James Latter: ‘The Superintendent Does Not Have to Answer Resident’s Questions.’

09 Sep

Board of Education Member James Latter Says in an E-Mail to RCS Superintendent Elizabeth E. Smith that She Works for the Board of Education, Not for the Community. She Doesn’t Have to Run Around Responding to Community Requests!

Mr James Latter Never Learns!
He Should Keep His Cake Hole Shut!

Ever Wonder What Secret Messages Your Elected Officials Send to Each other? Here’s An Example! Straight from RCS Board of Education Member (You Elected Him!) James Latter’s Dirty Little Fingers to Your Screen!

We recently published an exchange of emails between a resident and Ms Elizabeth Smith regarding the unlawful and illicit involvement of RCS athletics coaches in the sale by RCS students of unauthorized raffle tickets distributed unlawfully by the RCS Sports Association, in violation of policies, procedures, and the law. We published the emails in our article Raffle, Anyone? In that same article, we raise the question of whether or not the RCS Bottle Blitz has requested permission to use school property and whether the Bottle Blitz is required to pay for that use like other organizations. As usual, Superintendent “Betsy” Smith avoided most of the questions.  It appears Mr Latter doesn’t like the fact that the resident contacted the District offices directly. Too bad!

Seems every time you open your fat cakehole, Latter, it gets you in hotter water! So, you think the Superentendent works for YOU? Is that so, Mr James latter? Is that why she’s such a puppet? Is that why so little information gets out in response to the community, Mr Latter, because Ms Smith works for YOU? Mr Latter, if Ms Smith works for you, can we assume YOU are writing out checks to her? If Ms Smith works for you, Mr Latter, and you are elected by the community, doesn’t that mean that you both work for and are accountable to the community? Sounds like you are a bit confused, Mr Latter. So, tell us, Mr Latter, when’s the last time YOU wrote a check to fund your position and for Ms Smith’s excessive salary? Mr Latter, how dare you write a letter like this (we’re assuming this went to Smith):

Community Emails
James Latter []
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 8:04 AM

I am concerned about community emails that are demanding information from our Superintendent with deadlines and promises of escalation of [Editors Note: Does Latter mean “if”?] those deadlines are not met. The superintendent works for us not the community and only has an obligation to get back to the community as time permits. School started this week and I would rather the superintendent focus on that than running around gathering detailed info for a community member. I have not seen a response from you [Editor’s Note: meaning Smith?] to this community member, but I think it is the presidents job to remind community members of how things work. If you do not feel comfortable with this task then maybe you could have Mr Robbins help out. Either way I think a response from the BOE needs to go out today addressing this community members email.
Thank you,

Thank you,
James Latter II
SABIC Innovative Plastics
Engineering Resins
Americas Operations Finance Analyst
T (518) 475-5501
D *233-5501

1 Noryl Ave.
Selkirk, NNY 12158
Admin Building

If you can get past the poor grammar and spelling errors in Latter’s letter, it looks like Mr Latter did this letter on company time. Anyone wonder if he did it during lunch or charged personal or vacation time to do it? Or is it his habit to take care of personal business on company time. Wonder if his manager is aware of Mr Latter’s theft of company time.

Poor, overworked superintendent! Did you eliminate her staff, Mr Latter? Doesn’t she know how to delegate, Mr Latter? What planet are you on, Mr Latter? Furthermore, if Madam Superintendent does not have to respond to residents, she’s got a mouth, let her use it, and tell residents she does not have to answer their questions, that she works for you!  Say it publicly so we all know.

Mr Latter, we feel very strongly that you need to make this statement at a Board of Education meeting, in public, to the public. The public needs to know what you think, Mr Latter. The public needs YOU to tell THEM that they are paying Ms Elizabeth Smith more than $140,000 a year to work for YOU, that she doen’t have time to answer the community’s questions! Will you do that, Mr Latter? Do you have the balls to make that public statement directly to the public?

How about you, Ms Smith? Did you really have to run around getting detailed information for that community member? Didn’t you have that information immediately available? (You should have, it was current and relevant to a burning issue, Ms Smith!) Do you feel you don’t have to answer the community’s questions? Did YOU know you work for James Latter? Would you like to make that statement publicly? That would save us a lot of money in November, when you retire and start collecting a pension based on the $140,000 you’re collecting from the community to work for James Latter. Save us that money, Ms Smith. Save us that money, Mr Latter!

By the way, is that why the community has to ask the same questions over and over again and still get no answer, despite the fact that Ms Smith repeats her canned response, “I’ll get back to you on that?”

Mr Latter, Ms Smith: If that’s what you actually believe, that you don’t need to respond to the community, you both really need some education and some discipline. Better still, you need to GO! And go without a pension!

Latter expresses the very attitude that needs to be eliminated in this community: the in-crowd, string-pullers have all the say and the community can take a leap. You, good people, loyal readers, must take steps to change their attitude. The place to start is at the next Board of Education meeting!

James Latter Is In The Wrong Place. He doesn’t know it but we do!
The Editor

Special Notice: We make every effort to be truthful, complete, fair, and balanced on this blog; therefore, if you see anything that you know to be false or incorrect, or if you have additional information to clarify any issue, please let us know by e-mailing your information or by leaving a comment. It’s very important to us that we don’t fall into the same category as those whom this blog is intended to expose. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation and assistance!

6 responses to “James Latter: ‘The Superintendent Does Not Have to Answer Resident’s Questions.’

  1. cookie

    September 10, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Since when is Mr. Latter given the authority to give directives to the Supervisor without the input of the entire BOE? The BOE should reprimand him for presuming that he is the board.


    • RCS Confidential

      September 10, 2012 at 10:12 pm

      Actually, when the letter was forwarded to me by e-mail, I was not completely clear to whom Mr Latter was writing. What was clear was his confused reasoning regardless of the addressee. The letter is unclear and unrevealing so I can’t say with certainty to whom the letter was actually directed. My initial impression was that it was directed to Superintendent Smith but then some of the pronouns used in the letter such as “us”, “we”, etc. made the impression that Latter was addressing someone or a group of which he is a member. Nevertheless, the letter is inappropriate in its assumptions, arrogant, and dismission of the public who elected Latter and whom he has taken an oath to represent. Latter is a freak, in other words.

      One of the best things to happen to this district is for Elizabeth Smith to take a walk. She’s been ineffectual and rather damaging because of her defensiveness and lack of leadership skills.

      Latter has been a problem child on the board for some time and really should have recognized that he was an inappropriate choice and have resigned. But he’s too arrogant, vain, and stupid to have seen that. He’s a barnacle on the board. Luckily, though he’s on the minority side, not that there should be such clear delineations, but there are, and he is on the downslide with rest of the teachers clique, which is in its death throes.

      You are, right, though. The BoE majority should censure him for sending any message out with such poorly articulated statements. If Latter does have the lack of good judgment to run again, one would hope that the electorate will take the opportunity to censure him and give him is walking papers.

      Thanks for your comment!

      The Editor


      • Simon

        September 11, 2012 at 9:01 pm

        You can tell from the middle sentence (where your Editor’s Note is) exactly who Latter is writing to. It’s therefore no surprise it was forwarded to you.

        Technically/legally, Latter is correct. But that viewpoint simply isn’t practical nor realistic. If you would extend the same logic he’s expressing, you would not be able to ask your childs teacher anything, the principals anything, etc etc.

        Cookie – Latter does not appear to be giving directives to Smith. He appears to be making a (albeit misguided and ill-advised) request to [readacted], whom the email was written to.



      • RCS Confidential

        September 12, 2012 at 9:15 am

        Thank you, Simon, for your comment.

        I disagree that it is certain to whom the letter was addressed as the primary recipient. My first impression was that it was to Smith. On further examination, as I have already mentioned, I found it odd that Latter was referring to “we” and “us”. That raised red flags and I acknowledged that uncertainty both in the article and in subsequent comments.

        Like you, I am not surprised it was forwarded to us. Many things of interest are forwarded to us by people in many positions and with many agendas. We try to sort them all out. Some get in some don’t.

        I do agree that Latter, as is his pattern and habit, was acting out of bounds, the man can’t recognize boundaries, they are murkier for him than for most morons.”Technically,” as a defense, does not work for me and should not work for most readers. It implies a strict hierarchy that most normal people would reject. Technically and non-technically if you are a public servant, paid or unpaid, you are accountable to the community, to the public. Latter does not unilaterally make, implement, iterpret policy. He’s a nobody but even as a nobody he’s accountable to the pubic. Your saving point is that were one to apply your “technically” to most situations, it would create an impossible situation overall. It’s simply nit-picking on Latter’s part and he’s out of order.

        Your last paragraph is far-fetched and overreaching. We did not receive the letter forwarded by any member of any office or agency in the RCS central school district. We know this because we know who forwarded it. It was a private citizen with no official connections with the district. Theorizing, and theorizing it is, to whom the letter was originally sent is purest speculation and therefore your comment was redacted as appropriate, since it implied possible misconduct. Gotta be careful with your speculation, Simon. Real careful.

        The Editor


      • Simon

        September 13, 2012 at 6:35 am

        You can redact the name I referenced… that’s fine. Everyone knows who I put there.

        I offer this evidence:

        * The recipient is a member of the school board due to the phrase: “The superintendent works for us not the community”

        * The recipient is in a position of authority on the BoE, due to the phrase: “I have not seen a response from you to this community member, but I think it is the presidents job to remind community members of how things work”. This directly reinforces the opinion that the Board President is the appropriate person to represent the BoE in making statements to the public.

        * “If you do not feel comfortable with this task then maybe you could have Mr Robbins help out”. Latter then directly attacks the Board President saying if he can’t do the job (that Latter perceives he should be doing), then maybe he should defer to his Vice President.

        I don’t feel I went out on a limb in saying who I thought the email was sent to. I did, however, restrain myself from making an accusation that this school had an issue in the past that a “private” email got out of a protected circle. Now this appears to be an email sent likely to the entire board (I don’t assume it was only to the Board President), it somehow got outside a “protected circle” and is now out in public. Interesting, huh?

        On a side note… while the content of the email IS disturbing (note in all my conversations I did lay out that while technically correct, his opinion ISN’T realistic), this overwhelming need for you to slap these people around is getting in the way of an honest conversation about the contents of the email. You would get even more public support behind your issues with these people if you didn’t cloud the issues.

        Unfortunately, is taken.



      • RCS Confidential

        September 13, 2012 at 8:47 am

        Simon, thank you for your exhaustive (~ing) comment and analysis of the letter. Let me put it this way: I have no problem making a direct statement if the evidence is there. I do not speculate and do not try to milk meaning out of a text if it looks like the content is not there to substantiate what I have to point out. Your method is similar to many denominations’ approach to Scripture or an attorney’s approach to a document: We’re going to make it prove what I have to point out. Fine for a comment but totally inappropriate for me on this blog. You will have noted that I have no problem publishing your comments because as a comment they are strictly your opinion. You many think that “[E]veryone knows who I put there,” and I say “Big deal.” So what. I also redacted the name of the person delivering the letter to Smith. Any speculation on who that might have been for what it’s worth?

        I repeat what I wrote earlier: The e-mail was not forwarded to us by anyone officially associated with the District or with the schools. From that statment you can obviously derive that it was not a member of the board of education. So one can wildly speculate who it might have been and how that person go his/her hands on the letter in such a brief time between it’s having been sent and subsequently forwarded to us. If you have any credible and verifiable ideas, please let us know. So far, no one has denied the fact of the letter but then no one would, would they?

        Note well that this letter does not put a child or children at risk. I believe you may be hinting at the Latter misconduct when he disclosed the confidential, protected information in a parent’s e-mails, an act which violated the law, was unethical, and place children at risk. Moreover, there is no indication that the content of the Latter letter under discussion here has any confidential content whatsoever, nor is it explicitly stated in the letter that it was confidential (the disclaimer at the footer is a Sabic corporation disclaimer and does not substantively apply to messages illicitly sent using Sabic equipment, as was the Latter letter to whomever).

        There is an unverified report that Latter’s Sabic e-mail is no longer functional. Now the e-mail is mimicing it’s user.

        As to your comment that I have an “overwhelming need to slap these people around,” let me respond simply by saying that nothing on this blog addresses a novel, new, or one-time occurrence. The material posted on this blog and on which I or a contributor may comment is something that in all likelihood has been going on for a very long time, is a multiple occurrence, is something that has been noted as inappropriate, illicit, unethical, or illegal (not necessarily by me or any contriutor but generally by the public), or is flagrantly an injustice either to an individual or to the community or both. The recipients of the “slapping around,” as you call it were fully aware of their delinquency way before we took up the subject, yet persisted or continued their misconduct, or allowed the misconduct to continue. That’s when the “slapping around” starts. They had the opportunity to use their freedom to decide to do what was right but chose to continue doing what was wrong, despite the fact that (1) it was obviously wrong, and (2) despite the fact that they were noticed that it was wrong. What do you do with a recalcitrant dog or a disobedient, stubborn child? You correct them for their own good and the good of society.

        The Editor



Please share your thoughts about this post.. Leave a comment here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: