Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Resident presses board on FOIL handling and questions former superintendent’s resignation and payout
Loading...
Summary
At public comment, resident Jerry Lee Stormville accused district staff of obstructing FOIL requests, raised concerns about redactions and delivery methods, and questioned a former superintendent’s resignation timing and a $44,000 payout; Superintendent Plotkin said the district investigated absence dates and will improve FOIL access.
During the public‑comment period at the April 14 Carmel Central School District Board meeting, resident Jerry Lee Stormville criticized the district’s handling of FOIL requests and raised a series of allegations about past administrative actions.
Stormville said he and others had been told FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) costs were concentrated among a “handful of people,” a claim he disputed. He told the board the district reported FOIL costs of about $24,000 between July and March but that the Universal Pre‑K program (UPK) had cost taxpayers approximately $200,000–$230,000 this year. He also said some FOIL responses were delivered as expiring shared links that were hard to access on tablets and alleged that multiple redactions in certain FOIL returns made the process inefficient.
On personnel matters, Stormville read FOIL‑obtained communications he said show a former superintendent requesting remote work and sick time within a range of dates and argued that the district should pursue recovery of a roughly $44,000 payout for unused days. He also cited an apparent discrepancy between dates on the former superintendent’s resume and a Regents resignation notice and characterized that as a potential resume inaccuracy.
Superintendent Plotkin responded to the public comment, saying the district had reviewed the FOILs and inquired of the former superintendent about the specific dates Stormville cited. Plotkin said the former superintendent provided contemporaneous journal entries and an explanation of those days and that the administration had investigated the matter. Plotkin acknowledged a history of community mistrust and said the district aims to be transparent while protecting student and personnel privacy where redactions are required by law.
Trustees and staff addressed technical FOIL delivery concerns later in the meeting. Trustee Wise and others reported citizens were receiving FOILs via password‑protected, time‑limited links that required account registration and sometimes failed to deliver access emails; the administration said some links expire for cybersecurity reasons and because files can be too large for email, and committed to finding a more usable delivery method and to post FOIL results on the website where practicable.
What was not decided: No formal determination about the $44,000 payout or legal action was made at the meeting; trustees requested follow‑up information from administration.
