Lehighton speaks out against Bradley
Lehighton Area School District’s board of directors issued a public censure to one of its own Monday night.
By a 5-4 vote, the board took the action against member David Bradley Sr. for “failure to meet the expectations of a school director as set forth in its policies and the generally recognized school board members Code of Ethics.”
It came upon the recommendation of tabbed Bethlehem law firm King, Spry, Herman, Freund and Faul LLC, which the district tabbed in November as special counsel to deal with legal matters stemming from Bradley’s numerous Right To Know requests.
Censure amounts to a formal reprimand, but carries with it no fine or suspension of rights as an elected official.
“It appears obvious that Mr. Bradley has used the judicial system, the Right To Know Law, the Sunshine Law and his official position for purposes other than for what they were intended,” KingSpry attorney John Freund wrote in a letter dated Jan. 23. “It is natural for the board to wish to curb these difficulties and move forward in a more productive manner.”
Bradley called Freund’s letter “full of politically motivated attacks and false statements.”
“It is a fight against transparency,” Bradley wrote in response. “This letter is John’s unsworn testimony, complete with plausible deniability. This letter was written to silence a director. It is laced with lies and half-truths.”
Legal issues
KingSpry indicated it had considered several legal actions to recommend to the district including Abuse of Process and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress lawsuits.
“Proof of intention, however, becomes a more complex and uncertain proposition,” Freund wrote in the letter. “Added to that uncertainty is a profound reluctance on the part of the courts to get involved in the politics of local government. Courts are likely to default to the ballot box rather than award damages or issue injunctions unless proof is clear, convincing and damages are real.”
Given that, KingSpry did not recommend filing any legal action against Bradley at this time.
“There is never a guarantee in such an endeavor, which must be considered along with the cost of litigation as well as the potential for alternative courses of action,” Freund wrote.
In his response to the KingSpry letter, Bradley accused the board, in particular directors Stern, Wayne Wentz, Andrew Yenser, Rita Spinelli and Stephen Holland of “acting like a fascist regime.”
“The government,” Bradley continued, “does not have the authority to silence an elected official or an American citizen. These fascist actors will still have the responsibility to comply with the law, provide due process, host official meetings and listen to the people.”
Charges
Freund’s letter cited numerous reasons for making the censure recommendation including charging Bradley with having:
• Filed three baseless civil actions against the district costing the district $33,436 as of the Jan. 23 letter.
• Filed two baseless private criminal complaints. The Pennsylvania Attorney’s General Office investigated and declined to prosecute a complaint against board President Larry Stern. The second complaint, according to KingSpry, is likely to be dismissed as the district can’t be criminally charged.
• Misused the Right To Know process.
• Made multiple requests and failed to pay the $400 fee for copies made in response to them.
• Used student and staff names or described events to such an extent that individuals can be identified.
• Harassed a female district employee, who has filed a harassment complaint with the district
• Lodged unfounded accusations against school administrators of doing strip searches in public when he knows the district can’t breach student privacy and explain what actually happened.
• Improperly accused a staff member of getting stimulated when he conducts searches of male students, and posted sexually explicit pictures on Facebook.
• Made defamatory claims that the board falsified its minutes for the August 2018 board meeting.
History
Bradley requested emails from May 25 to July 10 for Sue Howland, high school principal; David Hauser, assistant high school principal; and Jonathan Cleaver, superintendent.
Lehighton’s information technology department compiled the statistics for the emails requested. During the time period, Howland sent or received 2,354 emails, Hauser 1,864 emails and Cleaver 3,490 emails.
Carbon County Judge Roger Nanovic ruled earlier this month that the district did not have to turn over the emails, saying the subject matter of the request was “notably absent.”
Bradley withdrew a complaint he filed in September alleging Sunshine Act violations against the district. He argued a citizen, Tom Wertman, was prevented from speaking before an official action was taken.
In yet another lawsuit, Nanovic ruled he would not remove Larry Stern from office, as requested by Bradley and residents Frances Flickinger and Janice Bowman. The trio alleges Stern called for an official vote on a nonagenda item on Dec. 4, 2017, “without calling on Bowman or Flickinger, who had their hands raised.” They also allege Stern refused to allow public comment at a Dec. 21, 2017, meeting.
Bradley also requested all emails from five other board members and two administrators from Aug. 29 through Sept. 3. The board members are Wayne Wentz, Larry Stern, Andrew Yenser, Stephen Holland and Rita Spinelli, while the administrators are Cleaver and Assistant to the Superintendent Tim Tkach.
Two of the emails turned over to Bradley were redacted. The district said one email contained medical information, while the second contained personal identification information and the address of a minor.
The Office of Open Records ruled the district did not prove that one of the redacted emails contained medical information. It ordered the district to turn over that particular record, unredacted.
Lehighton appealed to Carbon County Court, where a hearing is scheduled for Feb. 12.
Bradley is also actively barred from the district’s high school and administration building, with the exception of attending a school board function or preapproved meeting, after two alleged incidents in the district.
See the recording of the meeting on the Times News Facebook page.
Comments
Let's see... following a private corporation, the PSBA, and not the PA and US constitutions, as the Oath of office dictates.
We have evidence. Official Minutes, affidavits, documents acquired through the RTK law and admissions by board members. They have an unlimited supply of district funds hire attorneys to defend their actions with pleas of immunity.
Illegal votes without public comment
Illegal use of educational funds to fund SLAPP litigation
Illegal vote violating Veteran Wertman's rights
Strip search complaint was given to board
Admin confirmed the searches
Stern's facebook post offered admission to meeting with Superintendent, changing contract.
Often atting above the Law, above school policy.
Meritless? State Office of Records Granted our appeal, free service BTW, district board spent educational funds to over turn transparency granted by state.
Meritless? Board President pleaded immunity. District hired King Spry to defend an immunity plea. Sunshine Law, Pa Section 318, and PA Criminal Code 5301 for abuse of office.
Arrogance. Had the president admitted to wrongful, illegal vote, the remedy in law was to take a revote. Or if not, actions apparently turn criminal. They chose to defend the right to silence and suppress a community with educational funds. Offering Immunity, really?
Government is not above the law.
Why are they oppressing ambitious students that meet the State Graduation requirements from graduating early with a full diploma, and still allow them to go to the prom, and walk graduation with their class.
They earned it.
Director blocking citizen from petitioning their government, a constitutionally-protected right.
Rubuke me, Sanction me, Censure me, SLAPP me. What is next?
What lies will they tell next to maintain their power?
I am not seeking reelection, relinguishing my director position at the end of my term. Citizenship and all its constitutionally-protected rights and authority intact for the next generation, like our fathers before us. Government accountability.
Thank you for all information given to us, we could not fix this from the inside without all the inside information. The fear of retaliation and intimidation will only end when a lawful government of the people, by the people, and most importantly, for the people is restored.
Sincerely,
Citizen David F. Bradley Sr.
Good morning. Litigation is always the last resort. We checked, and attorneys agree with the federal claims, but we want a fixed local government, not a one time court mandate.
End of the day, each of us still just wan to love, sleep, eat, play, work. For me a businessman, mathematical, calculated, boring guy that wants our freedoms back and our voices heard.
We were told the statute of limitation is two years for the federal first amendment violations. Hopefully, the community can fix this within the election booth. If not, who really pays, the government? We are the government.
The government creates no wealth, just the opportunities for individuals to do so. Schools are big business, this one is collecting and disbursing $40,000,000 each year and every year. Lobbyist love that pool of money. The PSBA is a private corporation, lobbyist group, yet some of its employees make $200k+ and some PSBA employees are PSERs recipients. Go figure. They have a grapple hold on our local education policy, educational funds, and obstruct new ideas; transparency is not their friends. Total mess. Lehighton is a pimple on the statewide problems in our government schools.
We need to allow our parents and students the freedom to decide for themselves what is best, WITHIN the system. Government has limits, or should have limits, government is just there to organize the process. Fairly, within the law.
This district is lost. Spending very large sums of monies on litigations at all levels. Litigations with parents and students instead of meeting the individual educational needs of the community students. Litigation to claim immunity from the law. Litigation on blocking transparency. The more the lawyers instigate a fight, the more the lawyers get paid. Whisper in the ear of ego, and watch the money flow. Like an never ending divorce, one side breaking the law, suppressing the students the people, blocking education, blocking individual rights, blocking progress, defended by district funds and district funded attorneys. And the other clinging to the laws we have for freedom, transparency, students rights in a government educational system, safety, and common sense. Advocating against a regime, we have the constitution as our shield.
Would you spend thousands of litigation dollars to stop a special needs child from some easily available individual educational resource? Stubborn, arrogant, rubber stamping directors inciting litigation, paying attorneys, hiding behind immunity, instead of acting as government. Government is a distributor of the collected educations funds, focused on a reduction of administrative cost, and reduction of legal costs so more monies go to the students, less monies are needed, all making for a smarter society, a lawful society.
Believe it or not, I am not a litigious person. If a special needs child, or any student for that matter, would be better off learning with a tablet, or needs voice recognition software, a speech tutor, a chess club, or is better off learning at the IU, or home, or cyber, or... or... or... legally within the system, then so be it, why are we using educational funds for litigation to block such things? Why do we limit the volunteers from volunteering? For a district to fight free eye exams from the Lions Club, free chartible glasses for children, free chess clubs, free charitible stem group presentations. Why?
Filing the legal complaints were the last resort to a stubborn systems acting above the law. Dogmatic, Oblivious to common sense.
When they decided to use educational funds to plead immunity, and illegally use education funds to pay for SLAPP litigation, we dropped ALL the cases. Common sense had left the building.
We moved our advocacy for student's rights and transparency to the board room.
Government is apparently safe from itself, safe from needless litigation. The district spent thousands on hiding from lawful transparency, the software to redact is less than a few hundred bucks a year. They vote 5 in a group like rubber stamps.
Bowman's little speech on openly publishing all the legally available district documents up front was proposed by flip the board twice. The evil doers defeated it 5-4. Anyone seeking reelection should be tossed to the curb. Power, control, egos, all PSBA rubber stamping zealots. Tell me which one of our governemnt wrote the King Spry SLAPP resolution? Or the Jacket policy or any policy for that matter? Rubber stampers relinquishing local control to a private corporation, the PSBA. No I am not a member, I refused their 'free' back slapping membership in exchange for the rights to free thought.
Government is not repaired by unlawful compromise, or the sacrifice of just a few home owners, or suppression of a couple students rights. People with common sense don't negotiate with the lawless, we use education to the law, logic, patience and transparency.
Good day to you, rigid principles will always rule the day. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Citizen David F. Bradley Sr.