Monday, September 26, 2011

Revisiting Brungo’s "Thorough" Investigation of Dinnen’s Letter of Eligibility and Superintendent Certification

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they attack you.
Then you win.
. . . Mahatma Gandhi


In their billing to the Fort Cherry School District, Maeillo, Brungo and Maeillo (MBM) “investigated” the issuance of Dinnen’s LOE and Superintendent Certification.  The bills contained itemized charges for:

·        review of emails
·        telephone conferences
·        review of documents
·        research

By these steps, it was determined that the concerns brought to the Miller’s attention were unfounded.  (See 8/31/11 post, The Cost of the Loss of Truth, Honor, and Integrity. 


Had MBM truly researched the issuance of Dinnen’s documents, they would have verified the fraudulent way in which Dinnen obtained the documents, documents which were so vital to his career path.

The fraudulent way in which Dinnen obtained the documents was the concern that was brought to the Millers’ attention.

The only thing the solicitor did was corroborate that Dinnen had a LOE and a Superintendent Certification.

The issue that was brought to the Millers’ attention was the validity of Dinnen’s documents, the validity that was never proven, despite a letter from MBM.

Let’s review what was brought to the Millers’ attention:

·        Dinnen’s numerous misstatements of fact, even under oath,
·        Dinnen’s 1998 submission of his original application that was “doc”tored to make it appear like a new and different application than the 1996 submission,
·        Dinnen’s not updating his application as mandated by PDE regulations,
·        the McNamee letter, directed by Dinnen, without the 1998 SB’s knowledge or approval,
·        the “Satisfactory Job Performance “ evaluation referenced in the 1998 McNamee letter, an evaluation which never took place,
·        and finally, the Clarice Kendall letters – what about those?

According to Michael L. Brungo, the Fort Cherry School District solicitor,

“after a thorough review of the documents . . . submitted to the FCSD Board President (Brant Miller)  . . . the validity of Dr. Dinnen’s LOE or certification and his appointment as Superintendent to the FCSD are unfounded.  As such, the Board’s review of this matter is concluded.”


By
·        not contacting Mattoon,
·        not interviewing Dinnen,
·        not interviewing those who presented information to FCSB representatives,
·        not contacting Clarice Kendall, and
·        not informing the PDE of this collective information and/or matters,

MBM was not thorough.

It was a charade.

This “investigation” was not concluded to the end.

Items were omitted and not addressed and we, the taxpayers, footed the bill.

The law firm did not prove the validity of Dinnen’s LOE and Superintendent Certification, nor his credentials.  And, if this example from MBM is called thorough, then the residents of this school district have to ask . . .

Why keep such inept attorneys in employ?

Unless . . . while MBM was handed the documents and was told to “investigate”, the School Board was possibly shaking its head as in, “No, don’t.”

The Millers did not want to painstakingly look into this.  In fact, when this information was brought to the Millers’ attention, the Millers were told  that it would probably come down to picking the Fort Cherry School District or the man (Dinnen).

Obviously, the Millers chose the man.

While Ray Miller maintains Dinnen had the qualifications; in reality, and per PDE criteria, Dinnen did not meet the qualifications.

Dinnen still does not meet the qualifications – he still does not meet the criteria of experience in the basic (K-12) classroom.

The Millers, and in essence, the Fort Cherry School Board, merely wanted the PDE to say Dinnen had the necessary documents (LOE and Superintendent Certificate), and that’s what it appears Brungo was directed to do.

MBM verified with the PDE that he had those two documents . . . and so MBM was done with this distasteful task in front of them.

Let’s look at the Basic Education Circular (BEC) from the PDE’s website which explains the process for handling an invalid or lapsed professional certificate:

Lapsed Certificates
Section 24 P.S. 12-1201

This BEC explains the proper course of action when the public entity discovers that a professional employee may have an invalid certificate, . . .

. . . it is the employing public school entity's responsibility to employ or retain only those members of the professional staff who hold a valid certificate. The most frequent teacher certification audit irregularity is the failure of the professional employee to maintain a valid Pennsylvania certificate as required by law and/or regulation.

Course of action for a public school entity when it believes that a professional employee may have a lapsed certificate:

. . . the school entity must immediately inform the Bureau of Teacher Certification and Preparation (BTCP) in writing that the certificate of the professional employee may have lapsed, and request a determination of the certificate's status . . .

In addition, the public school entity shall notify the professional employee that this information is being forwarded to the Department for official review.

If the Bureau determines that the employee's certificate has lapsed, the school entity must immediately relieve that employee of any professional responsibilities or it will suffer a forfeiture penalty.

PA Department of Education
Certification
Codes and Regulations
Purdon’s Statutes
Lapsed Certificates


Just substitute questionable (fraudulent?) certification for lapsed/invalid.  Why ignore it?

Fraudulent is a great deal more serious than lapsed/invalid.

And, again, the Millers were made aware of this.

The Millers were also told of the financial penalties that could be imposed upon the district.

Once again, a request is placed before the Fort Cherry School Board to do the right thing and properly investigate this issue that is still facing them.

Well?  How about dealing with the ugly truth?

Someone on the board . . . please, make a motion for an independent and outside investigation . . .

. . . or is this board fearful of an outside investigation?

What could be more constructive than giving the students, the staff, and the taxpayers the truth?


There are no factual errors in this posting . . .  and there is still more to come!