An attorney for Poughkeepsie City School District laid out the charges against longtime business manager for the schools, Jeffrey Baker, but did not finish making the district’s case during the hearing last week.
The district’s attorney, Mark Rushfield of the Poughkeepsie-based firm, Shaw and Perelson LLP, had not yet had the opportunity to question superintendent Laval Wilson and other witnesses by the close of the third full day of testimony on Aug. 16. Arthur Riegel, the hearing officer appointed by the district to oversee the proceedings, said schedules of the attorneys and other parties involved would have to be consulted before any date to resume could be scheduled.
The small crowd gathered to listen to Baker’s testimony in the district administrative office at 11 College Ave. was comprised mainly of district employees. Testimony in the third day of the hearing began around 4 p.m. and stretched on until after 9 p.m.
Steve Dodge, who is married to a school staff member, said he was attending “to see what this is really all about.” Commenting on the slow pace of testimony, Dodge said that “going document by document (was) a rather lengthy process.”
More than 80 exhibits
The district’s exhibits in the case numbered more than 30, and included numerous memorandums and correspondences. Rushfield walked witnesses through the documents, asking them to confirm the details as they were written: a technique that Baker’s attorney, Jonathan Lovett of White Plains-based Lovett and Gould LLP, said was overly time-consuming.
Several of the charges against Baker that led to his suspension from the business office, where he had worked for more than 20 years, related to directives from Wilson that Baker failed to implement.
But Baker depicted mistakes made while he directed the business office as unintentional.
In one instance, Wilson instructed him to implement a “premium holiday,” during which teacher contributions to health insurance plans were not be taken during the month of December 2006, in order to pass along savings the insurance provider had provided for the month.
Baker testified that he did not know the premiums had been deducted, against Wilson’s instructions, until he was suspended.
In a line of questioning that Lovett said was intended to establish motive, Rushfield asked Baker about his diminishing esteem for former superintendent Robert Watson before delving into questions about calculations that incorrectly withheld more in taxes than should have been deducted from Watson’s settlement agreement.
Baker set up withholdings on the full amount of Watson’s settlement for 2006 of $163,000. After an audit from an outside consultant found the district should not pay Watson for about $53,000 in disallowed vacation days and other expenses, Baker did not adjust withholdings.
While he acknowledged that he knew the various line items deducted from Watson’s settlement agreement had already been subject to withholdings, he set up additional withholdings for the full amount.
Baker maintained he was merely taking a “conservative approach” by leaving determinations on what was taxable to the outside auditor.
Another district charge against Baker – that he failed to implement a phone chain about a snow-related school closing – was chalked up to a malfunctioning alarm clock.
Baker said Wilson called him around 3:30 a.m. and told him to call the people on his list. But Baker said he found it inappropriate to call others at that hour, and set his alarm clock for several hours later.
“Unfortunately the alarm didn’t go off,” he said.
“That happens,” remarked one audience member under his breath.