.

School Board Pres: "Enough, Kings Park" Over Barrett Fundraiser Controversy

Kings Park Board of Ed will draft formal letter to trustee Liz Barrett containing questions; expect answer by Dec. 17 meeting.

Kings Park Board of Education trustee Liz Barrett. (Patch file photo)
Kings Park Board of Education trustee Liz Barrett. (Patch file photo)
Kings Park Board of Education's latest efforts to resolve ethical questions raised by a community fundraiser for trustee Liz Barrett dissolved into a yelling contest in front of students and parents on Tuesday night. 

"Enough. This is had gone on far too long. Our students do not deserve this embarrassment," said Marie Goldstein, president of Kings Park Board of Education. 

Trustee Charles Leo read the board's statement in response to Kings Park resident Jim McGuire's request the community fundraiser for Barrett be reviewed in relation to the section 6110 of the Code of Ethics for Board Members related to receiving gifts: 
 
"Several weeks ago a member of the Kings Park community asked the Board of Education to address concerns regarding a community fund raiser that was held to cover legal fees for Board of Education Trustee Liz Barrett. Specifically, the community member asked if Board of Education Policy #6110 had been violated. That community member reminded the Board of Education at its November 19, 2013 meeting that an answer had not yet been provided.

Board members take this issue very seriously and have spent a significant amount of time discussing the situation and seeking advice from the district's legal counsel and the School Boards Association. The Board of Education held a retreat on November 25, 2013 and reviewed their options with regard to this issue. Four Board members agreed to a course of action and will provide an answer to the question posted by the community member at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 17, 2013." 

Goldstein said the board has agreed to send Barrett a formal written letter containing any questions they have regarding the fundraiser. Barrett would then be given opportunity to respond in writing and her answers would be reviewed before further action is decided. 

Other options laid before the board including handing the matter over to Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota or hiring outside counsel to provide a legal opinion, according to Goldstein. 

However, Barrett suddenly asked on Tuesday night if the board would not agree immediately to open a Q-and-A session. 

"
I don’t see why we can’t resolve it tonight rather than prolong it," Barrett said. "Being we are discussing it now, why not finish the conversation rather than prolong that for two weeks."

Her suggestion started a heated debate among the board members. A few
residents began standing up and calling out, despite stern warnings from Leo, to interject with their thoughts and opinions. 

"It's a joke," shouted one man from the audience. 

It's clear the ethical questions and controversies over the community fundraiser for Barrett and the Board of Education's investigation into the matter have divided the Kings Park community. 

Goldstein said board members, who she did not individually name, have received phone calls from community members warning them not to move forward with this action against Barrett in any way, shape or form.

Police reports have been filed for acts of vandalism though these acts were not clearly linked to the Barrett controversy, according to Goldstein.

"I've been on this board for 14 years and the adult behavior I have witnessed for the last few are unconscionable and it is wrong," she said. 

Leo made clear that contrary to some community members' beliefs, the board's efforts to move forward in investigating the fundraiser is not in an effort to force Barrett off the Board of Education. 

"Liz [Barrett] has offered to resign twice, and the board has not accepted it," Leo said. 

He then admitted to not spending time thinking about various questions over community fundraiser as he's "not looking to get Liz [Barrett] off the board." 

Leo said the repeatedly raised question of whether faculty members did attend the community fundraiser could be important. Kings Park Board of Education and school officials are still in negotiations to reach a contractual agreement with its teachers union.

ChudleyQ December 04, 2013 at 04:07 PM
According to Ms. Goldstein, there have been “phone calls from community members warning them not to move forward with this action against Barrett in any way, shape or form.” While she doesn’t come out and call these “threats”, the implication is pretty clear. Furthermore, she states that “Police reports have been filed for acts of vandalism,” implying that the acts were related to the Barrett matter, while not actually fully connecting these events. So why would the School Board subject themselves to this? Wouldn’t it be better to off-load the responsibility for handling this to independent counsel? This situation has gone way beyond the ability of the Board to manage, and has totally bogged down the administration of our schools. (The Board read the statement at the meeting Tuesday night, but it still hasn’t been posted on the website, so I’m assuming that what it says on the Patch is correct.) Ms. Goldstein, Ms. Nally, Mr. Locascio and Mr. Leo, I beg you to forget about the money, and let somebody else handle this. The longer you are involved, the more it will polarize our community, and the deeper the hurt and the damage will be. Whatever the cost of the outside counsel is, it’s worth it. If you truly want to save the money, and use it for the betterment of our schools, then the next time Ms. Barrett offers to resign, ACCEPT IT. There comes a time in everyone’s life when they realize they don’t have the skills or abilities to do what they desperately want to do. In my heart I may know I’d be a great prima ballerina or center for the Knicks, but I’m just not cut out for it. Realistically, aren’t we to that point with Ms. Barrett? Three different instances where (at a minimum) her judgment was questionable, in a matter of 18 months or so. It just seems that she doesn’t have the skills and abilities to continue as a Board Member. If this proceeds the way the Board statement says it will, then as for the written explanation from Ms. Barrett, it would be folly to limit it to a couple of questions. This is administrative law and there needs to be an evidentiary trail. That means a full, meaningful and comprehensive explanation from Ms. Barrett is needed. As for the comment by “Learnto ReadKP”, I would encourage him to read 6110 in its entirety, and not focus on one comment by Mr. Leo. The rule is designed to protect both the school district AND Ms. Barrett, and to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Objectively, it’s pretty clear on its face that 6110 is designed to prevent situations where it “could reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended or expected to influence him/her in the performance of official duties or was intended as a reward for any official action on his/her part”. The key is “reasonably be inferred”, not actual wrongdoing. I don’t know Ms. Barrett. She may very well be “St. Elizabeth of the Park”. But she’s made a mistake here (and not her first – I honestly have a bigger problem with her using the office to get onto school grounds and having employees sign her nominating petition than the fundraiser.). Maybe it was accidental, maybe it wasn’t. But it was a violation. We can’t and shouldn’t pick and choose what rules we think are important. Get an independent voice to decide it. If it’s a violation, let them decide what the punishment should be. And then let’s move on.
KP Mom December 04, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Everybody needs to move on from this and leave Mrs. Barrett, her husband and children alone. Move on to more important issues like the Common Core, bullying and the other issues in our schools. Ask the Superintendent and Board President about important matters regarding the children in the district. MOVE ON!!!
Joe December 05, 2013 at 08:03 AM
Exactly KP Mom. Everyone needs to drop this. Liz Barrett was falsely accused of something she didn't do. The case was dropped and Liz's friends got together to raise money to get back part of the legal fees she should have never had in the first place. What is it that people don't understand. That's what Kings Parker's do. We rally to people in need. That's what makes this such a special town. Now to the real matter in hand. The board should never renew Dr. Agruso's contract when it comes due and should in fact be asking for her resignation for making miserable the lives of those who have supported Liz Barrett. She has dismissed, transferred or made it difficult for these district employees for no reason and "this" needs to be the investigation at hand!!! Why hasn't anyone else brought this up?
DJMc December 05, 2013 at 08:29 AM
ericu, if that's the point you got from what I wrote then I apologize. I'm saying that this just goes on, and on, and on....I don't know what Ms. Barrett did or didn't do, you obviously seem to "know" what happened, I must have missed the actual proof and verification of what happened and what didn't, and by who and when & where, and again....on, and on, and on. YOU should talk to your kids about this, what an amazing life learning opportunity. They are going to deal with this type of situation in their life and it would be great info for later. But it has to be done with the facts, no one sides facts, only the actual known facts, then ask the kids what they think. But I again think this has been addressed over & over by the BOE. You are not going to convince the left side to believe the right side, not going to happen. I am not for or against Ms. Barrett, she is not going to voluntarily step aside for the good of the students because she honestly believes (or has convinced herself) that she is in the right. So what do we do? Again I'll say...I want to move on and concentrate on the kids and the help THEY NEED. Not which "adult" is right, which is wrong, and who are both working off their own personal agendas anyway. Ok? Not that the truth or the actions of elected officials are not important, but that you are going to go around and around on this matter and never get to the TRUTH in the first place.
ChudleyQ December 05, 2013 at 09:33 AM
Somebody please help me with this. I don’t know much of the facts behind the first incident with Ms. Barrett. What I do know is that it was never addressed on the merits of whatever she was accused of doing, because of a procedural screw up in service. That’s unfortunate for us in Kings Park and for Ms. Barrett. Those who think she was innocent will continue to believe that she was innocent, and those who think she did what she was accused of will continue to believe she was guilty. At this point, we can’t help that. But forgetting about that for now, how do you defend her behavior after that? She violated school security to go onto the grounds of a Kings Park School to get school district employees to sign her nominating petition, while they were working. Organizations have conflict of interest rules and regulations designed to prevent employees being put in tough situations like this. As a school board member, Ms. Barrett is in a position of authority. It’s not fair for her to put employees on the spot like that. Maybe the employees would have signed the petition anyway, but that really isn’t the point. It’s bad judgment by Ms. Barrett, and a clear violation of the rules she took an oath to uphold. The School District totally dropped the ball on this, and in the July 9th letter, they focused on the investigation involving School District employees (and the authority of Dr. Agruso to conduct that investigation), totally disregarding the misconduct of Ms. Barrett. As for the fundraiser, I would never question the motivation of the people of Kings Park, who obviously had their hearts in the right place. But School Board member is an elected position. It’s a political position. There are rules that govern where, when and how you can accept money, gifts, campaign contributions, etc. All candidates are expected to abide by the rules. Even though hearts may have been in the right place, Ms. Barrett again violated the rules. It’s very easy for campaign contributions, gifts, etc. to be become a slippery slope. Allegations are easy to make, and tough to defend (I believe Ms. Barrett would agree with that), so the rules are written with the intent of avoiding the APPEARANCE of impropriety. I want to say again that I don’t know Ms. Barrett. She obviously has a lot of support among the people of Kings Park. But she made at least two mistakes in judgment, which may have led to violations of rules and regulations. She should be held accountable, the same way the students are held accountable when they violate the rules and regulations. As for Ms. Barrett, I would encourage her to look into what happened with Mike Tomlin, the football coach for the Pittsburgh Steelers. At a game the other day he got too close to the field, and impacted the play on the field. Tomlin accepted responsibility for his actions and apologized for bringing negative attention on the team. To my knowledge we’ve never seen that approach from Ms. Barrett. From her we’ve gotten only denials and arrogance. I agree with everybody who says that we need to be done with this. But it has to be dealt with, or it will never go away. If Ms. Barrett truly believes she is in the right, then she should embrace the opportunity to clear her name. I hope she does that. In the meantime, give all of this to outside counsel. At the next Board meeting they can say it is all being handled, and that the next item on the agenda is the Common Core.
sally pruslow December 05, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Joe it is called fear....People want to keep their jobs, some people losing their job could result in a loss of their retirement package. Also people who want to speak out can't because they may have relatives and friends working here. Some parents are even afraid for their children's placements. Not really a place were differences of opinions are accepted. The last two board meetings we have had resolutions where two employees are being sent for a pysh evaluations, one instructional and one none instructional! Another issue is that every BOE member takes the same oath, not just Mrs. Barrett. Mr. Locasico has not filled out his financial statement correctly. There are omissions under NYSED Law and possibly in violation of the famous 6110 section 805-a if had been filled out properly. Mrs Goldstein also hinted that she might have had board members at her home for family functions. If there are more than two members at her home in KP at the same time she is in violation of the NYSEDmeeting law ( when three members are together within the dist boundaries it is considered a meeting) . However, outside the dist. it is ok...No one is perfect, everyone probably has an issue, stop holding some people to different level of accountability, agree to disagree and start acting like responsible adults.
Joe December 05, 2013 at 12:10 PM
You are right Sally. It is fear. All of the people who have been effected were supporters of Liz and those who would have liked to support her are fearful of their jobs. Who does Agruso think she is by playing with people's lives like this and why is the board putting up with this. Whether or not Liz did something wrong by accepting money is one issue. I don't know because I don't know what the by laws of the job are. But what ever happened before this is a non issue. It was dropped so leave it alone. The real issue here is Agruso's chess playing with district employees or making them so miserable that they quit. It's just appalling.
Joe December 05, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Also how are we to support an anti bullying program when the biggest bully of them all is our superintendent.
sally pruslow December 05, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Maybe everyone, young and old can take advantage of a good program. Maybe if we put the money to a good anti bulling program instead of 2 electric signs we would be in a better place!
LAX_dad December 05, 2013 at 08:26 PM
I am outraged. I am also a little bit ashamed. I was told to come to the board meeting and support Mrs Barrett. I have not really followed the whole story from the beginning, just the “on the field” gossip. I was there at the board meeting to watch Rich Barrett scream and rant. I heard the simple questions being asked of Mrs Barrett and the dodging of those questions. I must be a fool. I actually started thinking about old board meetings- including the pre-election meeting where Liz refused to answer questions and Mrs Deford bullied the moderator into allowing the questions to go unanswered. I saw some old claims about breaching confidentiality and no actual denial- just dodging the questions and claiming that there was some kind of witch hunt. It is so crystal clear to me, now, as to what is going on. If I make a mistake at work- I must admit it to my boss and then go on. Guess what, Barretts? WE are your boss here. I cannot believe I listened to the Barrett BS for so long. I believe that it all originates from gossiping about students and staff. She gets confronted and instead of talking about it- she hires a lawyer. A good lawyer, in fact, who gets the complaint thrown out on a technicality- so her friends throw a fundraiser ( and yes- I was there- I am an idiot) and invite staff members and community members. Then a signature violation fiasco. Has she admitted any of this? NO- people like Sally Pruslow and I guess ME) felt the whole issue should be dropped- so she made a mistake – so what? I could let it go if I felt that she made an honest mistake- but her failure to admit to ANYTHING makes it much more insidious than I originally thought. Why was I asked to come to the meeting when it was clear that there was a plan to put all of this in writing and just quietly resolve this? I was supposed to be there to be an angry voice in the crowd. And I am, Liz, now I am angry. If Rich had just stopped screaming, he would have realized that the board was working to resolve this and Instead, here we are back at square one. With one exception, I don’t think I am the only one who learned a lot on Tuesday. I apologize to Mrs Goldstein and Mr. Locascio for believing the lies. I thank Mr. Leo not allowing them to bully him the way they bullied the board in the past. And now that I have seen for myself the lengths they will go to to mask their guilt,I hope the public learns the truth. Mrs Barret- please resign and put an end to this once and for all.
sally pruslow December 05, 2013 at 08:59 PM
Lax-dad I never said it should dropped. Speak for your self. Who ever you are! Again, if you not have the ...to use your name I find you NOT creditable.
Paul December 05, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Wow and thanks LAXdad for saying what most of us are thinking. I have known Marie Goldstein for over 15 years since my son started in KPY football and her girls were cheerleading. I find her refreshingly honest and fiercely on the side of the kids and community. So Sally Pruslow please stop misquoting and trouble making. You clearly misrepresented what Marie Goldstein said. What Marie actually said was that a community member had been to her daughter’s communion. That was like ten years ago. We all actually laughed. Sally says the community is in fear? The only fear I have right now is that a member of the board of education would be threatened by a community member to stop seeking the truth. I am deeply troubled by that. Marie, if you read this patch, I want you to know that there are more of us than there are of them, we just don’t all shout as loudly or rudely. Keep doing what you are doing. It was obvious that you were trying to bring the community together. You tolerated the disgusting display by Rich Barrett and the few of the friends that followed him, while the rest of us watched as the truth unfolded. Tom and Charlie seem to be on the same page. I thank you, Marie for taking the time to explain the truth even over the terrible things that some people were saying about you in the audience. I also appreciated Tom and Charlie standing up to the bullies, LAX- I just want you to know that Marie has been fighting for our kids since my son was 5 years old and she still is. Some people are going to wake up ( like you did LAXdad) and then the healing can begin. So- I’ll add my two cents and just say GO-LIZ-GO
LAX_dad December 05, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Sally- do you think I'm crazy? I come to the meeting to supposedly support Liz Barrett and leave with opened eyes. So I should use my real name so they can threaten MY family?I have kids in this school. Seems to me that ChudleyQ, ericu and even your great supporter Joe know better than to open themselves up to that kind of harassment. Guess you think that Joe is credit-able since he agrees with you.
Learnto ReadKP December 06, 2013 at 05:43 AM
@Laxdad - You wrote "I heard the simple questions being asked of Mrs Barrett and the dodging of those questions." Please explain which questions you heard that were being dodged. The article cited one specific question about whether employees attended the fundraiser. As I stated in my first post, that question has nothing to do with the policy that was addressed in the community member complaint. What other questions did Liz "dodge"? The article actually states that it was Liz who ASKED THE BOARD what other questions they would like answered. And the board COULD NOT COME UP with any at that time. You comment about other people's screaming and ranting, except your post seems to be mostly a rant with very little substance to support your claim.
ChudleyQ December 06, 2013 at 09:45 AM
To Lax_Dad: You are absolutely right, I post anonymously because of fear of reprisals. This is a small town, and this issue has divided us. The statements made by Ms. Goldstein implying threats and talking about police reports is all of the evidence I need to know I made the right decision. To LearnTo ReadKP: You are right and you are wrong about Ms. Barrett dodging the questions. She wasn’t asked questions at the meeting the other night, so she never really had to dodge any, did she? And also because she wasn’t asked any questions, she is now denied what she really wanted, which was the opportunity to say that she answered all of their questions. Seems like she was outsmarted on this, and that the plan she and Mr. Barrett developed didn’t quite work out the way she expected. But we all know she’s dodged on every issue that has come up with her. As I understand it from what’s appeared publicly, she dodged service on the confidentiality matter, which resulted in it dying an administrative death. The past 18 months she’s moved more dodges than a car dealership. To Dan: The meeting was videotaped (they all are), and would take a 15 year old about ten minutes to load it onto the website. The funny part of all of this to me, is that Ms. Barrett has no intention of ever letting this be “decided”. She wants it “resolved”, which for her would have to mean that it goes away. She knows that she was wrong on the nominating petition and on the fundraiser. Had she admitted what she did and acknowledged she made a mistake, the Board probably would have slapped her on the wrist, admonished her, and it would be over. But instead she dodged, she avoided, she screamed about witch hunts. Her conduct here is just sad. Having been unable to go to the meeting, bothers me that the School Board said they would issue a statement, and so far there is nothing officially published from them. Nothing on the school website, no follow up statements. All we have is what appeared in the Patch article. That’s sad too.
Charlie Gardner December 06, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Sally, I must differ with your interpretation of the Open Meetings Law regarding Board members being present at the same social function. The definition of a "meeting" is not so broad as to include any and all get-togethers of a quorum of a public body. Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government, and an acknowledged expert on New York State’s Open Meetings law had this to say: "In a landmark decision rendered in 1978, the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, found that any gathering of a quorum of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business is a "meeting" that must be convened open to the public, whether or not there is an intent to take action and regardless of the manner in which a gathering may be characterized [see Orange County Publications v. Council of the City of Newburgh, 60 AD 2d 409, aff'd 45 NY 2d 947 (1978)]. Inherent in the definition and its judicial interpretation is the notion of intent. If there is an intent that a majority of a public body convene for the purpose of conducting public business, such a gathering would, in my opinion, constitute a meeting subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings Law. However, if there is no intent that a majority of public body will gather for purpose of conducting public business, collectively, as a body, I do not believe that the Open Meetings Law would be applicable. In the same decision as that referenced above, the Court specified that "not every assembling of the members of a public body was intended to be included within the definition", indicating that social events or chance meetings do not fall within the Open Meetings Law (id., 416)." Key words, my emphasis, “for the purpose of conducting public business."
sally pruslow December 06, 2013 at 12:57 PM
Charlie that was not what your opinion was when we served on the board. We were very careful to follow that rule. You never quoted the above decisions, even though they were available at that time, apparently. You were like the rest of the board a rule follower and often the setter. You strictly adhered to the rules like Roberts Rules or the meeting laws. I can't believe that in the current climate in this district that three board members being together that issues would not come up. It is different if it is a district event or fund raiser, not a private party at a members home! I guess you have grown more nieve over the years.
mary wellbourne December 06, 2013 at 04:30 PM
DID anybody else look at the writing style of ericu and Lax dad and the person who started this mess. Looks all the same to me. Happy house hunting.
Charlie Gardner December 06, 2013 at 04:48 PM
Sally, This is why I generally do not get involved with these “postings.” I am not getting into a “back-and-forth” discussion regarding this. And, since I just got your phone message about your “not posting,” I guess I don’t have to respond to that either. It’s simple – if three or more Kings Park school board members got together “for the purpose of conducting public business” it would be a meeting under the definition of “meeting” in the Open Meetings law. The location does not determine whether or not it is a meeting – in district, out of district or on the moon. And, by the way, the three or more members would not even have to be physically in the same place – it could be a teleconference meeting; an audio conference meeting or something similar. The crux of the matter is “conducting public business.” It would be a meeting, subject to all posting requirements, etc. if Mrs. Goldstein and other members conducted public business at a social gathering whether it was at her home or yours! I am not naïve and I don’t have selective memory. I know why we had an unofficial policy of not getting together “in district” during our time and it was not because of violations of law.
Paul December 06, 2013 at 06:09 PM
While I appreciate the input of Charlie Gardner, who i have a great deal of respect for, I would like Sally Pruslow to simply admit that that was NOT what Marie Goldstein said. She said nothing about board members- she said a COMMUNITY MEMBER was at her daughter's communion. Besides being 10 or 11 years ago ( more depending on WHICH daughter) that is exactly what Marie Goldstein said and Sally Pruslow- as a former board member- Stop telling falsehoods and spreading discourse. Apart from your appalling lack of spelling and grammar. I think you are far from naive I think you are very calculated and mean.
Call me Jill December 07, 2013 at 01:29 PM
I wondered who Sally is and why she says what she says and asked pfo people and found out she is BFFs with a lady who's a retired KP union prez who is mom of lawyer Liz Barrett hired the first time she did wrong as a board member. Does anyone find it strange liz hired THAT union prez mom's attorney son. And now I know why Sally is trying hard to help Liz and t's all making sense now reading this and attended the Tuesday meeting. This Liz is NOT what she says and lied over and over to me. Im happy I went to the meeting but now am really mad about all the lies. I wasted my vote.
pam king December 07, 2013 at 03:22 PM
Wow Call me Jill you know all the connections now can you explain if Jim Mcguire has any connection to the boars members or Superintendent. Just wondering !
Paul December 09, 2013 at 08:51 AM
Well said, Dan. I didn't think about the fact that if she resigns she doesn't ever have to answer the questions that have embarrassed our community. I wonder if it is true that she would not have to answer for where the money went or the violation of election rules.
ChudleyQ December 09, 2013 at 09:51 AM
Steely Dan: The “retainer” paid to a lawyer is just a deposit, to start the work. It’s entirely possible (probable?) that she had to pay the lawyer considerably more than the retainer. I’m not sure she (and Mr. Barrett) have really thought this all through. Whatever the lawyer’s bill was, it was her responsibility to pay. The services were for advice based upon her actions as Board member. She personally got the benefit of it, she personally is obligated to pay the lawyer’s bill. It should say so in the retainer agreement. Even though she says she has no idea how much of the legal fee bill was paid by the fundraiser (it should be as simple as “total bill minus what you paid = amount fundraiser paid”), she better figure it out by tax time. Because if it wasn’t a “gift” (which 6110 says she’s not allowed to take), then she probably has to claim it as ordinary income on her tax return. She got the benefit of the funds, I think it’s treated like income. Retainer agreements. Tax returns. These are the kinds of evidence that a REAL investigation would focus on. Make her show the paperwork. These are all fair questions that based on her behavior, have become relevant and important. If the rest of the Board doesn’t get the answers to these questions, then it’s going to be pretty obvious that they were just trying to “sweep it under the rug”. I find it very telling that there STILL is nothing on the Kings Park school website about this. It really is awful and embarrassing for all of us. As for Ms. Barrett’s personal style, her entertainment lifestyle, etc., I think that’s really none of our business, and those kinds of comments are really unfair. I disagree about her resignation. If she wants to do what’s best for the school district and for the ability of the Board to get back to work, then we should let her do it. These aren’t capital crimes, they’re ethical violations which make her unfit for office. Once she’s out of office, we can and should move on.
pam king December 09, 2013 at 06:28 PM
Stealy Dan now you have to lower yourself to personal attacks. you are the type of individual that the board spoke about and I guess you aren't better. you are a DISGACE
sally pruslow December 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Sara, I think is about time for some editorial intervention. You are the parent in the room please step up! Steely Dan and her friends have stepped over the red line.......This is a personal smear. To quote Marie" ENOUGH". Thank you in advance for your intervention.
Sara Walsh (Editor) December 10, 2013 at 06:30 PM
Hi there, Patch editors have reviewed comments on this article and have stepped in to delete those comments in violation of our user agreement policy. While Patch does believe it is important for the Kings Park community to have a forum to discuss issues, we expect our users to treat one another with respect.
Melissa Dispigno Macdougall December 11, 2013 at 06:57 PM
Clearly there is NO respect in this community anymore. Disheartening how we treat each other. It is such nonsense. The low class people hurting others will have to live with themselves. I truly feel sorry for them, and more, their children. There are such important things in Kings Park that really need our attention that we should be coming together as a group and giving all of our effort to. My heart breaks seeing all of this anger and hatred. Stop the lies and destructive behavior and worry about you and what you can do to make Kings Park a better place.
Steely Dan December 12, 2013 at 08:18 AM
If you have ever been the target of Liz's venom, you would find my comments pale in comparison. What she has said about her own family should show she has no filter on her mouth.
KPNY December 14, 2013 at 01:03 PM
I hope that everyone reading these comments realizes that although some comments and commenters can be biased and some even completely baseless and without any merit at least people are involved. That's how communities solve problems. The more we expose, the closer we get to a solution. kings park has more than it's fair share of problems lately ( or ) maybe we are just starting to pay closer attention to what's always been going on. I'm ready for a "new and improved" KP... One where the town isn't influenced and controlled by a select few members of the "old boys club".these few have a warped sense of entitlement and it's time for them to go! I'm referring to all the issues in Kings Park, not just the school board issues.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »