A news article was just posted on the Florida Jewish News website.
The article states that “as many as fourteen teachers at Hillel Community Day School in North Miami Beach were given notice that their contracts would not be renewed next school year.”
The article goes on to further show how an online presence is conveying our messages:
Many of the students believe that their display of support for the teachers brought about the Administration’s perceived change of heart. “It’s amazing how much influence we really have!” one eleventh grader posted on Facebook.
The board is in “full support” of this decision, though a recent comment on this site from a board member might bring that notion into question. The article continues to voice the board’s sentiment:
While [board Chair Rafael] Russ admits that there were some “communication glitches” in the way the system was implemented last week, he stressed that it is more important to take a step back and look at how far the school has come in recent years.
“As a board, we feel very confident and support the process,” Russ said.
“We don’t make decisions based on public opinion,” [Ellis] Sinyor [the school’s immediate past president] said. “We are focused on becoming a model for Jewish education in the United States. We know where we’re going, and we’re not going to be swayed.”
How are they responding to this website?
“Things on that website are completely unacceptable,” said Sinyor, regarding the recently established blog SaveHillel.com, where students, parents, and alumni have posted their opinions concerning the recent events. “It is Lashon Hara, and hype.”
Not everybody thinks so.
But a former Hillel parent who wished to remain anonymous said that she hopes the board will read the postings on the site and take them to heart. “The people who don’t care aren’t taking the time to write. Those who are writing are the school’s future and need to be heard.”
Will our questions be answered? Probably not.
In the interest of confidentiality, school officials would not discuss specific teachers or the reasons why each one is being let go. This has led to much speculation on the part of students and parents as to why this is all happening.
Did the statement from the parent in Kansas City contain erroneous information? The financial information probably speaks for itself:
In fact, Holden was praised by supporters in Kansas City for balancing the school’s budget; according to the school’s IRS filings from 2003, his efforts brought the school’s payroll from $2.3 million to $1.8 million, an unprecedented 18% decrease in human resource expenses.
For more information, continue reading the Hillel Students React to Teacher Firings article.
21 responses so far ↓
1 Avi Frier // Mar 29, 2007 at 11:03 am
Oops… that’s a typo, for which I apologize. The payroll was reduced to $1.9 million, not 1.8. The 18% figure is correct though.
2 Isaac Sapoznik // Mar 29, 2007 at 11:14 am
The people that are claiming that this is “Lashon Harah” are scared that their incompetence might be seen as visible.
This is not Lashon Harah. This is support for a school that we all love. Instead of the people critizing us for supporting, look at the impact the new decision making makers are makign on at least 10 years of shareholder with their recent decisions.
3 Anonymous // Mar 29, 2007 at 11:19 am
Remember without students, teachers and philanthropy — -the school will fail to exist!
Perhaps some re-education needs to take place - - this is not gossip but statement of fact - - as I see it - - it is not Lashon Horah - - it is an attempt to save our school from its destroying a community!
4 Isaac Sapoznik // Mar 29, 2007 at 11:35 am
Russ admits that there are communication problems. Instead of saying that we should just focus on the big picture, why doesn’t he fix those communication problems and fix the problems that have been cause my the communication glitch?
5 Concerned Citizen // Mar 29, 2007 at 1:43 pm
“We don’t make decisions based on public opinion,” [Ellis] Sinyor [the school’s immediate past president] said. “
Herein lies the problem. This past president refuses to be swayed by “public” opinion.
He refuses to listen whatsoever to his constituents who are comprised of ALL OF HILLEL’S STAKEHOLDERS.
He seems not to want to accept the fact that the public, that is, HILLEL’S CURRENT PARENT-BODY, STUDENT-BODY, ALUMNI AND FACULTY ARE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING.
This sounds like dictatorship to me.
Even some board members are afraid to speak out against him.
How has Hillel come to this?
6 Hillel Parent of 15 years // Mar 29, 2007 at 5:41 pm
So what do the by-laws say about the parent body petitioning to oust a Board that no longer believes it has any responsibility to the stakeholders? Sinyor’s statement says it all. Those few in power care only about retaining their power. They “will not be swayed” by those of us struggling to pay tuition in order to give our children a Jewish education. The chutzpah of this man! He will squash anyone who gets in the way of HIS personal vision.
7 Concerned Citizen // Mar 29, 2007 at 5:57 pm
We would all love for parents to coalesce and to do just what you suggest.
Let us know what we can all do to help.
It’s time to oust the board: they refuse to engage us in real dialogue as evidenced by the letter they sent that said nothing and their silence in general.
I believe there is a small group who are silent because many of them are afraid to speak out too.
I feel for them. However, he who stands by silently is just as guilty in the end and needs to go.
8 concerned insider // Mar 30, 2007 at 9:27 pm
To Dr. Judy Dach: you gave us Dr. Richard Barbieri…you gave us Chaya Kohl…you gave us Rabbi Michael Druin…you gave us Dr. Adam Holden…now give us your resignation from the executive board!
9 lastcomment // Mar 31, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Game over… Talking to you would be a waste of time.
Hillel has won the battle, your website has done and will do NOTHING.
10 Concerned Citizen // Apr 5, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I believe there is someone else she gave us that you forgot to mention.
11 concerned insider // Apr 6, 2007 at 2:11 pm
So, Concerned Citizen, if we forgot someone, please share the info!
12 Concerned Citizen // Apr 11, 2007 at 1:12 am
I can’t. Think!
13 anonymous // Apr 11, 2007 at 10:15 pm
It is incredible that there are individuals who believe that this website has done nothing.
The website - - if it has done nothing else, it has raised awareness and brought issues to the forefront.
Anyone who thinks that the school administration and the board members are not reading this is sorely mistaken.
The truth hurts - -that is why these individuals who don’t like what they are hearing mock the site. What else can they say! Truth talks and BS walks.
Remember, they are cutting their support lines. Philanthropy comes from grateful alumni and parents. When there are none left……the well runs dry!
Ponder that!
14 MR LALOU // Apr 24, 2007 at 9:21 pm
KICK HIM OUT
WE HAVO TO GO BACK TOOUR ROOTS.
WHY THIS SCHOOL WAS SUCCESFUL?
IT WAS A PLACE OF SHALOM AND UNITY IN OUR JEWISH TRADITION IT MEANS HELP EACH OTHER.
NOW WE HAVE TO FACE FINANCIALS PROBLEMS AND WE CLOSE OUR EYES REGARDING RELIGION MATTERS. WHO NEED THOSE DINNERS AND FUND RAISING TO GET WHAT MORE TUITION MORE EZPENSES MORE MORE AND MORE NON JEWISH VALUES.MAY BE THIS SCHOOL CAN AFFORD THOUSAND OF STUDENTS?
BUT SOMETHING IS SURE WE NEED A HEAD JEWISH NOT A GOY WHO WANTS TO GET A HIGH SALARY AND BLAME ALL WHAT THE PEOPLE OF HILLEL BUILT THE LAST 50 YEARS JUST TO GET VREDIT
15 anonymous // Apr 24, 2007 at 11:12 pm
this is a lot easier said than done since the decision is apparently only made by a select few.
The dinners are astonomical and most cannot and do not attend due to the cost issues. The purpose of the dinners and the ad journal is to raise funds for scholarships for those who would ordinarily not be able to afford to provide a Jewish education to their children. It is an important part of our school and its history.
However, with so many parents, alumni, and community members upset with the school, I would rather doubt that these events and the journal will be supported to the extent they had once hoped.
Time will tell. Unfortunately, the manner in which the board has addressed the alumni and parents is awful and these very individuals who could have been looked to for philanthropy are no longer interested! This will definitely hurt the school. However, obviously Dr. Holden and Rabbi Druin do not care or consider this negative result of their issues and decisions important.
Sad state of affairs!
16 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2007 at 7:50 am
The alumni are certainly repulsed as are parents in the know. Fundraising should get interesting.
17 Michael Newman // Apr 25, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Especially when Hillel’s funds are being spent on ridiculous legal fees, with the intention of trying to intimidate the people that could/would donate money to the school.
Not only does it seem like funds are being spent on trying to shut down the ‘dissent,’ but the attorneys working to this end forget that they can be held PERSONALLY LIABLE under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which states:
Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer’s address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.
(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,–
******(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; *****************
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
******(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
(1) How Initiated.
(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
(B) On Court’s Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.
(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.
(A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2).
(B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court’s initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.
18 Michael Newman // Apr 25, 2007 at 1:12 pm
The above refers only to pleadings, not letters. So, pursuing a lawsuit can subject the attorneys to personal liability if the court finds they have violated Rule 11.
19 Michael Newman // Apr 25, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Strike my last post. The rule does not apply only to pleadings, but to any paper presented in court.
20 Michael Newman // Apr 25, 2007 at 7:20 pm
American Bar Association Model Rule 3.1:
Meritorious Claims And Contentions:
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
21 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Thank you Michael.
This would be a FRIOVOLOUS LAWSUIT AND IT LOOKS LIKE FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS ARE ILLEGAL.
I have now talked to THREE ATTORNEYS who have said there is no case here and now we have a prospective attorney concurring.
Gimme a break already.
Don’t Lichter and Givner have anything better to do with their time (i.e. straighten out the situation at Hillel) than put their partner up to pursuing a frivolous lawsuits?
Their actions are leaving a bad taste in the mouths of the entire South Florida community both in and out of Hillel.
They have even disappointed some of their fellow board members and relatives by sinking so low.
I encourage them to re-think their actions and do the right thing now.
Leave a Comment