---

I usually don't waste my time responding to people such as Mr. Rakofsky especially when I don't personally know the person in question. The outright distortion of facts compels my response to the letter ("More Opposition to BOE Lawsuit") that was printed in the March 16 issue of The Roslyn News.

I find it sad that this person must want to disrupt the fiduciary responsibilities of three Roslyn Board of Education members.

My fellow BOE members Cliff Saffron, Meryl Ben-Levy and I take our fiduciary responsibility to represent the interests of all Roslyn School District residents seriously. We have devoted countless hours to setting the Roslyn SD back on the right course educationally, instructionally, and fiscally after years of failed management and abject neglect by our district's senior management and by former BOEs.

For the record and to correct Mr. Rakofsky's misrepresentations, I offer the following:

• Mr. Rakofsky writes, "The current BOE commenced litigation against former BOE members."

  If he would have read my Jan. 10 letter in The Roslyn News, he would have known that neither Mrs. Ben-Levy nor I were members of the "former BOE" that commenced this litigation by a 4-0 vote (Kline, Wilner, Stern and Saffron) with two recusals (Costigan and Combs). Both Mrs. Ben-Levy and I inherited that lawsuit "moving at 60 miles an hour" with material changes added since the commencement of that lawsuit.

  These new facts caused our voting to not discontinue the lawsuit lest we be in potential breach of our fiduciary duty to protect the assets and interests of the Roslyn SD. Please note that Mr. Rakofsky doesn't question Mr. Stern, Mrs. Kline or Mrs. Wilner about their original vote or does he share the unusual and non-credible circumstances surrounding the 3-2 vote he makes reference to.

• Mr. Rakofsky writes, "Mr. Borowick stated that he received over 300 telephone calls and e-mails to support his vote."

  Mr. Rakofsky misrepresented what I wrote which was as follows: "I have personally received in excess of 300 telephone calls to date from residents who are equally divided in their opinions on this matter." Mr. Rakofsky did succeed in proving the accuracy of one thing---the part of my Jan. 19 letter that read, "It is very interesting that many of these residents have indicated that they choose to remain 'invisible' for fear of the verbal abuse that they would be exposed to if they offered a dissenting view."

• Mr. Rakofsky writes, "with fees (legal) topping $600 an hour, it is the old wolf guarding the hen house story."

  Mr. Rakofsky chose to omit the fact that the RSD's special legal counsel Farrell Fritz et al, Esqs, (FF) maximum hourly billing rate is $350 an hour which is net of discount.

• Mr. Rakofsky writes, "the Borowick letter goes on to imply that the Hevesi forensic audit valued at $1 million is inaccurate."

  Mr. Rakofsky forgets to mention that his own faulty interpretation on this subject comes from one of the sample questions I received from the community. I paraphrased the question in my letter as follows: "Would residents' opinions change if the actual documented dollar loss to the Roslyn SD as reported in the Hevesi Report doubled or tripled?"

  Mr. Rakofsky puts a value on the Hevesi Audit at $1 million, not myself. Mr. Rakofsky puts the "inaccurate" label on the Hevesi forensic audit, not myself. I am extremely appreciative of the effort by Hevesi's audit team and the fact that the RSD was spared the cost of that particular forensic audit.

  What scare tactics was Mr. Rakofsky speaking about? He didn't include them in his letter because they relate to the very real possibility that the "dollar amount of the theft" could have been much greater if the Hevesi audit team chose to expand the scope of its audit in terms of coverage period or in terms of the areas of audit interest.

  Why did Mr. Rakofsky choose not to include the fact that the Hevesi Report addressed the audit of a specific, and limited period of time re: the RSD's financial records (the period audited commenced with the employment start date of Gluckin's niece as the accounts payable manager) and that had the Hevesi audit team chosen to go back earlier in time (when both Tassone and Gluckin were in their current positions prior to Gluckin's niece's hiring), or had chosen to devote resources to an expanded review of the transactions underlying the RSD Construction Bond of 2000, the "dollar amount of the theft" may have indeed been materially larger.

• Mr. Rakofsky writes, "over $750,000 (on legal fees) has already been spent with no upper limit in sight."

  Mr. Rakofsky excludes the following information that has been reported by BOE member Saffron numerous times. Mr. Saffron reported that a significant dollar amount of their (FF) overall billing to date relates to "general legal and administrative support services" from when the scandal went public, including but not limited to interaction with Central Administration, with the former and current BOEs, with the New York State Comptroller's office, with the Nassau District Attorney's office, and coordination of various forensic audit and investigatory services.

  Mr. Rakofsky omits a key fact reported at the Open Forum night meeting that the dollar amount recovered to date by Farrell Fritz on behalf of the RSD is significantly, and materially in excess of the net fees charged by FF just for recovery litigation related services. Mr. Rakofsky omits the fact that the BOE had just renegotiated the terms of the RSD's fee arrangement with FF which will materially reduce the cost of FF's representation of the RSD on a go forward basis.

• Mr. Rakofsky writes, "it is my understanding that the current BOE commenced litigation on advice from counsel, even though it turns out it was based on faulty information."

Mr. Rakofsky justifies his statement by comparing the current BOE's action to the previous BOE's advice from counsel that was considered criminal. Mr. Rakofsky glosses over his reference to "faulty information" because he doesn't know about the real facts underlying the continuation of the lawsuits are, and he chooses not to address the fact that the prior BOE's negligence and abdication of fiduciary duty are what brought this entire school district to the difficult place we are in right now.

• Mr. Rakofsky writes, "that we remind them (the three BOE members) that 'it is the lawsuits stupid' that will remove them from office."

  Again, we take our fiduciary duty as publicly elected BOE trustees seriously. That responsibility unfortunately includes making difficult decisions that may impact individuals so long as it is in the overall best interest of the entire RSD.

  Our ultimate goal is to protect the assets of the RSD, to protect the interests of all taxpayers within the RSD, and most importantly, to provide the children of this school district with the best education possible in a fiscally prudent way. Mr. Rakofsky, your failure to focus on the above makes it very clear that you are incapable of "seeing the forest for the trees."

  There is not one BOE member among us who wants to hurt any of our fellow residents. I suggest you think about this mantra: "it is failure to stay focused on the education of our school district's children and on the overall fiscal stability of our school district stupid" which will remove BOE members from office.

• Mr. Rakofsky writes, "How dare Mr. Saffron keep the taxpayers in the dark?"

  Mr. Saffron has gone out of his way to explain in detail the RSD's expenditures on legal matters, the purpose of and status of those matters, and most importantly, the fact that a constant cost vs. benefit analysis is being performed to ensure that RSD spending on legal matters is justified.

  In addition, it has been my personal continued pressuring of Central Administration for fiscal and overall transparency that has caused this school district's financial information to be posted on the RSD website for this community's benefit.

  Furthermore, it has been Ms. Ben-Levy's mantra to lift the shroud of secrecy, and to shine light in all the dark corners, and to bring everything out into the open where everyone can see, and know, and hear the same information, and participate in this process.

• Mr. Rakofsky writes, "It is now very apparent that Mr. Saffron, Ms. Ben-Levy and Mr. Borowick are incapable of listening to the majority of this community."

  Mr. Rakofsky, on what scientific basis have you determined that you are or that you represent the majority? Was it because 100 vocal residents (who many, by their own admission are personal friends with the former BOE members being sued) came to one particular BOE public forum, or was it because a resident decided to devise an unreliable survey that reached only a fraction of this community?

Mr. Rakofsky, one last question: Please explain what level of desperation caused you, in your letter, to refer to yourself in the third person ("A Roslyn Estates resident then walked up to the microphone...). Was it to try to give credibility to your misrepresentative attacks?

I can keep going to refute every specific falsehood by Mr. Rakofsky's, but he and his allies will continue to surface in different places with different mouthpieces to distract the community from focusing on the RSD's many pressing issues.

It is Mr. Rakofsky's hope that the silent majority within our community will get caught up in the hysteria he is trying to create, and will take this BOE's focus off the critical budgetary and fiscal issues and concerns, the long neglected educational and instructional quality issues, the very visible physical plant and repair issues, and the long-term stability of this school district to our collective detriment. I do not think our community will tolerate another nonproductive BOE.

Rest assured this BOE, and in particular the three "attacked and maligned" BOE members have not lost their focus or their resolve to do what is necessary to restore the Roslyn SD to its former lofty position of educational excellence, and fiscal integrity.