Sexting School Guard Resolution Distributed Last Night at School Board Meeting

Written By: Robert Cox

Make of this what you will:


RESOLVED, the probationary appointment of Donna Henry to Cleaner (position reclassified from General School Aide), Grade 1, Step 14, $43,467, plus night duty, $2,637 be and hereby is approved effective May 19, 2009 with such an appointment to be subject to the required probationary period.

donny henry portrait for ALMS yearbook.jpg

Previously on Talk of the Sound:

New Rochelle Security Guard Implicated in “Sexting” at Albert Leonard, Took Teen’s Phone, Distributed Images

Security Guard at Heart of New Rochelle Sexting Incident Identified; Polow Knew

Did Polow Commit A Crime in Failing to Report?

Letter from ALMS Principal Bill Evans to Parents on Sexting

UPDATE: an anonymous tipster is telling me that this resolution was NOT read last night (they went so fast it was hard to tell) which is a conundrum because the resolution was post-dated; it indicates that Donna Henry began her new “Cleaner” duties on May 19th so despite the resolution not being passed last night it appears she is now on the graveyard shift somewhere in the New Rochelle School System. We appreciate any tips as to where she has been assigned.

31 thoughts on “Sexting School Guard Resolution Distributed Last Night at School Board Meeting”

  1. She must have done something
    She must have done something wrong, if they moved her out of Albert Leonard School. And not just move her, changed her whole job.

  2. Donna Henry has been
    Donna Henry has been assigned to the High School night shift!!!!!! AND has yet to report for work since May 20th..HOW ABOUT THAT TAXPAYERS???

    1. So, she is getting a paid vacation?
      What does the “night shift” mean, exactly? Setting aside that this woman should be fired and turned over to the D.A.’s office, obviously she should not be around children. But children are at New Rochelle High School for evening events and some kid’s, like PAVE students, are at school at 7am. So is this shift from like 11a to 7p? Or is there some overlap with when kids will likely be in school.

      Quite frankly if they are going to keep her on the payroll they should assign her to “guard” the maintenance staff’s Grove Street facility. It would be a do-nothing job but at least she would not be in a position to interact with children on a day-to-day basis.

      1. the night shift is from 3-11
        the night shift is from 3-11 pm..that will be her shift..if she ever reports to work

  3. Isaac young security guard fired why not Henry
    why wasnt she fired for not following proper proceedure. Bettina Mandracchia, a security guard from Isaac was fired for not following proceedure with regard to a child. Do we dare mention that Ms. Mandraccha is white and Ms. Henry is a woman of color. Could the race card be in play here? What is the sense of having proceedures in place if you can break them and your consequence is a different job at a higher pay scale.Also how is it that Ms. Henry was appointed to this position before resolution?

    1. Is this guard who allowed a parent to see their child?
      There was a case brought up at the IEYMS school board meeting last fall where a parent showed up at the school and asked to see their child, the guard put a call out to find the child and the child was brought to see their parent. There was martial problems and the other parent was upset that the other parent saw the child at school. As I recall, the guard was in probationary status and was summarily fired. Is that this case?

      If so, please tell us more because it strikes me as another example of the sort of double-standard which exists in CSDNR.

      1. security guard IEY
        Yes that is the same case. I cannot say for sure if she was on probation or not, but there was talk of moving her to the high school before she was fired.
        In 2007, a security guard from “one” of our elementary schools was being used as a go between from parent to child while there was an order of protection in place. This guard still remains in the system today. AND this is a guard of color as well. So far the card reads, People of color 2– white folk –0
        anyone else have a friend who needs a job??? We’ll hook ’em right up with a security job. Another fine example of this joke of security that we have.One way to look at it, we’ve helped clean up the streets a little and put some of the undesirables in one place.

      2. Ok why is it that when
        Ok why is it that when something happens to a black employee and their district who is to help them out to the best of thier abilities if it is a good or bad employee it has to be about color???? A few years ago a WHITE EMPLOYEE disresected a Black employee—-what happen the district totally ignored the situation until the NAACP, NEWS 12 and people of the city got involved…..where is the employee now still with the district….so people please grow up and educate yourselves….everything is not about race!!!!!

      3. You have it right — sort of
        You have it right — sort of — the probationary staus of the employee is what resulted in the difference between their treatment, not their color.

        There is no double standard at work here, just Civil Service Laws.

    2. Ms.Henry
      Trust me Race is not the issue. This problem has nothing to do with color. This is about something the Nation has an ongoing problems with this new Generation. This lady and by far all means I am not defending her actions made a poor judgement on her behalf. She is a Tenure employee of The New Rochelle School District and should be given a fair chance. What The City is failing to see the bigger picture is that They (The City ) wants to please everybody it is a win lose situation. Giving Ms.Henry a postion of a cleaner she can still keep her Job and still be supervised by the appropriate measures. You have to realize all employees are not educated or given a job description on what their duties imply. Trust me This employee and all employee’s of the District has had a wake up call and understands their job description now and how severe it is when it comes to children.

    1. she can’t be fired
      She can’t be fired, can’t you see that. The cost of the trumped up wrongful termination suit would cost more than just paying her to stick around. Ain’t THAT special? They would pay more to “buy the defense” than 10 years of salary.

      1. Would that this were true!
        It would be nice to believe that the reason the school board and the administration have decided to sweep the Donna Henry sexting case under the rug is because they are being fiscally prudent. I would not agree with such a decision but at least their motive might be one of concern for the taxpayers.

        I am aware of no reason to believe that the decision to try to bury this matter is the same as it always is — a desire to avoid bad publicity. In this case, Donna Henry is black, important members of the black community want her to remain on the payroll and the District does not want a fight on its hands.

        Think about that!

        She knows she is in serious trouble so she goes for help and gets it from within the black community. Meanwhile, parents are never told what she did but rather go about making vague statements and advise parents to discuss sexting with their children.

        This site reaches 300-400 readers a day or about 9,000-12,000 “unique visitors” a month out of which only a fraction have kids in the schools. What do you think would have happened if the District had reported Henry to Child Protective Services as they are required to do by law? What if CPS referred the case a criminal matter and the case was widely reported in Westchester? Do you think the balance of power would be different? Do you think parent at ALMS and other schools would sit by while Donna Henry was reassigned and given what amounts to a raise?

        The reason she is still on the payroll is that only a small group of people were in the circle of those who knew about the case and those include pressure groups in New Rochelle who lobbied to keep Donna Henry on the payroll.

        Let’s be blunt, does anyone imagine that this matter would have been treated the same way if, for example, the guard was a man? Or if the ethnicity, race or gender was different?

        I have to wonder if the school board would be so sanguine about this if the child involved was one of their own. Chrisanne Petrone has two children; would she be so willing to “go along to get along” if it were one of her kids? Jeff Hastie was permitted to sit in on the executive sessions on Tuesday when this resolution was discussed and then pulled. He spoke long and loud about his love for children, especially his own children, and how his concern for the welfare of children was his motivation for running for the school board.

        Yet, when he faces his first test of this commitment he rolls over, sits up and begs like a trained seal. If Ms. Petrone and Mr. Hastie are so willing to allow a security guard to send around nude photos of children TO OTHER DISTRICT EMPLOYEES then perhaps they can volunteer to send around similar photos of THEIR CHILDREN!

        I suppose it is easy to be so “reasonable” about balancing the needs of the district, F.U.S.E. ,the legal costs and considerations, the political pressure from various interest groups when the child is some poor Latina girl from the wrong side of tracks rather than your own child. I wonder how these people on the board, most of them parents, sleep at night knowing they have put a woman they know to have obtained and transmitted sexual images of a child back to work in the New Rochelle school system.

        I wonder if any of them have considered the precedent they have no set for future cases where an employee in the future can now point to this case and say “well, they did not fire Donna Henry so why are you firing me?”

        The solution is simple, you turn her over to the D.A. and let them make the determination on how to proceed. Case closed.

      2. You hit the nail on the
        You hit the nail on the head…and refer back to my recent post.

      3. This matter is getting crazy
        This matter is getting crazy and it is caused by the arbitrary and capricious handling of situations by the district who, then, possibly due to perceived community or union pressures, act inconsistently or even irrationally on situations. Look, the central point of Henry is whether she participated in some action that a reasonable member of the community would find unacceptable. The rest, her subsequent placement and other considerations fall below this standard. If there is reasonable doubt that she did, she should not be disciplined; if there is little or no doubt, she should be. The Freiman case is another situation where it seems that Jefferson has played host to and will continue to play host to someone of a character that should be unacceptable to the parents of every child at that school. Even if there is a lingering doubt, the board should have exercised prudence and not rewarded him and took a grievance and pulled into play the legal and administrative means necessary to air this situation out. The Mandracchia situation is painful and it is understandable that administrative or social, her status as a probationary employee likely did not merit the consequences of summary dismissal given the facts as you have reported them. Seems as if she delivered a child at the behest of a parent; was this against the so-called rules, was she aware of the marital situation at home? In summary, does the punishment fit the crime — we have a alleged complicit in sexting who is accommodated, an alleged racist who is both rewarded and accommodated and a probationary staff member who is dismissed.

        Organisiciak has done similar unequaled acts in other places besides New Roc. His heavy handed dealing with a hazing situation in his old district resulting in the firing of a teacher/coach for little other reason than he was a teacher/coach. that is old news although his quote (sic) “we will tolerate no abuse of such kind real or IMAGINED was one of the spotlights of that year’s internet searches. But there is a message behind this repeated in new rochelle. it is called expedient and imprudent handling of difficult situaitons, poorly thought out, quasi-discriminatory and pandering in their aftereffects, and supported by a inexpert and poorly staffed board and an apathetic community.

        But the apathetic base is beginning to slowly get the message. Davis is a great example regarding its vote on the contract. Jefferson is an anomaly or God help us, something worse, given their voting pattern and the frequency of negative events based on allegations of sponsoring people like the accused Frieman and the thought that they might be playing fast and loose with test scores.

        Bob, a bit of friendly advice — don’t spend too much time trying to convince people who won’t or can’t get a clear message. Disagreement is one thing; the preceding is another.

        I am going to write to my councilperson and demand that he take a stand one way or the other on this district even at the risk of losing votes or endorsements. Any reader of this blog should do the same — whether you support the district as it is or not. It is shameful that with 70% or so of our taxes tied up in these sad, risk averse, and arrogant folks, we give them and the city admiinstration a free pass.

        The board might want to pay attention to President Obama’s views on transparency, openness and honesty in government, and values. We Do even if we don’t support some of the decisions that plays out from these.

        warren gross

      4. This is TALK of the Sound for a reason

        All good stuff and I appreciate your advice on arguing with people who come in with a preconceived agenda or do not want to be convinced. You are correct as a general rule but this is a blog where we want to have an active comments section (for many reasons which I can explain another time). The way to have active comment sections is to invite debate and argument which can, of course, sometimes degenerate into name-calling. The stupid stuff some people write is the price of getting what sometimes can turn into extremely useful dialog.

        I chose the name TALK of the Sound precisely because I felt there was a need for this sort of blog/comment forum where anyone can register and have their own virtual soap box.

        NOTE: I wrote this to you but really I am just using one line in your comment to speak to all readers. I like to do that from time to time because many TOS readers are new to blogs so it helps to educate them on the difference between a hyper-local news site like this and traditional media outlets. Perhaps the biggest change is that comments allow for what is sometimes called “networked journalism” where a post gets some basic facts about story up and then readers jump in and add more information. For example, a reader here answered my question about when the “night shift” ran at NRHS (3p to 11p).

      5. “The solution is simple, you
        “The solution is simple, you turn her over to the D.A. and let them make the determination on how to proceed. Case closed.”

        Turn her over for what? There is no evidence of a crime. The DA is not going to get involved in school administrative matters. So, in essence you are correct, Case Closed.

      6. No evidence of crime? Get real.
        Hoo boy, this is hilarious and sad at the same time — the District’s trolls are now chiming in to defend Donna Henry.

        Since when is obtaining and transmitting sexual images of a child an “administrative matter” for a school? Newsflash, Einstein! These are crimes: child pornography and endangering the welfare of the child. The law regarding Child Protective Services is quite clear that mandated reporters may not seek to make a determination of the legality of a particular incident but must simply report everything to CPS and let CPS make the determination. That law applies to all mandated reporters. In this case MANY mandate reporters are aware of what happened in this case and have remained silent. This might give some parents pause to consider what else the District is not reporting to CPS.

        Of course, there IS evidence of a crime in this case. There are phone records that will show that Donna Henry obtained and transmitted a sexual image of a child. The D.A. has the power to seek those records. There is also direct testimony of witnesses which is also evidence if the testimony is found by a court to be credible. The fact is the District knows what she did which is why she is being “punished” by being removed from Albert Leonard Middle School and stuck on the night shift at New Rochelle High School as a “cleaner”.

        As you apparently believe that Donna Henry did not do anything wrong, riddle me this genius: why was Donna Henry suspended without pay and then assigned to guard an empty conference room for several weeks? Why was a resolution published and distributed to the board members, to the press and to anyone who showed up at City Hall on Tuesday, reassigning her to work as a cleaner on the night shift? Why was that resolution suddenly pulled after a hastily convened executive session?

        An executive session was already scheduled for AFTER the Regular Meeting but after people had already filled the Carew Room at City Hall for the C.O.W. meeting, the public was told to leave and kept out for 30 minutes. The school board did not even announce that the resolution they had published and distributed has been withdrawn. They just skipped over it very, very quickly in their usual rush to blur through resolutions.

      7. “Einstein” Here…
        Mr. Cox,
        The only person saying there was a crime is YOU! Where is the evidence that actually shows she transmitted the images (or recieved them for that matter). You say there are witnesses. Who? Why haven’t any of these witnesess come forward? That is all it would take to “proceed” with a criminal case. The DA and the police need credible evidence before a supoena can be issued for phone records. BTW, I have NOTHING to do with the district OR Ms. Henry. But I’ve read all your posts and find them to be of a “lynch mob” mentality especially regarding the sexting incident and the security guard who ALLEGEDLY assaulted a student at Issac Young. From what I am assuming, Ms. Henry got transferred for not following district guidlines, which would not be a crime.

        Now Bob, let’s look at something else here, mandated reporters:
        It is too much to write here, but look up the following setion and post it: NYS Office of Children’s and Family Services (Social Service Law, section 413) There you will find the definition of mandated reports and a specific list of who are considered mandated reporters. In summary, there are 38 specific titles. Only one, “School Official” comes close to Ms. Henry’s former position as a security guard. “Security Guard” is not listed anywhere. Now, that being said, is a security guard considered a school official? Or, is the law simply refering to the administration. It is a gray area. Now let’s assume for a minute that security guard does fall under that umbrella as a mandated reporter. The law also says that a mandated reporter is:
        “required to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with this title when they have REASONABLE CAUSE to suspect that a child is an ABUSED or MALTREATED child where the parent, guardian, custodian, or other person LEGALLY RESPONSIBILE for such child comes before them in their professional or official capacity and states from personal knowledge, facts, conditions or circumstances which, if correct, would render the child an ABUSED or MALTREATED child”
        Now, reading this and assuming Ms. Henry is a mandated reporter, she did not do anything CRIMINALLY WRONG because the issue of abuse and maltreatment is not evident anywhere with what has been reported. CPS would not even deal with a case of “sexting”. In any event, when the sexting incident was found out by the administration, the school social worker did, in fact, contact CPS and a determination was made. I know you don’t claim to be a lawyer, but stop playing lawyer on your blog.

      8. I hope you are not offended
        I hope you are not offended by the appellation “Einstein”, you are such a genius and you are anonymous and so we need to call you something.

        You write a lot but say very little. The problem is we have no idea whether you do or do not have anything to do with the District or Ms. Henry because you are an anonymous commenter so any claims you make about yourself are not worth the pixels they are printed on. You publish an exegesis on mandate reporters that is entirely irrelevant and make contradictory statements. If you are going to make stuff up try at least to be consistent.

        You say you have been reading my articles and then go on to talk about whether or not Donna Henry was a mandated reporter. How is that relevant? I have never raised the issue of whether SHE is a mandated reporter. The issue, Einstein, is that the people ABOVE HER are mandated reporters. Get it? Or is that too complicated to you. Check your list of 38 job types that are mandated reporter and let me know if you find school principal, school superintendent, assistant superintendents, school board member, head of security, etc. These are the sort of people who know what she did and have an obligation to report her.

        Now, what I find fascinating is this statement from our friend Einstein:

        “…when the sexting incident was found out by the administration, the school social worker did, in fact, contact CPS and a determination was made.”

        That couple with this other statement below make for interesting reading:

        “I’ve read all your posts and find them to be of a “lynch mob” mentality especially regarding the sexting incident and the security guard who ALLEGEDLY assaulted a student at Issac Young.”

        This sounds like you are acknowledging that there WAS an incident involving Ms. Henry. You have also said there is “no evidence of a crime”. You are citing state law regarding mandated reporters. You are talking about the D.A. process in responding to a criminal allegation. You said you had nothing to do with the school or Donna Henry but claim KNOW whether or not the school contacted CPS. You are also expressing concern about an unrelated case, an assault on a child at a different school. What is particularly interesting is that the IEYMS Assault Case and the ALMS Sexting case only have one common element – there was an incident report filed with NRPD in each case and in both cases the NRPD whitewashed the incidents, exonerating the security guard in one case and giving a complete pass to the other security guard.

        Gee, what conclusion can we draw from that?

        How about we change your nom d’plume from Einstein to “Detective”?

        Or maybe “Detective Einstein”?

      9. Lol…You can twist it any
        Lol…You can twist it any way you want, I said, look it up for yourself. I gave you an intelligent, comprehensive response in my post and provided references to check (NYS SSL section). I’m just trying to play “devil’s advocate” with my response. You just don’t want to open your mind to other possibilities, but you are too narrow minded. You write as if you know the whole story, I never claimed to, anywhere in my posts.
        Oh, another thing, just because someone doesn’t register does not make them a “troll”. I like the names “Einstein” and “Detective Einstein”, if I register, I will use one or the other. Judging by your investigative skills (your conclusions) you should be named “Defective Bob”.

      10. Dear Detective Einstein
        Please do register as it will save me the trouble of approving your comments. I am happy to discuss or debate you or any other non-troll on this site even if I believe you are dead wrong. Believe it or not, your comments are actually welcome as this sort of discussion is the entire point of the site.

        That said, back to insulting each other! 🙂

        I am sure YOU believe your response was “intelligent” and “comprehensive” but you left out “mostly irrelevant” as the issue is not whether Donna Henry is a mandated reporter. I don’t think you are trying to play devil’s advocate or expand my mind or anyone else’s mind but I am not going to concern myself with your actual motive.

        What I have reported is based on talking to multiple sources and getting independent confirmation. There may be MORE to the story but what I have reported is correct and I stand by it. Of course, I would very much like to hear the “whole story” from the District but let’s cut through the baloney, shall we? Let’s set aside standards of evidence and procedure and whether or not a crime has been proven or whether this is a school administrative matter and get to the point. I have yet to hear you dispute the basic facts of the case.

        So, Detective Einstein, do you are to dispute the basic facts of the case?

        Donna Henry obtained and then transmitted a sexual image of a child

        Your turn.

      11. Quote-“Donna Henry obtained
        Quote-“Donna Henry obtained and then transmitted a sexual image of a child”
        Ok, is this a fact?


        I am not publishing the rest of this because you said you would register and I need to move on to something else for now. You can register under a pseudonym and keep your identity unknown if you like. Click register at the top of this page and read WHY you should register.

        Please understand that if I allow all anonymous comments without moderation the site will be overrun by what is known as “comment spam” – mortage ads, viagara ads, porn ads, etc.

        So please register. Same goes for the rest of those anonymous comments.

        I suspect at some point I am going to disable anon comments altogether

      12. Quote–“You said you had
        Quote–“You said you had nothing to do with the school or Donna Henry but claim KNOW whether or not the school contacted CPS. You are also expressing concern about an unrelated case, an assault on a child at a different school. What is particularly interesting is that the IEYMS Assault Case and the ALMS Sexting case only have one common element – there was an incident report filed with NRPD in each case and in both cases the NRPD whitewashed the incidents, exonerating the security guard in one case and giving a complete pass to the other security guard”

        No, I read, somewhere in an earlier post that a school social worker contacted CPS. Sorry I didn’t clarify that statement.
        I highly doubt the police would need to or want to “whitewash” anything. For what purpose? To protect Ms. Henry? To protect the District? That is an absurd statement.

      13. Simple solution- Henry is guilty
        She Is guilty of something. By your own admission there is at he very least an administrative matter. Thanks for proving what people are saying. There would be absolutely NO actions by the board if nothing happened. They couldn’t reprimand her for no reason and not get sued over it. That, in itself, says it all. Her repositioning/reassigning, whatever you call it is driven by the facts. Facts that were/are covered up. She won’t complain one bit to the actions because she dodged a legal bullet and is thankful not only for her job being intact, but also not being investigated. Believe me, it’s not because the district loves her, it’s the districts own self- preservation that motivates them. The whole issue is morally reprehensible and probably illegal, but we’ll never know as long as it’s covered up. If you think this is an administrative matter, you’re a moron, or a co-conspirator. Which is it? What if it was your daughters pics? Would that be an administrative matter?

      14. Please, Look at the KNOWN facts!
        Read my post below (“Einstein Here”). I never said she didn’t do something wrong. You are mixing up two different matters… A criminal matter and Administrative Misconduct. The police handle crime, the Board of Ed handle administrative misconduct. Again, It was never proven a crime was committed. If she did violate District rules, aka admin misconduct, that is why she was probably transferred to her “new” position. As a matter of fact, if there was ANY proof of something more serious, the District would of had to start the process of dismisal and, if it did cross the line to be a crime, the police would of proceeded with a criminal case. The board probably didn’t have enough to do so, thus “only” reprimanded her by transferring her. Do you know what she allegedly did wrong? As for as a cover up, provide proof…I don’t have any…do you? Oh, I know, you are just letting Mr. Cox do your thinking for you. If that is the case, you are the moron.

      15. KNOWN facts would be good
        You ask people to look at KNOWN facts and then write an anonymous comment which consists entirely of speculation. Gee, how edifying.

        My favorite part is a line you seem to repeat in various ways:

        “It was never proven a crime was committed”

        Is this the new criteria for determining whether or not law enforcement can proceed with an INVESTIGATION? Before the police can respond to a complaint someone must PROVE that a crime was committed? Isn’t this why we have judges and juries and courts.

        You are right, I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be one but I have watched TV and I know there is a show called “Law & Order”. In that series, the show starts with the police conducting an investigation. AFTER the have investigated they make a referral to the D.A. and there is a trial or a plea deal. Does that not happen here in New Rochelle?

        It would seem to me that there is ample cause for an investigation but given the “investigation” done by NRPD in the one part of this case for which an incident report was filed (the kid who took the picture of his girlfriend) I would not look to NRPD do it. Despite the fact that there is no one at NRPD trained to do a forensic investigation of the cell phone or image analysis, the Detective in the case was able to simply “look” at the phone and glean from this “look” that no crime had been committed. Gee, talk about thorough. From this magical look at the phone, NRPD was able to ascertain that only one photo was taken and that photo was not sent to anyone, including any adults. Having used their magical powers to conclude “no crime was committed” they destroyed all the evidence and gave the kid back his phone. No effort was made to even ASK to look at the kid’s phone records. This despite information provided to the police that the image was being sent around at two schools for a week.

      16. Really? Where are you
        Really? Where are you drawing those conclusions from Bob? Have you interviewed the Detective or his/her superiors? Do you have a police report? If so, post it on here as you did the letter the school sent out.
        Seriously Bob, have you conducted interviews? What about interviewing the Superintendent? How are you making such conclusions? You are basing all this by watching TV? Law and Order is a one hour show, real investigations are far more complicated!!! In CSI, DNA and fingerprints take minutes to get back, in real life, it takes months to years. LOL!

      17. My reporting is based on documents and interviews
        My reporting of this story is based on discussions with many sources including some with DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of the case. I have filed FOIL requests and obtained police records. I have had ongoing discussions about this case with the D.A.’s office. I asked to file a complaint myself based on what I have learned and was told that only the parents of the child or the school district could file a complaint. This story is as buttoned up as I could reasonably make it given the stonewalling by the school board and the administration.

        Do you really think that I would publish stories where I name Donna Henry and use her photo unless I had covered all my bases? I guess you don’t realize what I do in my “day job”. Try Googling “Robert Cox bio” or running a Google News Alert search for my organization: “media bloggers association”. You will find me quoted globally as an expert on media law and blogging and maybe even a prominent mention in the Wall Street Journal just two weeks ago. I am not a lawyer but I am well acquainted with the application of defamation law to blogs and rest assured Donna Henry has no grounds to bring a case against me or Talk of the Sound.

        As for Richard Organisciak, not only will the Superintendent not respond to my phone calls or emails but he has instructed every administrator in the District not to talk to me either. I have a copy of the letter; it was written shortly after our story about Principal Anthony “puff puff” Bongo smoking cigars at Isaac E. Young Middle School in violation of NYS law, NYSED policy and CSDNR policy.

      18. Known facts- do you have any?
        There’s absolutely nothing mixed up here. Now you say she DID something wrong. The discussion is about sexting. If she had ANYTHING to do with this incident aside from reporting it,she is guilty of a crime such as failure to report, or obstruction, or contributing , to name a few. Which ones would stick isn’t up to the district, Ms Henry, or even the police dept. To go through the CPS website and pick out only passages that support your improper conclusion shows your lack of comprehension. If you want to defend Ms Henry for not reporting on a technical basis, then the next person who knew did FAIL to report, as required by law. So enough with your moronic story spinning. The bottom line is that there was no proper accounting to the public, legally or administratively. There is no way you can defend against that claim. Every post you make further supports the accusations. Thank you, are you a member of the “dolt squad”. Heaven help us if you represent the quality of character in the district. Anyone reading both sides of this issue will see the truth. I have no doubt about that. Everything I said here is true, can you say that?

    2. Same here.
      Can somebody please explain to me why the general population was not informed!!! Always follow my gut feeling and knew something happened when I received the letter from the school. My child attends this school and I see this lady on a daily basis. She is supposed to protect our children not violate them…The New Rochelle School District should be ashamed of themselves!!! How are we supposed to send our children to school and trust the District when they totally have no respect for our children…But let a parent do something they are the first to call CPS!!!

      [EDITOR’S NOTE: This comment was edited from ALL CAPS to regular type; we do not allow ALL CAPS posts or comments. It is considered SHOUTING]

Comments are closed.