Page 6 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • November 23, 2011 FLOW Area Slander and libel trial to begin in Hackensack by Frank J. McMahon The trial of a lawsuit filed by a former superintendent of the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District has been scheduled for Dec. 14 in Superior Court in Hackensack. Paul Saxton, who retired as the district’s superintendent in October 2008, filed the suit in 2009 against current School Board President Ira Belsky and unnamed others whom Saxton believes may be responsible for damaging his reputation. In the lawsuit Saxton accuses Belsky of making a defamatory statement at a public board meeting in the presence of his family and members of the public and claims the statement contained numerous false statements or allegations. Saxton contends that Belsky made numerous false statements about him and his abilities as superintendent, and his evaluations by the entire school board, and that Belsky knew, or should have known, that the statements he read at the meeting were untrue and would injure his reputation. He also states in the complaint that Belsky knew that any criticism of any board employee was not to be made in a public session of the board unless the employee had been put on official notice and had consented to being discussed at the public portion of the board meeting. In addition, Saxton states that Belsky published the same statement in a letter to members of the public in July 2008 and distributed it to parents of students in the district and/or members of the public, further damaging his reputation. Stating that Belsky engaged in “extreme and outrageous conduct with reckless disregard for the harm, including emotional harm, to the plaintiff and his family,” Saxton claims his reputation was injured as a result of what he described as “false and malicious statements” made by Belsky and others and he is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees, and the cost of the lawsuit. Belsky responded to the lawsuit with a statement and he filed a formal response to the Superior Court. In that statement, Belsky wrote, “It is not surprising that former Superintendent Saxton would pursue this matter in litigation, and thereby give further evidence of his poor judgment. The last of my comments requested an open discussion of the very serious matters I addressed that evening. Rather than respond on a substantive basis to the fact-based, truthful remarks I made concerning the governance of the school district, all Saxton did was waste taxpayer resources in a failed effort to have the board censure me. Following that defeat, he then pursued a failed effort to have me reprimanded by the New Jersey School Ethics Commission. Now, in desperation, he hopes to intimidate the school district and its insurers into paying him money. His claims have absolutely no merit and I am confident that this effort will meet the same result as his prior efforts.” Belsky denies there were any other persons who assisted him in allegedly attempting to harm Saxton. He also denies that he knew, or should have known, that the statements he made as a school board member regarding Saxton were false or that he acted maliciously and intentionally to damage Saxton’s reputation. He further denies in his legal response that his written statement read at the board meeting contained false statements and he claims his statement speaks for itself as to what it states. In addition, Belsky denies the allegations by Saxton in his lawsuit that he knew that any criticism of any board employee should not be made in public without notification of that employee and obtaining that employee’s consent. The lawsuit is the result of a written statement read by Belsky at a public meeting of the board of education on April 28, 2008 in which Belsky criticized Saxton for how the district was managed and accused some long-term trustees for not holding Saxton and his administration accountable for what he described as “failures to attend to matters of importance to this board and to the primary educational responsibilities of the district.” Belsky also criticized Saxton for not providing an analysis of the state’s report card, for not informing the board about how the district has performed in comparison to other comparable districts in Bergen County and the state, and for not providing the board with financial analysis or commentary to provide insight on how the district measures up financially to other similarly situated districts, or how the district’s expenditures in important categories contrast to other schools viewed as the district’s peers. Belsky also complained that the board’s goal-setting activity had been managed by Saxton to avoid setting any real goals and he accused Saxton of using the board “as a rubber stamp” to approve important board actions by placing last minute additions on board agendas and not affording the board the time required to fairly consider the important matters to be acted upon. Belsky’s statement was read at the end of a meeting at which the board voted to n a me t he d ist r ic t’s a d m i n ist r at ion (continued on page 14)