Man” lawsuit and said a $600,000 agreement had been paid to the district; he said he could find no line item in the budget showing those funds.
San Maria also raised concerns about the athletic‑director posting and certification process, saying that a person described at an earlier meeting as obtaining certification and being eligible for a position had not completed coursework by September and was designated “interim.” He also alleged the individual used the position to benefit himself; the board chair cut off the comment when the remarks referenced a person involved in an active investigation.
Board responses: several board members reminded the speaker of the public‑comment time limit and cautioned against naming or discussing individuals during the public comment period when an investigation is pending. A board member noted that the district attorney’s office has an open investigation, and another trustee emphasized that the board does not run day‑to‑day personnel decisions — that responsibility lies with the superintendent and the district’s personnel committees — while affirming the board members are town residents and unpaid volunteers.
What the record shows and does not show: the transcript records San Maria’s allegations and his stated dollar amounts; it does not contain corroborating documentation for the $600,000 claim or the outcome of any prior lawsuit. The transcript records the board asking San Maria to consult meeting minutes and indicated that some elements he referenced predated the current superintendent and board members.
Next steps and context: the board asked the speaker to review prior minutes and said legal and administrative processes are in place; the district’s staff and attorneys will handle investigations and personnel procedures. The public comment portion of the meeting was time‑limited and the chair enforced the limit when allegations moved into areas the board indicated were under investigation.
