This article was published at the Cafe on August 24th 2008.
One has to wonder if this is/was the ultimate goal of Powers, Shultz, and Wholean.
In the Opinion (snippets below), The Judge used words like “pure folly”, (not)”sincere”, “disingenuous”, “baseless”, “shifted their argument”, and “common sense” to characterize Powers’ case.
Then there is the FOI case perpetrated by Shultz using a document passed to him from the office of the First Selectman (Wholean) obtained by her own FOI lawsuit against the BOE while she was First Selectman (Shultz’ own testimony in June). The reality that the leadership of the Town Hall was passing documents to private litigants to be used against the school system shows how devious our Town leadership was a year ago. This should not be forgotten when Ms. Wholean tries to regain the First Selectman position in the next Town election.
The contradiction in Powers’ case should be obvious to all. Over the last four years he was requesting (“demanding?”) more services from the Woodstock school system including the addition of a staff member while doing everything possible over the last three years with his defunct “Coalition Website” and now his Untruth website to undermine the school system. If the choice of a common lawyer (Robert Skelley) is any indication, both Shultz and Wholean are parties to Powers effort.
Powers was quoted in the February 23rd 2007 Villager article “My bigger concern as a taxpayer, is that the town is spending all of this money on legal defense and this is how the lawyers conduct themselves.” In a second lawsuit he had accused Shipman & Goodwin BOE lawyers of misconduct during his first lawsuit that drew all of the same conclusions of this third lawsuit in Federal Court (an appeal of the first lawsuit). The second lawsuit was thrown out unceremoniously. His quote above shows the irrational beliefs that form the basis for all three lawsuits, and Shultz and Wholean’s FOI lawsuits as well. He is criticizing the BOE and ultimately the Town for defending itself against his own lawsuits.
If Powers follows up with another appeal there ought to be a counter-suit to recover damages to the taxpayers.
Snippets from the Court’s Opinion:
This is decidedly not a case in which a school turned a blind eye to a child in need. To the contrary, Mrs. Fulco acted conscientiously, communicating regularly with Mrs. Powers and utilizing special strategies to help A.P. succeed. In fact, Mrs. Powers admitted in her testimony that she was pleased with A.P.’s progress in the fourth grade.
…in fact, according to Plaintiffs’ counsel at oral argument, A.P. has never been diagnosed with ADD
Although the Parents claim that they did not know they had this right, all evidence points to the contrary.
It would have been pure folly for the school sua sponte to convene a PPT and make a decision on whether A.P. was eligible for special education services before learning the results of the evaluation.