Written presentation before the Board of Education. A formal reply has been requested via the Superintendent on November 10, 2004, received and forwarded to the Board. No reply has yet been received.

_________________________________________

November 9, 2004

Dr. Ohotnicky, Mr. Thomson, members of the Board of Education of Regional 7 High School, taxpayers and friends:

Good evening.

My name is Rev. John C. Rankin, president of the Theological Education Institute (TEI) of Hartford, Connecticut.

For nine years now I have worked with Mrs. Joyce Sperow, who was unduly suspended, then fired from her teaching position at the high school. I am a minister and not an attorney, thus Mrs. SperowВ’s case was handled by several different attorneys over the years. Sadly, they only responded to Regional 7's definition of terms, which was to focus on procedure and not the substance of the matter.

I then represented Mrs. Sperow before the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) beginning with two days of fact finding meetings in October, 2003. In that time, I listened to Regional 7 make its best case. In so doing, they never admitted the original facts of the case.

When I told the investigating attorney, Ms. Roxanne Sinclair, that this case was rooted in a violation of Mrs. SperowВ’s religious liberty, she disagreed emphatically. But over the ensuing months, as I argued my position, Ms. Sinclair eventually agreed. Thus, in her July 15, 2004 CHRO Finding, Mrs. Sperow was completely vindicated, all the facts I argued were admitted, and as well, compelling evidence was shown that Mrs. Sperow had also suffered discrimination based on her age and gender.

In simple outline, here are the facts:

1. The original incident was Mrs. SperowВ’s proper pedagogical reference to the Ten Commandments in a hallway encounter, as she showed two students that it is wrong to lie, wrong to bear false witness. The Ten Commandments was a subject brought up by the students themselves.

2. In suspending Mrs. Sperow, School Superintendent Dr. Robert Fish bore false witness against her, claiming she committed an illegal act concerning church and state. However:

a. Regional 7 had no policy outlining such possible violations;

b. There is none such under the U.S. Constitution; and

c. Regional 7, by its own logic, was guilty of the same ahead of time В– for pedagogical purposes the school district had publicly displayed a Menorah, the candelabrum set by the Jews next to the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in the Ark of the Covenant.

3. Dr. Fish sought to have Mrs. Sperow sign a confidential agreement where she would admit fault in the matter, thus requiring her to bear false witness against herself.

4. Mrs. Sperow refused to perjure herself, and was cited for "insubordination."

a. In other words, after Mrs. Sperow successfully taught two students it was wrong to lie, Dr. Fish was seeking to make Mrs. Sperow lie by signing a false agreement.

5. All subsequent charges of "insubordination" were trumped up charges to substantiate Dr. FishВ’s original falsehood, and his goal to fire Mrs. Sperow.

The CHRO July 15, 2004 Finding determined that there was no reasonable basis for the "insubordination" charges. Indeed, all these "insubordination" charges stemmed from Dr. FishВ’s original false charge of insubordination.

To reiterate: Dr. Fish had sought to have Mrs. Sperow sign a confidential agreement where she would admit fault in the matter, thus requiring her to bear false witness against herself. Mrs. SperowВ’s only "insubordination" was to refuse to lie. And two attorneys agreed with her. How dramatic В– Mrs. Sperow had successfully taught two students that it was wrong to lie, then was being pressured by Dr. Fish to lie about it.

This is not a matter concerning political disputes over the symbolic postings or monuments concerning the Ten Commandments. Rather, this is a matter of substance, of basic truth telling and religious liberty.

Mrs. Sperow has been fully exonerated, and had merely sought justice В– restoration of the monies she has lost, and expenses incurred to defend herself against such dishonesty.

School Superintendent Dr. Roberta Ohotnicky and Board of Education Chair Mr. Schuyler Thompson have now twice refused such simple justice.

Thus, I leave you with these questions:

1. Can any member of the Board of Education dispute any facts summed up here?

2. If you attempt to do so, and if I believe you are wrong, are you willing to host a public meeting so that the taxpayers can witness the details of the case?

3. If you cannot evidence an objection to this presentation of the facts, agreed to by the CHRO July 15, 2004 Finding, will you do justice for Mrs. Sperow?

4. As well, are you willing to be accountable to the taxpayers of Regional 7, and publish the itemized legal costs you have incurred against Mrs. Sperow? If not, why not?

Finally, I leave the taxpayers of Regional 7 with this question: Will you hold your Board of Education accountable to be truth-tellers in this matter?

Thank you.

John Rankin