Page 6 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • December 14, 2011 FLOW Area Superior Court dismisses slander/libel lawsuit by Frank J. McMahon A Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Paul Saxton, a former superintendent of the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District, against current Board of Education President Ira Belsky. Superior Court Judge Robert L Polifroni dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, which means the issue was decided on its merits and cannot be filed again, although the decision can be appealed. Saxton, who retired in October 2008, filed the suit in 2009 against Belsky, who was then a school board trustee, and unnamed others. Saxton claimed they may be responsible for damaging his reputation. The lawsuit is the result of a written statement read by Belsky at a public board meeting on April 28, 2008 in which Belsky criticized Saxton for how he managed the district and accused some long-term school board members for not holding Saxton and his administration accountable for what Belsky described as “failures to attend to matters of importance to this board and to the primary educational responsibilities of the district.” Belsky’s statement was read at the end of a meeting at which the board voted to name the district’s administration building after Saxton, and Saxton’s family was in attendance. In the lawsuit, Saxton accused Belsky of making a defamatory statement at the public meeting of the school board in the presence of his family and members of the public and he claimed the statement contained numerous false statements or allegations about him and his abilities as superintendent. He claimed the statements Belsky read at that meeting were untrue and would injure his reputation. In addition, Saxton claimed that Belsky published the same statement in a letter to members of the public and distributed it to parents of students within the district and members of the public, further damaging his reputation. In his response to the lawsuit, Belsky denied that there were any other persons who assisted him in allegedly attempting to harm Saxton and he also denied that he knew, or should have known, that the statements he made as a trustee regarding Saxton were false, or that he acted maliciously and intentionally to damage Saxton’s reputation. He also denied that his written statement read at the board meeting contained false statements. Judge Polifroni explained his decision to dismiss the lawsuit, stating that there was evidence that demonstrated that Belsky’s statements were truthful, or an expression of his opinion based on factual information and events, and Saxton failed to offer evidence to the contrary, so he did not meet the “clear and convincing” standard required for defamation, which is that the defendant’s statements were knowingly false or made with a reckless disregard for the truth. According to Polifroni’s explanation, even if Belsky’s statements were defamatory, he cannot be liable to Saxton for defamation because Belsky was speaking about a public figure on a matter of public of concern, which was the governance, oversight, and administration of the district including the school board’s oversight of the superintendent. He also found that Saxton did not prove that Belsky did so with actual malice. “In order to establish a prima facie case of defamation,” Polifroni stated, “a plaintiff must show that a defendant communicated to a third person a false statement about the plaintiff that tended to harm plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of the community, or to cause others to avoid the plaintiff. Moreover, a plaintiff must have been harmed by the alleged defamation.” Polifroni pointed out that after retiring from the RIH school district, Saxton was employed as an interim superintendent for the Carlstadt East Rutherford Regional High School District from July 2009 to June 2011 and he has not seen a psychiatrist or psychologist as a result of the comments made by Belsky. He therefore found that because Saxton was hired for the same or similar position in another school district and did not seek medical or psychiatric treatment as a result of the comments made by Belsky, Saxton failed to demonstrate that he was harmed by, or suffered from, Belsky’s comments. Judge Polifroni did, however, comment on the circumstances that existed when Belsky made his statements about Saxton. “This court observes that the timing of the defendant’s comments was questionable,” Polifroni stated, “in so far as plaintiff was scheduled to be honored by the board for past services rendered. The plaintiff’s family was present in anticipation of a warm and enjoyable evening (and) the defendant’s critical comments made under these circumstances are themselves subject to criticism as violative of civilized public discourse. Nevertheless, said circumstances do not change the legal status of the statements made at the meeting.” Belsky responded to the decision saying, “Obviously, I’m delighted that the court determined what I have always known to be the case; that my April 28, 2008 public statement that was so critical of the then, but now gone, long standing members of the board for failing to adequately supervise the administration and Saxton was true, and thus provided no basis for a lawsuit by Saxton. “It is unfortunate that after failing first in his effort to have me censured by the board for my remarks critical of him, and then failing a second time when he sought to have me cited by the School Ethics Commission for my remarks, that Saxton made a third desperate and failed attempt at revenge by this time consuming and wasteful lawsuit.” Saxton accepted the court’s decision, saying, “I certainly have to accept the court’s decision although I don’t agree with it.” He said he will not make a decision on an appeal until he meets with his legal counsel, but he added the following commentary about his administrative service. “I have always respected the majority of board members that I have worked with during my career and I have always found them to be fair and reasonable,” Saxton said. “None of them have ever given me an evaluation of less than commendable and I will let that speak for the quality of service I’ve rendered in my 30 years in administrative posts.”