The Mosdos Respond: Who was “Misquoted”? Who was Duped? Who is Behind This? What’s the Lowdown?

Igud Inzelbuch Meeting_wm(All documents in extended article). As will be shown below, over the past 4 months, Lakewood District Personnel (LDP) attempted to divert $2M Title 1 Stimulus (ARRA) money from elementary school children—both Public and Private—to their favored preschool contractor, Tiny Tots.  They partially succeeded.  When Lakewood’s united private schools discovered the scheme and strongly protested, the LDP quickly dropped the overall effort, content to divert funds “only” from academically at-risk Public school children. This exposé is written because we believe this diversion is a very bad idea regardless of which children the money is diverted from. The diversion is based on greed and is engineered with deceit.  It should be stopped and reversed by the Lakewood BOE members.  Neither public nor private elementary school children should have any of their remedial funding diverted to enrich a private contractor.

Igud-page 1_wmOn several occasions, when this diversion was first broached by LDP (Lakewood District Personnel) fierce opposition arose.  While the opposition was voiced by most Lakewood mosdos and homeowners, it was spearheaded by the Vaad HaCheder and the Lakewood Association Council (LAC).  For example, Two Months Ago, in mid-September,  the Vaad HaCheder met with Michael Inzelbuch, Lakewood BOE attorney, and voiced strong objection to this planned diversion.  When Mr Inzelbuch contested their objections and asked for a letter, signatures were swiftly gathered, and a letter was delivered to his office. This was in mid-September. Yet, he was still not persuaded—the District’s application containing the diversion was not withdrawn or even revised until nearly two months later.   On November 2 the vast majority of Lakewood mosdos signed the Igud’s letter, which was forwarded on November 4.  The next day, November  5, the District finally asked the State DOE to change its application, and did in fact submit a revised application on November 10—one day ahead of Mr Inzelbuch’s late night meeting with the Igud on November 11 at Bais Tova.

Igud-page 2_wmBut why such fierce opposition to the planned diversion of money to preschools? The Lakewood yeshiva community was vehemently opposed to the proposed  loss of funds otherwise earmarked for remedial tutoring of its academically at risk students.  The yeshiva community was furthermore disturbed to discover that Tiny Tots was slated to receive the diverted PreSchool Title 1 ARRA Contract, as ‘lowest’ of 5 bidders.  Tiny Tots had earlier alienated many in the community when it was revealed that it charges the District a tuition rate 4.4 times what it charges its private clients—$1,250 per child, per month for a District paid child vs. $285 for private clients—for the same 6-hour day. The $1,250 was paid by the District to Tiny Tots from the BOE regular budget at the expense of local taxpayers, and not from federal Title 1 or State taxpayer funds.  Proposing to award the new Title 1 ARRA (Stimulus) Contract to Tiny Tots only added fuel to an already inflamed, raging local scandal.

Igud-page 3_wmWhy were LDP so intent on diverting $2 Million to Tiny Tots for PreSchools? As previously published here on TLS, Tiny Tots received $3 to $4 Million from BOE budget for grossly inflated day care tuition in 2007 and again in 2008. Here was an opportunity to “up it” by another $2 Million.  Why is Tiny Tots such a favored client of the BOE largesse? Simple.  In addition to the money that flows to Tiny Tots, a parallel amount simultaneously flows to Catapult, the BOE’s other “inside track” vendor, for years enjoying a total monopoly as its single source third-party provider for all District special education/ Related Services contracts.  The District-paid children enrolled in Tiny Tots also receive special ed services through Catapult from another pot of BOE money. No other BOE contract automatically offers the “double dip” features of the Tiny Tots/Catapult contract. 

Igud-page 4_wmRealizing there was substantial, open, vocal opposition to the LDP plan to divert Title 1 ARRA funds from elementary school children to preschools, and especially to Tiny Tots, LDP was confronted by a problem. How do they proceed to award contract to Tiny Tots in the face of such stiff, wall-to-wall opposition?

 If you’ve read thus far, stay tuned. This is where the plot thickens.

LDP hit on an ingenious, and what they thought, bulletproof, scheme.  From this year’s $6 Million Title 1 ARRA Grant, they decided to take the $2 Million “off-the-top” for PreSchools. After other, legitimate “off-the-top” allocations, the remaining money will be divided into Private and Public pots.  In this manner, they can—and DID— tell everyone, including their own BOE members and allprivate school principals, that the money for PreSchools is not coming from NonPublic School funds. It is coming, so they said, strictly, from Public School Funds. The Board November 4, 2009 Agenda, at which time contract was awarded to Tiny Tots in reference the PreSchool Program, states,  

Igud-page 5_wm“The program operations are subject to the availability of funding from Title I – ARRA grant funds, which are exclusively Title I Public funds.” BOE November 4, 2009 Agenda, available at http://www.lakewood.k12.nj.us/boe/boe110409.html

That was a bald lie. Although nominally the money came from the Public School side, in actuality when money comes “off-the-top” it comes proportionately from BOTH public and nonpublic sides.  And since the nonpublic proportionate share is 72%, and the public proportionate share is 28%, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the PreSchool money was being diverted mostly from funds that would otherwise go to nonpublic school children.

So the members of the BOE swallowed this flimflam, and blindly approved on November 4  a $900,000 Contract with Tiny Tots for a  PreSchool program, from so-called “Public School” funds.  In doing so, they pointedly ignored an emailed letter from the IGUD which they received that same afternoon, alerting them to this flimflam. After all whom are they to believe, the people on the Igud who have a “misplaced agenda”, or their very own “totally trustworthy” Lakewood District Personnel (LDP), who clearly have no agenda?

Igud-page 6_wmAnd here’s the proof we pointed to earlier—from BOE’s own documents.  The 2009-2011 Title 1 ARRA grant is $5,934, 358. This much is not in dispute. According to the 09-09-09 BOE diversionary application, with the $2 Million taken “off-the-top” for preschools, the nonpublic schools were slated to receive $1,809,747 (See EWEG page at end of article).  Today, however, when the PreSchool “off the top” flimflam was exposed and eliminated, the nonpublics will receive $2,934,352, or an additional $1,124,605. That’s Sixty Two (62%) Percent more than they would have gotten had the diversion been allowed.  This clearly and amply exposes the deceit of LDP’s contention that the “PreSchool” money was coming strictly from Public School funds.

Let’s recap, if you will.

FACT: Michelle Doyle wrote a letter to the Editor of TLS which was published yesterday, November 18, 2009, and we quote from that Letter: “Previous to this meeting, the Board—within Title I guidelines—had reserved $2 million off the top of the total Lakewood Title I allocation for a pre-school program that would be open to public and nonpublic school students with the knowledge of all involved, including the nonpublic schools.  Pre-school services were asked for by some nonpublic schools during the July nonpublic school consultation,the New Jersey State Department of Education encouraged this method of set aside for pre-school programs throughout the State if desired by school districts, and this set aside was discussed extensively during the August consultation with the nonpublic school representatives. (emphasis added).

FACT:  By letters submitted in September and again in November, to the BOE (first was addressed and handed to Mr Inzelbuch, second was addressed to the Superintendent) Lakewood’s nonpublic schools registered their strong protest against diversion of any funds to PreSchools. It defies logic for anyone to contend that the nonpublic schools were in any way in favor of this plan.

FACT:  The only ones MISQUOTED were Lakewood’s nonpublic schools. The contention that  they were in favor of PreSchools is belied by their signed statements, and leaves no room for doubt.

FACT:  It is obvious that LDP did not bother to clue-in Ms. Doyle on the raging opposition from Lakewood’s private schools to the Preschool Proposal.  Ms Doyle’s integrity is not in question. In her own words, as published yesterday in her letter to TLS,  she believed that prior to the November 16thconsultation meeting private schools were in favor of the PreSchool Proposal.  She was apparently also a victim of LDP flimflam.  She must not have been clued-in by LDP to the seething community opposition.

QUESTION:  Did LDP keep Ms. Doyle in the dark so she can help in the preparation of their diversionary ARRA Title 1 application. We believe she is an honest person, and that despite the fact that she is a consultant to Catapult, which administers these grants, she would not in good faith submit an application if she knew the nonpublics are adamantly against it. Was that why Ms Doyle had to be kept in the dark?     

FACT:  By letter in mid-September, and again by letter dated November 2, 2009, Lakewood’s private schools attested that NONE of THEM wanted this $2M to go to PreSchools. They signed a letter to that effect. (see letter at end of article).  This was reported in TLS on 11/12/09, “The Igud has claimed that these funds were improperly diverted from the mosdos’ (nonpublic) 70% share of this year’s $5.9 Million Stimulus Title 1 grant “without our knowledge, without our input, and certainly without our approval.”

FACT:  the IGUD circulated it’s letter dated November 2 to Superintendent Lydia Silva by email on November 4.

FACT:   This was reported on TLS November 5, “BOE Defies Igud’s Call To Return Diverted $2 Million

FACT: As soon as the LBOE received the Igud letter, and REALIZED that they misrepresented (“misquoted”?) the Igud’s position, they asked the State for a return of the Title 1 Stimulus (ARRA) application, “for changes.”  On November 5, the State returned the LBOE application. See attached EWEG Chronology.  

FACT:  the LBOE submitted a “changed” application on 11-10-09, one day before Mr. Michael Inzelbuch met with the Igud on 11-11-09, where he announced in front of 40 Igud educators that “a revised application was submitted a month ago”.

FACT:    The Igud was NOT relying on, nor quoting, Ms. Doyle to prove this diversion. That was shown and proven all along, on TLS and elsewhere, from the source, specifically. public documents obtained from the State website at EWEG.  Ms Doyle was quoted on 2 items: (1) that the true proportionate share is 72% nonpublic, to 28% public, and (2) that the current Title 1 ARRA NONPUBLIC allocation has been changed from the original $1.8 Million, and stands today at $2.9 Million. All the rest is self-evident.  If there were any errors in note-taking, transposing or drafting of Ms Doyle’s presentation, we sincerely regret same.  Again, the points are not in dispute. The original $2 Million allocation off the top to PreSchools, would have resulted in $1.1 Million less for NonPublic Schools. Once that was eliminated, the nonpublic share increased by 62%, or $1.1 Million to a new total of $2.9 Million.

FACT: Only after the false contention that private schools authorized the diversion of $2M to preschools was belied, did the BOE backtrack, and file on 11-10-09  a revised allocation. 

In short, the only party(ies) “misquoted” here are Lakewood’s nonpublic schools. They were cited as being in favor of the Title 1 Preschool program, when in fact they were adamantly opposed.

This ‘Blame the Victim” tactic is the standard BOE modus operandi. The same thing happened before. Most of your readers will recall that in 2006 it was widely reported that at least $11 Million in Title 1 funds were diverted from nonpublic schools by the LBOE over a period of 8 years, 1998 to 2006.  The BOE never contested these widely published reports.  At the time, Ms. Susan Ochse, NJDOE Director of the Office of Title 1 Program Planning and Accountability, by letter dated June 27, 2006 to then Lakewood Superintendent Ed Luick stated that this was justified by the contention that the nonpublic schools “refused services or signed the Affirmation of Consultation.”  How did Yogi Berra say it? This is like deja vu all over again.

We sincerely doubt this racket could ever go on for so long, with such brazen gall and impunity, in any other New Jersey School District, especially right under the nose of State and Federal Department of Education officials with oversight responsibility.

This content, and any other content on TLS, may not be republished or reproduced without prior permission from TLS. Copying or reproducing our content is both against the law and against Halacha. To inquire about using our content, including videos or photos, email us at [email protected].

Stay up to date with our news alerts by following us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

**Click here to join over 20,000 receiving our Whatsapp Status updates!**

**Click here to join the official TLS WhatsApp Community!**

Got a news tip? Email us at [email protected], Text 415-857-2667, or WhatsApp 609-661-8668.

72 COMMENTS

  1. All you Michael Inzelbuch Cheerleaders please line up to ask Mechila from our Children whose lives are diminished by the continuing theft of their special education funds. As exposed here this is engineered by the very people responsible to ensure the children’s special needs are met. Shame. On Us. For letting THEM. Get away. With this!

    Kudos to TLS for being the conscience and clarion of the community, and breaking the conspiracy of silence. Our most vulnerable children are already reaping the benefits. Keep up the good work!!!

  2. how dare all of you every chance you put down public school children.And for a fact the whole community was’nt agaisnt preschool so stop speaking for all of us.

  3. Finally we get the truth. Very very sad. What is maybe even sadder is that a few misguided souls are helping and protecting this person. Its time they see they light and get rid of him. Thank you TLS for exposing the truth.

  4. I have been following this for a while . the bottom line is that the existing BOE members swear by MI and have given him the right to make all decisions / That is their right ,as they were elected . If we dont want that to continue for any reason .then we need to vote in new members who will not iMI the powers that her has . But right now under this Board ,he can do what he wants as long as it is technically legal .

  5. There are very serious problems here.

    Most certainly, in this situation, Ms. Doyle’s position as a consultant for the school district is inherently in conflict with her consultancy with Catapult! She advises a school district that has no-bid contracts with another one of her clients. It’s truly bothersome that no one sees a problem here. This is not a personal indictment but there is, at the very least, an appearance of impropriety or conflict.

    In Ms. Doyle’s letter she wrote the “in my opinion they (stimulus funds) were never misallocated”. Note that she did not say the funds were never misallocated – she is legally covered by saying “in my opinion they were never misallocated”. There is a big difference between these statements.

    As the consulting Title 1 expert, she should have brought this to the attention of US Department of Education officials for proper review. It is simply not good enough to give an opinion, this situation needs facts, not opinions.

    She further writes, “I do not want to be associated with criticizing the Board for an illegal action when no illegal or improper action was taken.” In view of her prior comment that it is her opinion that nothing was misallocated; now, she advances with authoritative determination that nothing was improper. So which is it? Is it her opinion or is there a legal/governmental determination that the pre-school set-aside as put forth by the Lakewood Board of Ed is allowable?

    The stimulus funds are a one-shot deal. Has anyone considered how this program will move forward after the stimulus funds run out? As a taxpayer, I’m wondering about it as New Jersey’s deficit-spending is quickly eating up my earnings. Pre-School is a good thing but the State and Lakewood cannot spend more than the taxpayers can afford to pay.

  6. This April we need to vote in 4 new members to the BOE. Rabbosai! We need COMPETENT and STRONG MINDED people to join the BOE. If you feel you are capable and are willing to do something for the klal, step up to the plate. Ge the 10 signaturesand put yourname on the ballot. Lets go!

  7. what about the IDEA money ? for some reason MI tells almost everyone that “there is no money for you” where is all the money ?
    by his friends at Catapult and tiny tots?

    this madness has to stop. the rabonim have to put a a signed Kol korah not to vote for any BOA members who will not back getting rid of MI .

  8. it’s sad that as I been reading for the last couple of days all the comments on here.All I would like to know is why do you have so much to say about my childs education. I’am a public school parent all I would like know is why are you on lakewood school board .And you have no interest in my childs education.Also do private schools have school boards because i would be interested in signing up if you can control MY CHILDS EDUCATION I FEEL I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME.THE LAKEWOOD BOE SHOULD BE PARENTS OF LAKEWOOD PUBLIC CHILDREN.OR SOMEONE THAT CARES.I’AM CALLING THE D.O.E. ETHICS COMM

  9. Catapult is ripping us off Big Time!!!!! and our children. We can provide better services to our children with the $$$. They also treat their employees very Poorly

  10. I just met an old acquaintance who is currently a bored soul, that admitted to me that he posts all sorts of bogus comments in fictitious names and even has fun playing both sides of an issue.. So my question is; How can we tell which are or are not a legitimate comments??

  11. Dear michael

    As it is known to most of lakewood of what a good man you our but it seems that there are people that are writing false and disgusting comments about you. I am a parent of a special needs child and understand not like all you bloggers that just write comments of your own opinion. A parent always once the best for its kid and doesn’t want to listen that his kid doesn’t need the service which lboe denied so thede parents who have the right to think that deserve more post there comments with anger but in the long run they will understand. This whole title one thing is out of hand as I was sitting in RSK office he told me the gemra says if u get a million u want 2 that is the problem here, what rsk told me about you and how hard you work for the community and that everyone has nisons that try to stop them from doing good and as he said hashem doesn’t give people things he can’t past so michael please don’t resign or this town will fall far and just keep on doing the good and with hashem help the people that are trying to bring u down will just disappear

    Sincerely a lakewood parent

  12. i just receieved notice of this post from another special needs parent that i am in touch with. a lot of us network and we know what is going on. we always knew what Mi was all about. but this just confimrs it. clear , undeniable. Everyone who wants to help special needs children should do whatever they can to get this man removed. He has caused us all so much pain , agrivation and humiliation that you cannot even imagine.

    but what reallly pains me is that there are people that are backing MI .
    it seems you feel the need to hid behing screem names. Us parants of special needs children , of course have to use screen names to protect ourselves and our children. but you ? why dont you say where you are? you can sit by your computers and write what you want , but G-d knows who you are , adn he will save you a very hot spot in the next world unless you ask all us parents of special needs children micheilla using your real names.

    besides what business do you have defending this person? did you pay you? do you somehow get some kickbacks? if your not going to help special needs children then just go home and be quiet forever.

  13. Now let’s see. Comment 21 claims that MI steals. Let’s pretend this is true. Comment 21 then goes on to say “but it’s worth the price”.

    My first question is – Where is it in the Talmud that dishonesty is worth the price. Did I miss this particular lesson?

    Second Question: Whose Price is Comment 21 referring to? Hopefully, not my taxpayer dollars!

    Laws are for all of us, not a select few.

    This issue is hurting the credibility of the community. Is that worth the price!

  14. To # 24

    When you pay for my child’s tuition in private school, you can be on the board of my child’s school.

    My property taxes pay for your child’s public school education, so I get the right to have a say what happens with my money.

  15. Has RSK’s letter endorsing MI’s BOE stooges in April already been circulated? On who’s door shall we read the right endorsement note. Will this election again turn into a Vaad-Igud showdown? Which guns will be imported fron EY to support MI’s continued corruption? Or will we for once be allowed. Breath freely and vote our own interests, and our children’s?

  16. Meir you say “The reason why no boe members were att the igud meeting in bais tova is because they were not invited. Michael was at home when he got a call to come all of the igud members took a vote if michael should be called everyone besides 2 of them said to call which will be nameless because they were scared the truth would be heard I wasn’t at the meeting but heard what when on.”
    Why was a vote taken? Is that a way out of this. Not one BOE member who the public voted for was at this meeting, Did a BOE member reach out to them and say I would like to be present and they were told “do not come?” Why are the BOE members not involved. It is very concerning and shows a lack of caring. (Even if you all care it “Shows” and comes across very negatively) I would like to see more BOE members actually be more proactive and vocal instead of having MI do what appears to be everything. Yes, other towns DO NOT have the attorney appearing to do everything.
    You say””MI is the main man on the board WHY? Where is the BOE members themselves?
    You say everything is from RSK. Do you think RSK is still behind this?
    Please clarify we really would like to know what our elected BOE members say. (Yes. this is an invitation for you and other BOE members I am not calling MI ; – )

  17. ONETHING LET ME TELL YOU MY GRANDPARENTS WERE BORN AND RAISED IN LAKEWOOD MY PARENTS WERE BORN AND RAISED,AND I WAS RAISED IN LAKEWOOD .THEY PAYED TAXES OVER 60+ PLUS YEARS.OWNED 3 HOUSES IN LAKEWOOD.AND ALSO ME AND MY HUBSAND WORK 2 JOBS TO PAY TAXES IN LAKEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS.SO YES I HAVE THE RIGHT.HOW LONG YOU’VE PAY TAXES IN LAKEWOOD?.

  18. Kudos. You got it almost perfectly right. One little twist you missed.
    MI waited till Nov 5 to file the revised application with the State because on Nov 4th he needed the BOE to vote on the Tiny Tots contract from “PS Money”. Once that was approved, all was clear for the change. Nice work showing the emperor prancing exposed.

  19. And remember, it’s the Superintendent that is the Chief School Administrator who is held responsible for the budget and all financial transactions.

    Important point since she will be held liable for any financial irregularities. More interesting is that she would have to hire her own lawyer to represent her if there is any action concerning any irregular financial matters. (Usually in such matter, the school district must pay the superintendent’s legal fees.) As MI represents the Board not the superintendent.

    Think about it – it’s really an amazing set-up. The Board attorney makes all decisions here but not held accountable and someone else takes the fall if and when things go wrong. And the taxpayers pick up the financial burden once again.

  20. I would like to run for boe. first off I would bring in a new lawyer . then I would pledge fairness and honesty to all lakewood residents. let’s do evrything kusher vyahsher and hshem will smile upon us . do boe members get a salary? just curious

  21. I have always been impressed with the genuine concern shown by the boe attorney on behalf off ALL students and especially in situations involving special needs. This man is a real Mentsch!

    So, to all you ingratiates out there — Stop besmirching a good man!!

    All I have to tell you is that we all have a day of reckoning – and that includes YOU too!!

  22. Boe members do not get a penny but explain why you would bring in a new lawyer??who??

    Show us what you got let’s see if you are capable and at least write your name!!!

  23. Your child in public school per student is receiving some $15,000k+ per year. If only our private school children would have the same facilities and education material that public school has. No public school parent should complain as they receive triple what our private school per student. If they are not getting educated properly then I am not sure what else can be done. There is enough money spent on the public school system so not sure what you want to complain about.

  24. As I will remain anon I would like to share a couple of my own opinions on michael inzelbuch. I would have been sleeping at this late hour but one a friend of mine told me to go on lakewood scoop and see what they wrote about a michael. A man with power will always have enemy’s we all agree on one thing that michael does have a some sort of power in this town. So I will explain in short as possible why he has this power and when did it start.

    As everyone knows michael is a smart and well known lawyer through out the state of jersey by judges parents of special needs children and govt officials. I do not have the exact date and year but michael has been the lakewood board of ed lawyer for about 6 or more years the reason he became the lawyer was because MOST if not ALL parents of special needs children were getting denied services so they(the parents) would hire michael to fight th LBOE and with out doubt michael would win there cases so when the LBOE got fed up they decided to hire michael as there attorney with the convincing of RSK and many prominent asknom in town michael took the job with a decrease of what he was making. So before michael came into the LBOE there was no title one been giving to the non public schools the lakewood public schools were failing and parents of SNC were not getting what they deserved so when michael turned everything around and start giving to all parents what there child ONLY deserved not what the parent wanted but what the social workers said he then turned the lakewood public schools around and was the one who realized why wasn’t the title one going to the non public schools.

    How can people bash a man that helped countless of parents cope and get services for there children a man that built schi got bussing for your school children not on mixed buses turned around the entire education system in our town a man that BMG honored as the man of the community if any of you have respect for them I am shocked and disgusted how people can write such things as I realize that I am not embarrassed to say my name I will sign off here

    DOVID YEHUDA SCHECTER

  25. c’mon raboisai
    lets heare some names.
    who can we get on the boe?
    we need honest inteliigent
    non corruptable people.
    all you need is ten signatures for each guy.
    maybe every big neighboprhood should choose one guy.
    I dont want every guy on boe to be an lac guy.they have an extreme agenda
    lets hear some names,go out and sign em up.
    or how about we all enroll in public school.
    shut down the whole system.let the state take it over and puter veren shoin

  26. This whole post and comments is one big garbage heap.
    The “mosdos” won’t sign their name to this letter.
    The bloggers don’t sign their names
    The Lac won’t even tell us who they are.
    Untill you put your name behind your ideals you are a zero.

    Chaim fried

  27. the mosdos in lakewood were in favor for the preschool program back in september. the problem was that there wasnt enough money for all so they didnt fargin the ones that would be getting. Tha lack of Achdus is the problem.

  28. The VAAD only let in one Silver on the BOE board, on last years election. MI is not to blame. Silver also is the one that caught the raise that MI slipped in for himself.

  29. You are sadly and badly mistaken. It was in 2006, more than 3 years after MI became Board attorney, that it was uncovered that the District was taking 90% of the Mosdos’ Title I money, on MI’s watch. Since he became attorney and NonPublic Special Education Consultant to the BOE, it has become harder, much harder, to get entitled services. There is never enough money because it always goes to his guys. One thing you are right about. He did blackmail the BOE to give him the job of Board attorney in return for dropping some lawsuits, back in ’02-’03. Most of the askonim in town called RSK and tried to get him to back off. The rest is history.

  30. Mr Shecter, noboby is saying that MI did not work hard for the mosdos in town , however, it just seems kinda weird that tiny tots should get all this money that was really allocated to private schools. In addition , tiny tots has been getting 1250 ish per child from our money , what’s up with that. if there is a rational explanation for all this , so explain it to us and this will all go away .Also, something is just very fishy about the relationship between catapult and the BOE. Also I know many people who really and desperatly need special needs and were told there’s no money . As far as the special services is concerned the whole thing has turned into one big laughingstock waste of money, where parents of a two yr old gain a free babysitter to play with their child and catapult is more than happy to oblidge. Just yesterday I overhead two catapult evaluators laughing at what a waste of time this whole thing is. I myself am a special educator and see that the majority of the time, these workers spend filling out endless forms for the state etc in order to make what used to be a normal child seem like a child with issues. Even some therapists have admitted to me they hate wasting their time on normal healthy children but govt standards make them eligible. What a joke! There are soooo many children who have learning issues , emotional issues in our school system, and this money is mostly going in the garbage( I’m sure there are some that gain) but most of it to line the pockets of catapult . why can’t we just hire our own teachers? why are there children in this town sitting at home because “there’s no funding “. these kids are not schi material just kids with minor disabilities, but enough that they can’t attend school and are left in the dark . if the money is there let’s give it to them .

  31. I’m glad “Time 4 Change” brings the conversation back to the issues!

    This is not about The Vaad or the Igud. It’s not about weighing the good that one man does against the possible bad things he may do. This is not about politics or religion.

    This is about a school district obeying the law and governing in a legal manner. It’s about poor decision making or unfair decision making or even illegal decision making.

    Blind trust serves no one. As a community, we need answers to questions from the state and from the federal government.

  32. How can u say that michael blackmailed the boe for the job it doesn’t make sense to say a man would want a job for a hour rate of 250 from 400 thet he charges his own clients.

    One of the bloggers point out that for 3 years when michael was the lawyer there was no title 1 going to the yeshivas well back then mochael didn’t have the power he had now and the day he realized that the title 1 was supposed to be going to the non public children the money lady(forgot her name) was fired or what she said resigned as the ap reported so if michael was not the boe attorney he would still be suing the district and your taxes would be higher because in special ed law if the parents win the case the boe must pay the parents lawyer at his rate which if I am correct is 400 a hour

    I would appreciate if people would write there names instead of hiding behind annon.

  33. I don’t agree with you on every point but on most I do. I see the people that write there names are the only ones to believe not the anon people who write false claims about mi and anyone that comes to mind. I agree that mi is best suited for this job I don’t think we would be able to get another lawyer as good as him BUT I think the boe members should have a little more say in what happens.

  34. Mr shechter . You seem to be very uninformed about anything having to do with special ed. Read this article closely again and you will see the deception going on. All you are proving is that your not the sharpest tool in the shed and confirming our fears of having a con man running and making decisions about our special needs children. He cons tricks and decieves people at every turn. The evidence is so clear , that is people are still fooled by his tricks it means we are in grave danger.

    And as far as not being anon. I do give you repect for naming yourself as it seems you may be the only true MI suporter. As far as those of us who have special needs children , everyone with even slight intellect can understand our need to remain anon.

  35. I think this letter has to do with title 1 so maybe you should read it again and if you were really a special ed parent you would of said my kid was denied services so basically you stand as person that doesn’t like that michael because he has more power than you as dovid said in his comment every ruler has enemy’s and YOU are one of them but the most you can all do is just post your comments on tls

    Sorry dovid I will remain anon

  36. For whoever it is that is using my name, if you know me you know I have the ability to find out who you are.
    Stop using my name. If you are a coward and can’t use your own then dont post.
    Anyone looking to clarify this can contact me at [email protected]

  37. To #36:

    1) I have no idea why a vote was taken.
    2) The Igud has never reached out to any of us and I have no idea who to contact. It is obvious that one who signs the Igud letters is not the one to contact. I didn’t see him at the Title I meeting. Quite odd – with such a list of questions.
    3) What do you mean that “we are not involved”? Other than seeing or hearing about Public Sessions, do you know what goes on before?
    4) Explain what comes across very “negatively”
    5) Other towns don’t have lawyers appearing to do everything and neither do they have attorneys that accomplish so much for ALL.
    6) Yes, RSK is still behind this. I spoke to him this week.

    The problem with most of these emails is that the complainers have no facts and if they would have the guts to call me, they would show themselves to be clueless as to what is really happening.

  38. i am a parent of a special needs child i meant i myself is special ed that is what u all sound like in till u bring proof u all should seek help

  39. to number #7

    you message shows how ignorant you are.

    yes this letter has to do with title 1 . and it make it very clear that and proves that MI has been shortchanging the MOSDOS out of title one money.

    TITLE ONE IS FOR REMEDIAL . not every child who gets some remdial becomes a special ed child . a few of my children of periodicaly gone to remedial. with title 1 MI has shortchanged the mosdos so they have millions less for remedial , but no one has ever denied me title one.

    for that very reason because this letter is about title 1 i did not bring my special ed child into the picture. his issues are not title 1.he is entilted to IDEA.( because he has qualifying DISABILITIES) which he was denied by MI under his famous ” there is no money for your child” is september.

    all the money was gone in september?

    i cant think of any other explanation besides it being in someones pocket.

    this letter proves the genevah of title one. so i think we can rightfully assume that if there is genevah in title 1 there is genevah in IDEA.

  40. u keep changing what u are saying so u are special ed like the blogger before said i think u are the i think u are to old for funding sorry try new york

  41. stop getting off topic and addressing one person. address the core issue.

    do you really expect people to believe that no money is being stolen and our mosdos and our children are not being shortchanged?

    well if so have the board open up ALL the books to independent auditors federal, state, the IGUD , and any special ed parent who wants to see it. . total transparancy. and include all the contrats with stars, catpault , tinytots, and other contractors , and have them open all their books to show what they billed for and double billed for.

    then write a letter to the TLS and sign and noterize it, that you will take personaly responsibility and liability for any money that any individial , group ,or mosad was short changed.

  42. Sorry pal. Your Mentor, MI, tried the same stupidity at the Igud meeting at Bais Tova, when he challenged the signature on the Igud’s letter as forged. Rabbis Shlomo Chaim Kanarek quickly stood up in front of the 40 gathered Menahalim and put a stop to that nonsense, announcing “I signed the letter”. Don’t you people ever learn????

  43. This site is controlled by Meir. They will only post comments favorable to him. I’m afraid we are in big trouble. You will not publish this one.

  44. Please clarify. Are you saying you presented this article and the entire sugya of MI’s attempt to divert mosdos money to Tint Tots to RSK, that he heard from both sides, as required in our holy Torah, and RSK said he was/is still behind it??

  45. TLS is controlled by TLS. It published everything MI, Michelle Doyle, and most others wrote. It is a fair, objective forum for all sides. No one has been barred. We readers are still waiting for a point-by-point answer to the many questions posed here and in the Igud’s letter. Don’t blame TLS for the BOE hiding because they HAVE NO ANSWERS!!!

  46. And if the mosdos take over without an in-between that’s lo mishelanu:

    1. could you imagine the scrutiny they will be under from the state? Is it worth the chance – chillul hashem and sitting in jail?
    2. Is it worth the inevitable machlokes from everyone trying to grab what they can get for their school from the central pot, without having someone on top “dishing it out”?
    3. What will happen to all the self-contained classes?

  47. Ever hear of PPA? That’s the Per Pupil Allocation. There’s no grabbing and no scuffle. Each school properly generates the funds and gets its share by its student count, according to detailed federal formula.

    Why are you resorting to scare tactics to continue the control of proven corruption?

    Yes we need more State and Federal scrutiny. We need the District’s hands out of our children’s entitlements. They are using these funds, at best, as a slush fund to balance their budget.

    Putting an end to this corrupt regime is long overdue.

  48. After reading this string of blogs, i have become painfully aware of the arrogance among the non-public schools. In all that I read i never truly heard anything about the real vicims here. I welcome goverment oversight to our district because then maybe the public school children will get a fair shake . All of this arguing over money for non public when the public schools decline, staff is cut and textbooks are lacking is without a doubt a sin before God and this community should be ashamed.

Comments are closed.