Deluca, Miller, Teachers Clique Want More Money!!!!

16 Apr

Look RCS Property Owners:
You’re Simply Going to Have to Shit or Get Off the Pot!!!

If You Don't Stand Up and Fight  You'll Be Doing this, Too, Just to Pay your Property Taxes!!!

If You Don’t Stand Up and Fight
You’ll Be Doing this, Too,
Just to Pay your Property Taxes!!!

You’re going to be cleaning toilets at Shop’n Save to pay your property taxes while Gerald “Dirty-Hands Jerry” Deluca is sucking up his pension, Cathy Deluca is collecting $30 grand of Ravena residents’ tax money, Matt Miller becomes the teachers’ hero for getting them more of your money, and the New York State United Teachers union is laughing its way to the bank!

How is it that James Latter and Howard Engel can say they were “blindsided” by the budget?!? They’re on the board of education for chrissake! Well, I can understand Teddy Revelle not knowing what’s going on…he’s either on another planet, playing with his water bottle, or typing idiotically on his laptop while the world passes him by. How in hell did that character get elected to be on the board in the first place. He’s a wet dud! Latter’s just devious. But really, Jim, you don’t have to play stupid, just be yourself. That’s convincing enough!

As for Edward “Teddy” Reville, he was just downright disrespectful and impolite when he finally woke up from his torpor, his usual coma. He was even nasty to the young lady who spoke. Learn some decorum Reville! What a dork you are “Teddy”.

Let’s clarify the issue for those of our readers who did not see the meeting and may not understand completely what went on. There was a 6:2 vote. Some think that Mike Robbins and Judy Sylvester voted with the teachers against the 2% proposal and for a higher levy. THEY DID NOT! They voted against the 2% because they want it even LOWER! In fact, Vadney, Robbins, Sylvester, Lukens reason, YES! REASON, that technology, operations and maintenance and transportation can be trimmed even more. One example: the budget contains a provision for two new lawn mowers at $25,000 each. Only one is actually needed.

Who is running the board anyway? Deluca, Miller? Why do Whalen, Engel, Latter, and Reville march in lockstep with what they want? Are Whalen, Engel, Latter and Reville mindless zombies? (I can’t believe I asked that question!)

animated growing head_smDo you feel a silent scream swelling up inside…like rage?

The “Dirty-Hands Jerry” Deluca and “Gimme-a-Health-Club” Cathy Deluca together with their Coeymanazi mob joined with New York State United Teachers lackey “Matt-the-Mutt” Miller, teacher and union rep at the RCS high school, to say that Dr Alan McCarthy’s efforts to keep the tax increase low was not going to be enough money!!! Deluca and Miller got up and actually said that McCartney’s budget was too low and the 2% increase was not enough. Deluca and Miller told the RCS CSD school board that they should raise the taxes even MORE!!!!

Two things are crystal clear: The first one is that Jerry Deluca is a loudmouth with very questionable motivation. Miller is a loudmouth with very clear motivation. Jerry Deluca is a crook (you don’t have to steal money to be a crook, just swindle people out of their freedom of choice). He’s a bully in a suit.

The second one is that Matthew J. “Matt-the-Mutt” Miller is just sleezy. Yes, he’s a crook, too, and pocketed plenty of your money while he was double-dipping as energy manager and still is doing his union work on your dimes. He’s a clown who thinks his union position is a power position. It’s not, really. But it does say something about Miller’s character: he plays both sides of the fence, he’s insincere, and immoral.

Of course, the teachers clique on the RCS CSD school board agreed and Alice Whalen, Howard “Bray” Engel, James Latter, and Edward Teddy Revile … that’s Reville voted McCartney’s budget down because it wasn’t raising your taxes enough to satisfy the greed of the teachers and their NYSUT union rep and the Coeymanazis.

We’re inviting you to send in your comments on how you feel about Gerald “Jerry” Deluca’s and Matt Miller’s demand that you pay more property taxes. We want to know your comments on how you feel about board of education members Alice Whalen, Howard Engel, James Latter, and Edward Revelle sending Dr Alan McCartney back to the drawing board to figure out how to raise your taxes more. We want to hear from YOU, NOW!!!

You'd Better Decide What You're Gonna Do and Do It

You’d Better Decide What You’re Gonna Do and Do It
Or you can read in the Times Useless how many more businesses and residents leave the area for places where they can live affordably.

It’s time for you to start writing letters to the Superintendent, to the New York State Board of Edcucation, to the Board of Education Members who think you aren’t paying enough taxes. You need to attend the next Board of Education meeting and ask Whalen, Engel, Latter, and Revelle to explain why they think you need to be paying more taxes. You need to wake up and tell the Delucas and Matt Miller to SHUT UP!

Because if you don’t YOU DESERVE the SCREWIN’ YER GONNA GET from Deluca, Miller, the Coeymanazis and the New York State United Teachers union!

(Editor’s Note: We urge you to watch the video of the April 16, 2013, board of education meeting. You won’t believe what you hear. It’ll be available on the RCS CSD website in a couple of days.)

something tells me you should start listening those voices The Editor

something tells me you should start listening those voices
The Editor


12 responses to “Deluca, Miller, Teachers Clique Want More Money!!!!

  1. Sunrise

    April 22, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    Its time for the community to stand up and demand that whatever steps the Superintendent or the board must take to prevent teachers from being elected to the Board of Ed should be done NOW! The [taxpaying] PUBLIC should also demand that action be taken to identify who is accessing and using private information, and how, where, etc. that information is being used!! Who is responsible in the administration to protect this information from distribution? Parents better start researching information about the final steps being taken to implement the additional common core standards before they loose all their rights to have a say in the child’s so-called education! Common core standards violate current privacy etc. while taking away the rights of parents. What do the teachers on the Board have to say about common core standards? I am sure they don’t have a clue because common core standards further increase the school’s and teachers’ control of you and your children, and the common core standards reduce your input as to what will be taught to your child in the schools you are paying for and supporting! You, the parent, will be outvoted by the teachers, school pyschologists etc. based on their observations, testing, videotaping of your child—you will be deemed unfit based on the questions and “their interpretation” of your child’s answers that will be demanded about your parenting and personal life. Your child’s school days can be compared to a science experiment!! NOT a LEARNING process for them!! DO YOU WANT MEDIOCRITY FOR YOUR CHILD??? OR LESS?


    • RCS Confidential

      April 22, 2013 at 4:16 pm

      Actually, I would guess that the vast majority of RCS school district parents have no clue what the Common Core Standards are and what they potentially can do to erode parents’ control and authority over their own children. As one official recently put it, “The children do not belong to parents.” Well, that raises a question that someone really should ask: If the children do not “belong” [I agree it’s an unfortunate choice of word!], then to whom do they belong? And if they belong to someone else, then perhaps that someone else should be feeding, clothing, sheltering, educating, paying the medical and dental bills, etc. for those children. That doesn’t seem to be happening, does it?

      Most parents in this area are mediocre and their legacy to their childrens is more mediocrity. Parents in this district are the worst possible role models and the teachers are even worse with their hypocrisy, conniving, bullying, etc.

      People may not be aware of the fact that children have civil rights. Yes, they do! They can refuse to be videotaped if they feel their privacy and person is being violated. The children also have a right to voice an opinion about teachers and curriculum but that little voice should not be tainted by being told what to say as little Maddie McTigue so obviously was at the April 16 BoE meeting.

      School employees, whether teachers, principles, psychologists, coaches or the janitors should not have authority over your children without first consulting with the parent. Parents, too, are at fault because it’s easier to delegate the care and responsibility to school personnel, after school programs, so that parents can do everything they want but parent. Interestingly and in retrospect we can identify the same pattern in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, and in other totalitarian states where parents are sidelined and the kids become tools of the state. Can you see the signs already here?

      The Editor


  2. Sunrise

    April 22, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    I AM A Property owner and business owner, but unfortunately live several miles out of the Coeymans jurisdiction. I am sick and tired of the teachers on the Board of Education. Matt Miller, and the infamous Delucas. I cannot believe the citizens of this town TOLERATE their lies, and self serving actions..No matter what they say or do it is self serving! They have gone to the same school as Obama and Cuomo!! Wake up and get your butts out to these meetings!!! You just don’t get it that these people DON’T GIVE A DAMM ABOUT STUDENTS OR YOUR CHILDREN OR YOU!! Ask how much extra MONEY was in last years budget. DEMAND that these criminals stop slander, lies by getting involved!!!!


    • RCS Confidential

      April 22, 2013 at 4:27 pm

      Freedom of speech and expression is a privilege, not a right. There’s a vast difference between the two. You can’t morally be deprived of a right or have a person or government try to control your right. An example is your free will or your freedom of conscience. But even those rights, if they are used to harm the general good, can result in your being punished. The same applies to freedom of speech and expression. It is a limited “right” a.k.a. a privilege. If you criminally abuse it or use it to harm the public good, it can be taken away. An example: false advertising or speech or expression that is intended to cheat someone or the public. Even speech that is calculated to intimidate or to cause another person anxiety is unprotect speech. So is bullying speech or cyber bullying speech or expression. Hate speech is also illegal.

      Having observed the Delucas, the teachers clique, Matt Miller and having analyzed, commented on, and published their speech verbatim, you can come to only one true conclusion: they are abusing the privilege of free speech to disseminate falsehoods and to misinform the public. They are using the public forum of the BoE meetings to flamboozle the public, disseminate falsehoods and misinform the public. They have self-serving, political, and institutional agendas that benefit them only and that benefit is at the public’s expense.

      The sooner the public realizes this and silences them [I don’t advocate anyone being “silenced”, really, because that would certainly set a very dangerous precedent] or learns to ignore them, the sooner the public will regain its self-respect and authority over its own destiny.

      The Editor


  3. Simon

    April 17, 2013 at 6:41 am

    I don’t think you’re being completely fair in your comments.

    The vote for 2% was 2-6. Meaning you had 2 additional members whose motives you’re not questioning. Why are you not criticizing Mr. Robbins or Mrs. Sylvester?

    Additionally, this article is in conflict with your article from 2 weeks ago. You cannot hold up as heroes people who say they didn’t have sufficient time to review grant information (and thus not vote for it), yet vilify others who make the same argument on a different topic the following meeting.

    This issue comes down to one simple item – – the election in May. Mr. Vadney himself spoke that he thought the 2% budget was of concern in a few areas, but very simply stated he wanted to be on the record as voting “yes” on a lower budget number and not have to worry about it actually passing (by that point in the comments it was obvious already that it would not pass). This allows him to posture himself as a hero to the anti-tax people who voted for him in the first place, while not actually implementing the 2% budget.

    It’s amusing how easily people by into the campaigning.



    • RCS Confidential

      April 17, 2013 at 7:27 am

      First of all, you are conflating (confusing) different issues and different circumstances. In plain language, you are comparing apples and pears.

      Second of all, whether Robbins and Sylvester and voted differently is immaterial, whether you want to explain it by their having voted honestly and with their consciences or that they turned coat and joined the opposition, which seems to be the American way of describing the situation when one does vote his/her conscience and not party lines. The point is that Robbins and Sylvester, if they did vote their consciences, did something we have never seen Whalen, Engel, Latter, Reville do: they broke ranks. Whalen, Engel, Latter, Reville talk, act, and vote as if they are sutured at the him and share one brain.

      I take umbrage at the suggestion that I am being unfair, especially when you claim that I am contradicting what I wrote earlier. That is not true if you are familiar with the issues and the circumstances. In the article two weeks ago, we were discussing a grant proposal of 40 pages that was sent out the morning of the concerned meeting and the board was urged to vote on it. Several members naturally did not have adequate time to read and absorb those 40+ pages in the short time available. In fact, Mr Vadney suggested that the board meet in special session a couple of days later, at a time when all members would have had the chance to have completely read and understood the content of the proposal. There would still have been time to have submitted the proposal. That was reasonable and I said so. The teachers’ clique Whalen, Engel, Latter, Reville did not feel that was reasonable and opposed the meeting suggested by Vadney and wanted to vote on the proposal (actually submitting the application) without allowing the others to be fully informed. That was unreasonable and I said so.

      In the present case, the budget has been under discussion for weeks and McCartney has been presenting and reviewing the process on an ongoing basis. The information was there for all board members IF THEY WANTED IT. Moreover, it was on the agenda for that meeting and if they had any concerns or questions, they could and should have voiced those concerns or questions in Executive Session. They apparently did not.

      So the situations and circumstances to which you refer are different in many respects and YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER when you claim that I am being unfair. Do your homework…you have all the resources you need…and you won’t come out with egg on your face in future.

      No. It does not come down to one “simple item” and your argument navigates perilously close to being ad hominem (= personal) by your pointing a finger directly at Vadney. Vadney is a board member like any other sitting board member, he simply presides over the proceedings, and under some circumstances is the voice of the other members. He has no special powers other than the “ceremonial.”

      While you can make a statement on your own mental processes and interpret the statements of others, you have no standing to say what another person’s mental processes or disposition is. That’s pure arrogance and it makes you look partial and partisan. Are you?

      As for the posturing, who doesn’t posture on the board? Who doesn’t posture when campaigning? What does posturing have to do with anything at all? If Vadney publicly states he’s for a lower budget and he expects the budget to be lower if waste and fat are trimmed–and there’s plenty of that in the District–that’s his position and once it leaves his mouth it’s public. He has to follow up. I may be missing your point, if there is one, but I don’t understand where you’re going with that line.

      And by the way, the expression is: to BUY into s.t.



      • Simon

        April 17, 2013 at 7:48 am

        I obviously struck a chord here. 🙂

        Sure the budget was on the agenda. It’s on the agenda every meeting the second half of the school year. Was the vote on a specific 2% budget on an agenda? And why vote on a budget now? Doesn’t have to be. The BoE members are perfectly able to discuss the plusses and minuses of a 2% or a whatever% budget without voting on anything. Both in public and private session they are able to give the super marching orders and opinion without there being a majority vote.

        Posturing has to do when it interferes with members putting out their LEGIT opinions. Such as when they outright say in public that they will vote FOR a budget on the BoE, however will campaign AGAINST it in public afterwards.

        Of course I’m partial and partisan. Aren’t you?

        I know what the expression is. It was a typo.



      • RCS Confidential

        April 17, 2013 at 8:03 am

        No, you didn’t strike a chord, nor did you strike a nerve (the expressions mean very different things. to strike a chord means to create harmony, to strike a nerve means to incite or to irritate).

        By your statement you appear to agree that Latter and Engel had no conceivable reason to feel that they were “blindsided” by the 2% proposal. Correct? That there was plenty of opportunity to follow the development of the budget. Right?

        The role of the board of education when voting on the budget is merely to approve a budget to go to the people for the vote; what the board members say, do, or vote privately is their private business. Their vote, especially, is and should remain secret. (Did you hear that Jerry Dirty Hands Deluca? Secret!) That sentiment was very succinctly articulated by board president Vadney in response to Jerry Deluca’s admission that he had access to otherwise secret vote information. We’ll find out how that happened, too.

        Whether I am partial or impartial is immaterial and none of your business. This is a forum for responding to ideas and situations, not a confessional or a mud wrestling ring.



      • Simon

        April 17, 2013 at 8:10 am

        I’m of the opinion that all of ’em need to go. I have no need for anyone who is acting with ulterior motives or without realistically considering all options. I need people who are open to both discussion and consideration of all opinions. I can give some love to Mr. Robbins for acting rather responsibly last night. +1.

        Unfortunately, we can only vote out 3 a year. Not that there’s any better options out there in the community.



      • RCS Confidential

        April 17, 2013 at 8:27 am

        I agree with you Simon. There is a deplorable lack of leadership on the current board but also, preventing the leadership and impairing any collaboration or consensus, is the Neanderthal attitude of obstruction. All of this is aggravated by a conspicuous lack of professionalism and communication between opposing sides (Why are they opposing each other, anyway? Don’t they have a common purpose? And why is there no communication between and among members to approach consensus? Even members of Congress meet privately to cook up a deal! And we know how dysfunctional Congress is!)

        The suggestion that “all of ’em need to go” is patently stupid. You do yourself a disservice by even jokingly writing something like that. I’m not, however, saying you’re completely off the mark. Indeed, a message needs to be sent by the public to ALL board members, both sides, to the effect that we’re sick of the quibbling, the overt hostility, the disrespect, the lack of professionalism, the public displays, etc. etc. The special interests do not belong on the board! We have an entire side that is made up of teachers or 1st degree relatives of teachers and, in at least one case, there’s a complex relationship (Engel a teacher, married to a teacher, Reville related to Engel by marriage!) How corrupt can it get. We then have a rabid union rep masquerading as the beneficient kid-loving, parent-pandering teacher, Matt Miller, who is a real weasel. Deluca completes the morbid panorama.

        What we have is a very costly soap opera and we need to use some of that soap to clean up the opera.

        What we don’t have is representation, real representation from the community at large. The real fiscal stakeholders in this tragedy of errors: the RCS property owner who are footing this bill. The seniors, the working people, the struggling masses. Not the fatass Delucas who are waddling in their own muck of corruption, nor the Millers of the world who are self-serving and ambitious, out for themselves. Neither Miller nor the Delucas give a wit for the community; they love the soapbox, though. The Delucas and Millers are not THE COMMUNITY.

        We don’t need the unwashed beneficiaries of the property owner’s dollars and sweat up there climbing on chairs and shouting at the board. We don’t need the social parasites demanding more and more and yet more. We need the very stakeholders who are footing the bill to get their tired asses out to meetings and courageously say what has to be said: You’ve got to curb spending! You’re driving us out of the district! Your killing the tax base!

        I, for one, am sick and tired of feeding the futile, of carrying the parasites, of working to pay bills and taxes and seeing others profit by my sweat while I die poor. (Actually, I chose the moral options of simplicity and poverty, but it still sounds good for the rest of the community.)

        So, my revered friend, Simon, given the choice of who would go to the wall first, which would be your sentencing option: the teachers clique or the non-teacher side? Cast your vote but you have to choose just one.

        The Editor


      • Simon

        April 17, 2013 at 9:04 am

        You can call me an idealist, but I chose not to select a side.

        When I elect board members, I go out of my way (barring any truly off the wall candidates) to advocate for those who are unique in their representation. For example, put one with Elementary school kids in there. One with High schoolers. One unmarried without kids. One retired resident. A business owner. I’ll even knock you off your rocker by saying sure, put a sovereign citizen in there. I’ll vote for people I disagree with in order to get varying opinions to the table.

        Believe me, I’m elated that taxes are going down this year. I may actually go on vacation this year. Our spending is out of whack.

        I’m just tired of a group of people (on all sides) who seem to be more about butting heads that really discussing the issues in our community.



      • RCS Confidential

        April 17, 2013 at 9:07 am

        Makes real sense, Simon. Bravo! We are of one mind on those points.

        Thank you!




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: