At the September 19, 2011, Fort Cherry School Board Meeting, Board President, Brant Miller, addressed an audience of Fort Cherry staff, students, and residents.
He spoke of this blog, calling its authors “idiots and liars” and then asked the blog creators to stand up and identify themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IonJqHePk0
On behalf of himself and his father, Ray Miller, Brant Miller pleaded with the blog authors to stop the blog.
And then . . . this was discovered . . .
On September 14th, someone from Fort Cherry (fortcherry.org) retained the services of JustAnswer.com in an attempt to coerce Google to take down the blog.
JustAnswer.com is an internet site where questions are posted and answered (for a fee) by experts. It is not private or confidential.
As explained in the JustAnswer® Terms of Service, information provided by you in the content of your questions, answers, and other posts on the Site, in Expert profiles describing your experiences and qualifications, and in signatures attached to postings on the Site ("Posts") is not private or confidential. This is an Internet-based forum (akin to a modern version of a radio call-in program) and information submitted in Posts may be read, collected, and used by others, and JustAnswer is not responsible for it. For example, search engines may index your questions, answers, and other Posts to allow them to appear in search engine results (e.g. if someone does a search on google.com, your questions, answers, and other Posts on JustAnswer.com that relate to the search may appear in the google.com search results list). Protect your anonymity by not including your real name or any personally identifying information in your questions, answers, and other Posts on the Site.
(http://ww2.justanswer.com/privacy-security)
What follows is a conversation between fortcherry.org (Customer) and Josh (Expert), a Computer Support Specialist from justanswer.com.
Customer Question
I have contacted Goggle 2 days ago about a website (below) that is posting employees addresses which is a violation of Goggles website regualtions and PA laws regarding public release of an Public School Employee's address.
Nothing has been done with this website. This completely illegal and something needs done now....you aren't paying attention to what people are posting.
http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com
Nothing has been done with this website. This completely illegal and something needs done now....you aren't paying attention to what people are posting.
http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com
Value: $58
Status: CLOSED
Response From Expert
Hi,
Unfortunately the requests are not looked at immediately because there are thousands daily. Most of the requests are non legitimate requests and are not granted but they take the time of a Google employee and makes your request take longer.
Which form did you fill out?
Unfortunately the requests are not looked at immediately because there are thousands daily. Most of the requests are non legitimate requests and are not granted but they take the time of a Google employee and makes your request take longer.
Which form did you fill out?
Customer Reply
Posted the complaint tab on Goggle's website link for this blog site. It is very straight forward they are showing documents with our school district's employees hone addresses.
Accepted Answer
Expert:
|
Computer Support Specialist
5 years as Network Admin, 10+ years of IT support
Customer Reply
yes
Expert's Answer
OK great.
Follow these steps too:
Follow these steps too:
Type the URL of the webpage you want removed (not the Google search results URL or cached page URL). Note that the URL is case-sensitive—you will need to submit the URL using exactly the same characters and the same capitalization that the site uses. How to find the right URL. Click Continue.
Click Webmaster has already blocked the page.
Select the checkbox to confirm the requirements listed in this article have been completed, and then click Submit Request.
Customer Reply
The nAnswer I got is below.
Google Webmaster Tools is not available for fortcherry.org
Learn more about Google products you can use with XXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX.
Response From Expert
You need to use the exact URL
Can you provide me with a link that shows their addresses?
Can you provide me with a link that shows their addresses?
Customer Reply
I am not sure what you mean
Response From Expert
The page that is displaying the addresses can you please give me the link to it?
Customer Reply
Blog site?
Response From Expert
Yes, please provide the link so I can help you fill out the forms correctly
Customer Reply
Expert's Answer
On the form please copy/paste this URL to be removed
http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/
http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/
Customer Reply
Google Webmaster Tools is not available for fortcherry.org.
Learn more about Google products you can use with XXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX.
Response From Expert
fortcherry.org is not
http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/
http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/
Customer Reply
I don't understand what do you want me to do from here?
Expert's Answer
On step 3 below please use http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/
1. If you're not immediately taken to the 'Create a new request' page, click New Removal Request.
2. Type the URL of the webpage you want removed (not the Google search results URL or cached page URL). Note that the URL is case-sensitive—you will need to submit the URL using exactly the same characters and the same capitalization that the site uses. How to find the right URL. Click Continue.
3. Click Webmaster has already blocked the page.
4. Select the checkbox to confirm the requirements listed in this article have been completed, and then click Submit Request.
Customer Reply
It isn't working for me, I do not see any thing you sighted in tyour instructions.
Response From Expert
If you do not have an account with Google then you need to create one before you can start on step 2
Customer Reply
Sorry too much hassle, Goggle has a legal obligation to remove the information. I will just contact my attorney.
Expert's Answer
Hi,
Google has no legal obligation unless it is presented by an attorney or judge.
Google has no legal obligation unless it is presented by an attorney or judge.
Read more: I have contacted Goggle 2 days ago about a website (below) - JustAnswer http://www.justanswer.com/computer/5k5ih-contacted-goggle-days-ago-website-below.html#ixzz1ZcpzwE4K
What Mr. Miller and fortcherry.org fail to realize is that the authors of the blog have protection under the United States Constitution; more specifically, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
______________________________________
The “press” as defined by Chief Justice Hughes in Lovell v. City of Griffin, is "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion":
“The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”
LOVELL v. CITY OF GRIFFIN, GA.*
Docket No. 391.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 1938.
Decided March 28, 1938.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court
Mr. Miller and fortcherry.org need to realize that the press includes everything from newspapers to blogs.
· Was fortcherry.org instructed by the Millers to look into taking down the blog?
· Did fortcherry.org try to force Google to shut down the blog after realizing that Paul Sroka, FC’s Open Records Officer, failed to redact public school employees’ addresses on documents he distributed to the public through a right-to-know request?
As discussed on the September 17th post, this blog originally posted the unaltered documents, as obtained from Sroka, but later redacted the addresses to comply with the law. (http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/09/fcs-business-manager-82411-salary-2.html)
Even though Sroka has the law firm of Maiello, Brungo & Maiello (MB&M) at his disposal for “legal review” of all RTK requests, Sroka failed to redact public employees’ addresses from the documents he prepared. It appears that Sroka failed to comply with the law.
· Was the attempt to pull down the blog “damage control”?
Take another look at the initial question posed by fortcherry.org. You’ll see there was a value of $58 placed on the conversation.
Value: $58
Status: CLOSED
If you look at the terms of serve for “JustAnswer.com”, there is a fee imposed once you accept an answer from the expert.
9. Charges and Refund Policy
JustAnswer's platform allows you to post your questions to Experts in your questions' categories, facilitates communication with Experts via chat, emails and online message boards, and enables delivery of answers to your questions, among other services ("Site access benefits"). Customers on the Site may be presented with one or two payment models: (1) pay-per-question model, and (2) subscription model.
JustAnswer's platform allows you to post your questions to Experts in your questions' categories, facilitates communication with Experts via chat, emails and online message boards, and enables delivery of answers to your questions, among other services ("Site access benefits"). Customers on the Site may be presented with one or two payment models: (1) pay-per-question model, and (2) subscription model.
Pay-Per-Question. With the pay-per-question model, you select the price that you are willing to pay for the Site access benefits related to a single question. Once you have selected the price and paid the amount, your question can be posted on JustAnswer. Experts typically respond quickly, either with a request for further information or with an answer. With requests for further information, it is important that you take advantage of the opportunity to communicate directly with the Expert so the Expert can benefit from your further information in providing the answer.
Once you receive an answer from an Expert, you will be asked whether you found the answer to be helpful and would like to accept it. You are requested to accept the answer if you find it to be helpful (as determined by you in your sole discretion). By accepting an answer, you are instructing and authorizing that a portion of your payment be paid to the Expert instead of to JustAnswer. By accepting more than one answer, you are authorizing JustAnswer to charge your payment source (for example, the credit card or PayPal account you provided to JustAnswer) multiple times and instructing and authorizing that a portion of each of your payments be paid to the Expert instead of to JustAnswer. For example, if you accept two answers, your payment source will be charged twice the price.
http://ww2.justanswer.com/terms-service-0#fees
And even though fortcherry.org did not appear happy with the outcome of the conversation with JustAnswer.com, fortcherry.org did indeed accept the answer. (Shown in the conversation above when the Expert from JustAnswer.com responded with “Accepted Answer “.)
· Did fortcherry.org submit this to the district for reimbursement, and if so, by whose authority? There was no public board approval for this expense.
And look at the final statement from fortcherry.org in the conversation:
“Sorry too much hassle, Goggle has a legal obligation to remove the information. I will just contact my attorney.”
· Is that a threat to take legal action . . . against Google? ????
Fort Cherry School District should be making every effort to save money; after all, they furloughed teachers and cut valuable programs.
· Is the district headed for yet another lawsuit?
· And just how many other lawsuits has the district been involved in - either due to poor legal representation by MB&M or the administration’s and/or board’s self-serving motives?
MB&M is retained by the district to attend monthly board meetings. The cost of the board meetings is covered under MBM’s $500 monthly retainer fee.
The district has an understanding with MB&M that should something legal arise outside of representing the board at the monthly meeting, the law firm gets first dibs on whether or not they want to represent the district.
· Could this be why MB&M fails to appropriately advise the district?
More lawsuits = more money for MB&M.
It is the opinion of this blog that under Dinnen and Sroka’s reign, and under the advisement of MB&M, the district has been involved in a number of unnecessary lawsuits and/or complaints needing legal representation.
Let’s look at the money budgeted for legal expenses for 2011-2012.
$41,000 spent last year, $41,000 budgeted for 2011-2012.
That’s quite a bit more than the $500 monthly retainer.
Sroka and the Fort Cherry School District recently had a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT filed against them. The school insurance company settled the suit, with the district (i.e. taxpayers) paying a deductible.
To comply with the settlement, the language of FC Policy 903 had to be changed, as the judge found it violates the public’s CIVIL RIGHTS as written.
Let’s take a look at Policy 903:
This is how Policy 903 read in September of 1995:
(A full copy of Policy 903 from September 1995 is located at the end of this post.):
Speakers shall not be permitted to register complaints against individual employees by name.
FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 903
SECTION: COMMUNITY
TITLE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BOARD MEETINGS
ADOPTED: March 27, 1995
REVISED: September 25, 1995
In May of 2009, a resident read a comment to the school board informing them that their Board Secretary (Paul Sroka) behaved very unprofessionally during a phone conversation. (The School Board is in charge of the Board Secretary.)
Mr. Sroka was only identified in the statement by his position on the board, Board Secretary, not by name.
Resident’s comment:
Following this comment, in June of 2009, the language of Policy 903 was changed to this:
Speakers shall not be permitted to register complaints against individual employees by name or specific position.
FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 903
SECTION: COMMUNITY
TITLE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BOARD MEETINGS
ADOPTED: March 27, 1995
REVISED: June 22, 2009
When the Board made the decision in June of 2009 to further restrict public speech in Policy 903, the solicitor should have alerted the board to its error. The policy, as written, is a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION.
MB&M should have kept the district out of legal trouble by advising the Board on acceptable and legally correct policy adoption; but instead, allowed them to proceed.
To add insult to injury, it appears that MB&M supported the board’s and the administration’s actions to target residents.
The lawsuit, which resulted in the Judge urging the Board to change Policy 903, had its start in a comment made by Ray Miller at the October 26, 2009, school board meeting.
Ray Miller’s comment was in response to a statement made by a resident during the public comment portion of that meeting.
First a little background information:
On October 25, 2009, this letter from a Fort Cherry resident was published in the Observer-Reporter:
==================================================
Drilling on school property?
--------------------------------------------------
Observer-Reporter (Washington, PA)-October 25, 2009
Oil and gas drilling has become very big in our area. It is a personal decision for land owners with both pros and cons.
Last month, Dale Properties/Chesapeake Energy held a public meeting in McDonald to discuss gas-well drilling in the area. At that meeting, a Fort Cherry School Board member, Elmo Cecchetti, questioned if drilling could be done on the school grounds? This question has stirred some concern from parents and local residents.
Is Fort Cherry School District considering leasing the school grounds for oil and gas well drilling?
Whether you support drilling or oppose it, Mr. Cecchetti may have spoken prematurely. If he is interested in leasing his land, that is one issue. However, he appeared to speak on behalf of the board and asked questions on behalf of the district.
Shouldn't this issue have been put to the public first to see if the public wanted the district to drill? When was there a public hearing on this matter? There are no board minutes that reflect any such public discussion or vote.
There have been many recent articles about the possible environmental and health-related effects due to drilling, such as fracking fluid and water contamination, and air quality issues from the flares. This subject should be considered carefully and with public involvement.
We have to consider our children's health and safety first, not just money for the district.
Additionally, Superintendent Robert Dinnen was asked if Fort Cherry School District is, in fact, considering leasing the land for oil and gas exploration. Dinnen refuses to answer this question.
So, why is the board possibly soliciting a drilling company for the district, and why isn't Dinnen responding to parents' questions? Just what is going on in Fort Cherry?
Readers, please remember this as you go to the polls to elect new school directors. Do we want individuals that do not answer to the public and act inappropriately, or how about a change?
Another resident referenced this letter in a statement made at the October 26 board meeting.
Resident’s comment:
“I read in the Observer-Reporter on Sunday that Fort Cherry possibly signed a lease to drill on the school grounds. I called Dale Properties this afternoon. I spoke with a Dale Property representative who stated that Fort Cherry School District did sign a lease with Dale Properties. He said that Dale Properties had a meeting with the school board at which all board members present agreed to sign the lease. I would like to know the date of the public meeting on the matter, the date the board voted on this, if the solicitor was present during the signing of the lease, and when the lease will be available for public inspection. Thank you.”
Ray Miller’s response:
In case you didn’t catch it, Ray Miller said, “It’s about time we get back at these people who are trying to put us down.”
“It’s about time we get back at these people who are trying to put us down.” ?!?!?!
A resident asks a question about a public matter and THAT is the board’s response?
As it turns out, the resident was not told the truth by the representative from Dale Properties.
But, instead of denying that they met with Dale and signed a lease, the Board responded, “It’s about time we get back at these people who are trying to put us down.”
Funny thing, “getting back at these people” is exactly what the administration (and board) attempted to do.
MB&M should have stopped the actions of the administration (and board) following Ray Miller’s comments; but instead, allowed them to proceed.
MB&M should have stopped the administration’s (and board’s) actions – actions to target private citizens – actions that resulted in a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT against the district - but instead, allowed them to proceed.
Fort Cherry just reached a settlement in a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT filed against Sroka and the district. (The district defended Sroka at taxpayers’ expense – once again the taxpayers foot the bill.)
· Is fortcherry.org leading the district into yet another lawsuit at taxpayers’ expense????
Look out Google . . . and look out Fort Cherry taxpayers!
Now let’s take a look at Policy 903 . . .
As stated above, to comply with the terms of the FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT settlement, the language of FC Policy 903 had to be changed.
The revision to the language of Policy 903 was on the agenda of the June 20, 2011, meeting.
Board President Brant Miller indicated at the meeting that he “asked for this”.
In actuality, Brant Miller agreed before the Judge in June of 2011 to get a majority of the FC Board to make the necessary changes to Policy 903.
It was not Miller’s idea.
Despite Board approval, Policy 903 remains unchanged online on the FC website. (http://www.fortcherry.org/170310597212240/lib/170310597212240/903-Public_Participation_In_Board_Meetings.pdf).
Take a look at Sroka’s comment in the Observer-Reporter about the policy change after the board approved it on June 27, 2011:
“The public will have a greater latitude to speak freely, but with greater latitude will come greater responsibility on the public’s part,” Sroka said.
The public has no problem acting responsibly.
Are the Business Manager, Superintendent, and Board acting responsibly?
Keep in mind that the statement was made by Paul Sroka, who makes $82,411 per year (not counting additional perks) - 82,411 of our tax dollars.
This man has been the spokesman for the District when a quote is needed for the media.
This is the man that the FC School Board hired in 2002 to handle ALL the money of the Fort Cherry School District.
This man handles ALL the money of the District - $16 million dollars – and he doesn’t carry a surety bond in his capacity as Business Manager, possibly due to his 1996 Chapter 7 bankruptcy. (More about bankruptcy and bonding issues in a future post.)
This is the man that dragged the district into a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT, with the Board, Dinnen, and MB&M’s consent – and your tax dollars went to his defense.
As discussed in this and previous posts, the current Board allows and supports this type of irresponsible and unprofessional behavior, not only from the Business Manager/Board Secretary, but from the Superintendent, the solicitor, and themselves, all at taxpayers’ expense.
It is time the current board members are replaced.
We need a Board that takes the Oath of Office seriously.
Oath of Office:
School Director Oath of Office
24 PS 3-321
24 PS 3-321
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.
You can make that happen.
Vote on November 8.
Get to know the candidates. Ask questions.
VOTE!
Policy 903 from September 1995 is shown below.
