Summary of Blog

1. I have posted on the blog Lodi by the Numbers since 2013. It has provided a public

service by exposing government waste and abuse at all levels. I have provided

investigative reports that have been acted on by state agencies. In 2014, borough

employees were removed from the pension system after a state agency acted on my

blog posts. That is one of many examples. Elected officials throughout New Jersey

contact me after coming across my blog. I am asked about subjects such as New

Jerseys Best Practices Questionnaire for municipalities, rulings on the Open Public

Records Act (OPRA), contracts for professional services, and double-dipping public

employees.

2. This is a personal blog. I never purported to represent the positions of the Board.

The following disclaimer appears on every page:

This blog contains my personal writings (facts and opinions). I do not speak on

behalf of any individual or organization.

3. Lodi Board of Education by-laws state the following:

Board members are entitled to express themselves publicly on any matter, including

issues involving the Board and the school district. Individual Board members cannot,

however, express the position of the Board except as expressly authorized, in

 accordance with Board Policy No. 9120. A Board member shall not represent his/her

personal opinion as the positon of the Board.

4. Since joining the Board, I have dealt with a lot of confidential information. I never

posted anything confidential on the blog.

Background

1. On November 8, 2016, I was elected to the Lodi Board of Education. That election was

the first time in eighteen years that anyone was elected while running opposed to Lodis

very powerful political machine. Complainant Dominic Miller and his two running

mates ran on the machine ticket Children First. I ran as an independent.

2. I spent $230 of my own money on the campaign. I refused all campaign contributions

from others. Mr. Millers team spent upwards of $10,000 on the campaign. He only

showed one contribution for $3,641.16 which came from the campaign account of Lodi

Mayor/Lodi Principal Emil Carafa. Mr. Millers ELEC reports on-line do not list the rest

of his contributions and expenditure. That disclosure is required by law.

3. I received more votes than Mr. Miller and his two running mates on November 8th. My

blog served as a means to overcome their big money advantage. I used it to get my

message out. I exposed the lies and fraud of the boards proposed $7.5M administration

building for twenty four employees. I exposed the boards nepotism and hiring practices,

using Marc Capizzis hiring as an example. I exposed the excessive compensation for
 Superintendent Frank Quatrone and Business Administrator Marc Capizzi. I exposed

how Mayor Carafa changed the table of organization of the Lodi Police Department so

Mr. Miller can promoted to Sergeant just months after he was appointed to the Lodi

Board of Education. Dominic Miller received a $12,273.36 pay raise.

4. I was sworn in on January 4, 2017. At my first meeting, I voted with three other board

members to suspend a $6,053,500 contract that was awarded at a special meeting one

week before (the special meeting was held two days after Christmas when schools were

closed). The contract was for the controversial administration building. Attached is a

news article about the meeting (Exhibit 1).

5. On April 28, 2017 I submitted an ethics complaint to the SEC against board trustees

Dominic Miller, Michael Nardino, and Jonathan Carafa.

6. One week before Mr. Miller filed his complaint, I requested to go into closed session to

discuss the actions of Mr. Capizzi, Mr. Quatrone, Mr. Miller, and Board Attorney Alisa

Dichiara after they submitted a claim with the Boards insurance provider to get Mr.

Miller an attorney for his ethics complaint without Board approval. Past practice was the

Board discussed the claim and then voted on whether to submit it to the insurance

provider. Mr. Miller ignored my two written requests for a closed session and never

placed the resolution on the June 21, 2016 agenda.

7. The timing and events leading up to Mr. Millers complaint point to retaliation, similar to

that of a whistleblower situation.

Alleged Violations

18A:12-24.1 Code of Ethics for School Board Members

e. I will recognize that authority rests with the board of education and will make no personal
promises nor take any private action that may compromise the board.

g. I will hold confidential all matters pertaining to the schools which, if disclosed, would
needlessly injure individuals or the schools. In all other matters, I will provide accurate
information and, in concert with my fellow board members, interpret to the staff the aspirations
of the community for its school.

i. I will support and protect school personnel in proper performance of their duties.

j. I will refer all complaints to the chief administrative officer and will act on the complaints at
public meetings only after failure of an administrative solution.
Answer to Complaint
Paragraphs 1 to 5

1. I agree with paragraphs 1-4. Paragraph 5 is Mr. Millers opinion and personal

interpretation.

Paragraph 6

2. I never made any promises on the blog nor did I take any Board actions on the blog. The

blog reports on local news, provides public information, and offers my personal opinions.

Paragraphs 7 and 8

3. My blog post is accurate. I posted public information (user friendly budgets) that are

required to be posted on district websites. Mr. Quatrone wants the Board to pay him $271,543

for unused sick days and vacation days. This arrangement is not clearly stated in Mr. Quatrones

current contract. It hasnt been explained or justified by the board members or attorneys

advocating on Mr. Quatrones behalf. I have spent hours reviewing superintendent contracts in

other districts and they include language capping superintendent pay for unused days at $15,000.

4. I have the right to post public information and raise awareness of a possible abuses.

5. I have expressed my opinion for years that Mr. Quatrones compensation is excessive.

He receives maximum pay of $167,500 and an additional $25,108 merit bonus each year at a

time when Lodi High School is ranked 292 out of 337 schools by NJ Monthly Magazine and

Lodi failed its QSAC review for instruction and program. The papers submitted by Mr.
Quatrone show that he hasnt attained all of his merit goals yet he still receives payment each

year.

Paragraph 9

6. My blog post is accurate. Mr. Miller never asked me if I was interested in being on the

negotiations committee for Mr. Capizzis contract. Mr. Miller never informed me that he chose

the committee which included himself and one other member (they had a two person committee

even though many members did not have a conflict of interest and could have been on the

committee). Mr. Miller never informed me that any negotiations ever took place.

7. At the April 24, 2016 work session, Mr. Miller informed the Board that a negotiations

committee would be chosen for the district custodians whose contract was expiring at the end of

June.

8. Trustee Mastrofilipo and I asked about other contracts that would be expiring. We asked

if any other negotiation committees were chosen. We asked if any other contracts have recently

been negotiated. Mr. Miller stated more than once that no new contracts had been negotiated.

When asked directly if Mr. Capizzis new contract had been negotiated or if any negotiations

took place, Mr. Miller finally admitted that he and one other member had met and negotiated a

new contract for Mr. Capizzi. He never informed the rest of the Board.

9. Mr. Capizzis salary is $171,684 with only five years in the district. He did not hold a

standard certificate for Business Administrator when he was hired in 2012. He had no prior

school experience when he was hired. His position was never advertised and he was the only

one interviewed for the position. His father Joseph Capizzi held this position before him. Joseph
Capizzi retired as Board Secretary in 2012 with a salary of $173,332. He held the position even

though he never had a college degree (a requirement for BS). That is how the Lodi Board

operates.

10. Reporting on local news is not equivalent to taking a private action compromising the

Board. Mr. Miller did engage in furtive conduct and attempted to hide information from the

public. The information in the blog post is accurate and supported by evidence.

11. I encourage the Department of Education to investigate the Boards negotiations process

with district administrators.

Paragraph 10

12. I filed an ethics complaint with the SEC regarding this matter. Please refer to the

evidence I provided in that claim.

Paragraph 11

13. The Board is currently involved in contract negotiations with the Lodi Education

Association (LEA). The teachers have worked a year under an expired contract. Mr. Miller was

the only board member on negotiations prior to January. Mr. Miller should not have been on

negotiations. He is a borough employee (Lodi police officer) and Lodi councilwoman Patricia

Licata is a Lodi teacher and member of the bargaining unit. Mr. Miller had negotiated a contract

with the union and the union voted it down. Mr. Miller is no longer a member of negotiations

because I provided an advisory opinion from the SEC pertaining to his conflict of interest. Two
other board members are now on the negotiations committee as they are the only two without

conflicts of interest.

14. At the April 26, 2017 regular board meeting, five members of the union spoke with

prepared statements about working without a new contract. Some of their statements were

negative towards the board. When they were done speaking, Dominic Miller complimented

them and went on to lead a standing ovation. The video was posted on northjersey.com and

spread quickly on social media.

15. It is my opinion that Mr. Millers action undermined the Boards position during a time

of negotiations.

16. I expressed my personal opinion on a personal blog about brown-nosing. I did not state

that opinion during a public meeting. I never represented my opinion as that of the Boards.

Paragraph 12

17. My blog post is accurate. I strongly encourage the Department of Education to

investigate the actions of Mr. Capizzi, current Trustees Miller, Carafa, Nardino, Carbonetti, and

former Trustees Licata and Vara in their efforts to demolish and replace a structurally sound

administration building located at 8 Hunter Street. The price tag was estimated at $7.5 Lodi tax

dollars. Lodi was not eligible for any grant money.

18. Without the publics knowledge, Joe Licata created a committee for the project which

included himself, Nardino, Carbonetti and Miller. He appointed the committee on August 24,

2015. I had to submit an OPRA request just to see who was on the committee (Exhibit 2). One
month later during a special meeting on September 28, 2015, Joe Licata stated that the

committee unanimously recommended the Lincoln administration building be demolished and a

new one be constructed. One month is a short time to make a decision of that magnitude. When

committee members were questioned about their recommendation to demolish, they couldnt

name one other option they explored. Requests were submitted for committee information

(locations of meetings, who was in attendance, what was discussed, etc.). No records were

provided in response to the request.

19. The Board over taxed and over collected millions from the Lodi taxpayers between 2013

and 2016 so they can circumvent the referendum process and avoid a public vote. A public vote

is required to borrow money for school projects. Their budgets were full of gimmicks that

should have been detected by the County Superintendent (Exhibit 3). Taxes were raised for the

project even though there was no referendum vote.

20. Former Board President Joseph Licata knowingly lied to the public when he repeatedly

stated that the building is not structurally sound (Exhibit 4). He stated that in a letter to the editor

in the Community News dated August 11, 2016. He knew that was not true. The structural

engineers report had been posted on my blog and discussed at public board meetings.

21. The demolition was scheduled for March 2016. A contract for the project was awarded at

a special meeting held on December 27, 2016. The contract passed with five trustees voting for

and three against. Trustees Miller, Carafa, Nardino, Carbonetti, and Vara voted to award the

contract. Trustees Mastrofilipo, Mara, and Telep voted against the contract. The contract was

suspended one week later on January 4, 2017 when I was sworn in. The vote to suspend the

project and place the question on a ballot passed 4-3-1. Myself, Trustee Mastrofilipo, Trustee
Telep, and Trustee Mara voting to suspend the contract. Trustee Carafa, Trustee Miller, and

Trustee Carbonetti voted against suspending the contract. Trustee Miller abstained.

22. On March 16, 2017, Richard Burke was in attendance for the board meeting. He wrote

the structural assessments for the building. A quote from him that night appeared in the Record

newspaper: "The cost is far less now than in 2015," Burke said. "It's low hanging fruit. Two guys

and one trip to Home Depot can do everything in the attic in a day. Other mason work can be

done in a week. These are not high dollar repairs but will give you a lot of bang for your buck."

(Exhibit 5)

23. At the March 12, 2017 meeting, I informed Mr. Burke that former Board President

Joseph Licata wrote a letter to the editor which stated that the building was not structurally

sound. I asked Mr. Burke if he ever expressed that the building was not structurally sound

because his reports stated the building was structurally sound. Mr. Burke was always consistent

in saying the building was structurally sound. There is no explanation for Licatas dishonest and

deceptive public statements that the building was not structurally sound. I asked Mr. Burke if

fires in the building from decades ago affected its current condition because that was implied by

Mayor Carafa at a council meeting and by Mr. Miller to the Community News during his

November campaign. Mr. Burke explained that the damage from the fires had been taken care of

and was not a factor.

24. The building is currently being used and does not require any immediate repairs.

25. If it werent for this blog, the truth about their $7.5M scam would never have come to

light. The building would have been demolished in March 2016. The Lodi taxpayers would be
out at least $7.5M. The project was rushed. Those behind it lied to the public. They withheld

information from the public.

26. I have the right to criticize the actions of those that tried to scam Lodi. The same four

trustees that deceived the public and rushed the project tried to block the referendum from

appearing on the November ballot. Everyone should be criticizing their actions and questioning

their motives. The Department of Education should investigate their actions. Hundreds of

thousands of tax dollars were wasted on architectural plans for a building that was never needed.

27. Residents of Lodi thank me for exposing this scam and helping to suspend it. This blog

provided a public service. I was reporting on the subject before the newspapers.

Paragraph 13

28. My blog post is accurate. The referendum vote had been discussed and brought up for

months. Mr. Capizzi had delayed it. I did not catch anyone off guard when I made the motion to

place the referendum on the November ballot during the April 24 work session. The Board had

already voted during its January 4, 2017 meeting to let the public have its say on a nonbinding

referendum. The Board had to set a date. Mr. Capizzi went out of his way to put off the vote

until the next meeting because his two reliable votes (Carafa and Nardino) were not in

attendance. The following meeting, the motion to place the question on the November ballot

failed with a 4-4 vote. It would have passed the April 24th meeting if Mr. Capizzi did not

interrupt us.

Paragraph 14
30. My blog post is accurate. Mr. Millers vote blocked the referendum from the November

ballot. Mr. Miller recommended the $7.5 scam. He promoted the project. He mislead the

public. He voted to award a $6,053,500 contract at a special meeting two days after Christmas.

The Board suspended the project and voted to place the question on a ballot.

31. I will always fight for the Lodi residents and their right to vote. I have the right to

express my personal opinion on my personal blog.

Paragraph 15

32. My blog post is accurate. Lodi Mayor Emil Carafa made public statements supporting

the project. He made misleading statements about the costs to repair the building. The four

members that voted to block Lodis right to vote are closely connected to Mayor Carafa. Trustee

Carafa is the mayors son. Trustee Nardino is the mayors first cousin. Trustee Miller was

promoted in the police department while Carafa was mayor. Dominic Miller reported a

$3,641.16 campaign contribution from Mayor Carafas campaign account.

Paragraph 16

33. My blog post is accurate. Please refer to my answer to Millers Paragraph 9. I believe

the Board President did engage in improper conduct when he negotiated Mr. Capizzis contract

behind the Boards back and then lied about it when questioned at a public meeting. Why were

there only two members on the negotiating team when other members expressed interest and did

not have conflicts of interest?

Paragraph 17
34. My blog post is accurate. The post provided a link to a northjersey.com article. Board

members should never scheme to take away someones right to vote.

Paragraph 18

35. My blog post is accurate. I strongly recommend that the Department of Education

investigate if Mr. Quatrone attained his merit goals this year. His own papers show that he did

not achieve goal #2 (hibservention) and goal #5 (best practices). He even listed excuses why he

didnt achieve the goals he set for himself. For goal #2, he wrote that hibstervention (software)

had too many glitches. For goal #5, he wrote that best practices werent observed in other

districts because schools had PARCC testing going on. He did not achieve the original goals he

set.

36) Mr. Quatrone received the maximum $25,108 merit bonus every year since 2011. His

goals are not aligned to any measureable achievements like standardized test scores or

performance. Lodi High School is ranked 292 out of 337 schools by New Jersey Monthly

Magazine. Lodi failed its QSAC review for program and instruction. Measurable indicators

show a decline in our districts performance while Mr. Quatrone collects his merit bonuses. The

board does rubber-stamp his goals. Most Board members dont understand the goals. They

cant explain the goals at meetings.

37) I believe the board members are derelict in duties when they award $25,108 merit

bonuses for goals that arent outside the scope of Mr. Quatrones basic duties. They are not

linked to achievement. Some payments are approved when goals arent attained. Members

approving those goals have family members employed in the Lodi schools in six figure positions.
38) I have expressed my concerns many times to Mr. Quatrone and the Board at our

meetings.

39) I never disclosed anything confidential about the merit goals. They appear on public

agendas and minutes. They are accessible from the district website.

40) I will never support or condone abuses by the Superintendent or Board members that vote

with lots of conflicts of interest.

Paragraph 19

41) No Board actions were ever taken on my blog. No private actions on behalf of the Board

were ever taken on my blog.

42) It is my first amendment right to express my personal views on a personal blog.

43) Lodi is plagued by nepotism, corruption, and political patronage. My blog provides a

public service by exposing it.

44) If the Department of Education refers my posts to an investigative agency, it will learn

that my posts are accurate.

45) There should be an investigation into the $7.5M administration building scam. That

might be the most serious scandal discussed on my blog.

 VERIFYING CERTIFICATION

I, Ryan Curioni, of full age, certify as follows:

1. I am of the Lodi Board of Education and a Respondent in this matter.

2. I have read the Verified Answer to which this Verifying Certification is attached and the
responses set forth therein are true unless expressly stated as based upon information and
belief.

3. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated: July-3_, 2017

Lodi trustees suspend $6M contract, opt for public vote http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/education/2017/0l /06/lodi-boe-suspends-6m-contrac ...

Lodi trustees suspend $6M contract, opt for public vote

Kristie Cattafi, Staff Writer, @KristieCattafi Published 1:36 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2017 I Updated 4:08 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2017 @tzl.\'o\-\- !:_ 1)
LODI -- The $6 million contract to demolish and replace the district's 121-year-old administration building has
been suspended until a referendum can be held. But the vote will be non-binding, according to school
district officials.

Newly elected board member Ryan Curioni made the motion for the referendum at the reorganization meeting
on Jan. 4. A public vote was never needed because the money for the project was coming from a capital
reserve fund. Curioni argued that the project is still being paid by taxpayers and that they should have input in
(Photo: Kristie the decision. "It's 100-percent tax dollars, so why can't the people vote on it?" he asked.
Cattafi/NorthJersey.com)
- ---
"It's the people's money; they should have voted for it."
- - - - - - - - - ------- -- --- ----- -------
_______________J
A contract that accepted a $6,053,500 bid from Vanas Construction Co. of Bogota was approved 5-3 on Dec. 27. The money is being allocated from the
district's capital reserve account and will not result in a property tax increase, according to Schools Superintendent Frank Quatrone.

Board Secretary-Business Administrator Marc Capizzi said he doesn't know when the referendum will take place and that it would be a non-binding vote
just to get the public's input. "It will then be at the board's discretion to take any further action ," he said.

The existing administration building at 8 Hunter St. - a former elementary school - currently houses 24 employees, the school board offices, the
superintendent's office and the district's child study team. The two-story building has 19,000 square feet; the new one would have 18,000. Work was
originally scheduled to begin March 1.

"Children are not housed in the building, but there are many meetings with students," Quatrone said. "It's a busy and very active building."

The $6 million is for demolition and construction only. There are other associated expenses , including a $600,000 contingency fund, $200,000 for
furniture and fixtures and $300,000 for environmental and site costs, bringing the total to around $7 .1 million, according to Capizzi.

The costs also do not include temporary space for employees during the estimated 16-month construction period. Capizzi said the board is considering

1 of2 6/25/17, 7 :23 PM

Lodi trustees suspend $6M contract, opt for public vote http ://www.northjersey.com/story/news/education/2017/01 /06/lodi-boe-suspends-6m-contrac ...

two leasing options that could cost up to $10,000 a month.

"Just because we prepaid for it doesn't mean it's not taxpayers' money," board member Alfonso F. Mastrofilipo Jr. said. "The people are upset and think
we did it without them."

Capizzi told the board that he had already signed a contract after the board approved the decision last week. On Thursday, Capizzi said he was notified
that the contract had not been executed by the construction company yet. "He will be notified that the project has been suspended and the contract is on
hold," he said.

The board approved a referendum on the building 4-3-1, with Curioni, Mastrofilipo, Jeff Telep and Robert Marra voting in favor, board President Dominic
Miller abstaining and members Michael Nardino, Jonathan Carafa and Philip Carbonetti voting against it.

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2i119b0

2 of2 6/25/17, 7:23 PM

Marc Capizzi
G~ ~
From: Joseph Licata J:3>l~'do \.-t' _tt?
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 10:05 Atv
To: BGCOHODI; cldamico; Dorninck M iller; Frank Quatrone; Jeff Telep; Jonathan Carafa;
Nicholas Vara; raidergrarn; Robert.Marra; Marc Capizzi; nun nola wfirrn@ optonl ine. net
Subject: Lincoln School Bu ild ing St ructural Assessment

Good Mo rnin g,

After receiving our meeting pac ket on Friday, 1 noti ced item # 12 of the Business Ad mini strator's report
regarding the stru ctu ra l engineerin g report/assess ment of the Linco ln School building, I had phon e ca lls w ith
Ma rc and f rank to get some prel imin ary information from this assess ment. The fact of the matter is that there
are some safety concern s that ex ist due to various factors and a building that is close to 120 yea rs old.

In the interest of be ing proactive and not reactive, it is necessary that the Board acts svv iftly regardin g the safety
concerns of' the Lincoln Sc hool Building. 'Therefore, I am appoi nting a specia l comm ittee to review the
structura l assessment report, speak to the engineerin g fi rm (if necessary), and ultimate ly come to a
recommendation for the entire Board.

The committee will consist of the fo ll mving members: Nobody on

Mike Nardino- Tru stee
Phil Carbonetti - Trustee c r
Do1ninic Miller- Trustee
Joe Licata- Presi den t
Frank Quatrone- Superi ntendent or Schools
Marc Cap izzi- Boa rd Sec./Busincss Adm ini strator

I appreciate your concern for this matter, and I will ~m~Uln&U"1:~Sepmject.

~Thesepeop
Sincerely,

Joseph .J. Licata, MPA

Lodi by the Numbers: Make no mistake, taxes were raised for the Lincoln School project. http: //lodioverhaul .blogspot.com/2017/01 /make-no-mistake-taxes-were-raised-for.html

[---- -~ G+l o More Next Blog lodioverhaul@gmail.com Ne1

Lodi by the Numbers E1o'~~ :#3)

Friday, January 6, 2017 Blog Archive

... 20 17 (209)

Make no mistake, taxes were raised for the ..,_ June (57)

..,_ May (52)

Lincoln School project. ..,_ April (26)

..,_ March (31)

..,_ February (17)

You can clearly see that Lodi received an unncesary tax T January (26)
increase in 2013, specifically for the Lincoln School Was Vinny Ma1tin <
. project. when he voted or

Vinny Martin had h

serve on the Lodi

Here was a tax increase for the project: Lodi payroll one ye
Licata 's promotic

Borough provides r'

the Licata promo1

How many days are

1of4 6/25/17, 10:21 PM

Lodi by the Numbers: Make no mistake, taxes were raised for the Lincoln School project. http://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/2017/0 I /make-no-mistake-taxes-were-raised-for.html

explain Licata1s p

Lodi school budgt.-. t 1aises proprrty tc1x t"'s by $154 "United for Scorzet
candidate acceler
Mnrdi .19 ?O I ~
HY K[J;.f Lt iJ=.DDFKF. Repost: Deputy Chi
ST A FF \VR ITF. R they said, what th
Thf Rt;rin i

Scorzetti and Vara '

LO Dl - Prnpeny taxes w ill go up ::iboul $I ~,o for the a\'t>rage borough hom ..:owner under the spt>ndmg pllln
appointed by Nor
;1pp1>n d ti.ir tlw upeornm ~ '> r hu11I w ar . 1 ,c < m.lm ~ lo ch, 11:1,1 R 1l ...1l ll''> ' A1lm1m ... b alor Man C :i p 11J 1

Who removed the 1'

The school board adopted a S.5 7 I million budget for the 20 13 l 4 school w rir on \Ved nesday 111E' genern [ fund 22, 2016 council
lax I<' \'\' '' Inch h the :m10uu11ax p;1v<'r > lllll\ l <.:outnbutP to w;mJ th.- d1 >Lnct-; op.-ratmg l;'XJlt'H'><''> \\I ll 11tn<':t ... I.' h y
2 p<" rcent to $38 3 m11!1on - up from $33 . l million ilu s yea r 3 hour work session

Tonight's council
Uuder th<' 2015 H ;p mdu1g pla11, -,el10 L1! t:tw> fo r 111.- tm ue r of u l101ne ,1; ; e-,w d al lht' l>Jrt1ttg.h ;1\<.'rage -
meeting ... how al
s~ rn 19 5 will ml'1N\W by ') l 'i.J ~ cc o rd 1t1 ? to fi ~ u10 s pro,ict,<l by Cap in 1
Licata pr.. .
All ctmeul prn grruu ~ will be mamtawed 111 tbe b11<lget Cap1zz1 >aid lb.;- budge t also fi iud s bathroom re1Lu Ya l1o u~
"Saddle Ri ver cop t
11t \Vi J<,011 Elf' mc111:uy ;rnd tli<' l';p];1('<'illl' lll oft\\'<' bn1it'r<; :1 t T.0 1!1 T! 1ph Sch<H' I cl a\~ roorn flom, :11 \\'i l-.on
$450,000 settlem
e lem entary and a roo ftop heating tllut at Roos.e\'elt EI..meniary
Superintendent sick
St nt1 :i1d lo th" tb-.tnN w1ll 11 1 c 11'!l ~ <' , Ji p,h tl y rn SI-I 91 7,'5 9 7 from 'tl l .89 :; <en , :itrouh np to C ;1p 1n 1 Th:i t payouts : how doe
mnotmt mclu dt>s S16,849 m 1mderncl.;-qu acy aid. wtuch 1; a new ca tegory o f fu nd in g mten<led to hel p d 1 ~ mc t s that com .. .
ar<' '> j)~Ltd mg I<'~ ~ th:u1 wh:it lite -..lalt' fu ndmg fonmila c v11 ~ 1def'> :id~ qu a t e li.1 pro\' 1de a thcrm 1g h educ:1l1011
Advisory opinion fc
C'ap1zn charncten zed !he am o un t r;s "nominal ..' ' but Supermieudent Frank Quatrnnt> said the extrn :u d w ould help Scorzetti or anyo1
tlw t.h ~ l n d p:i\' for <':-tp (m 1, tl wl a n uo l <.>!' th rri11trol ~ ud 1n '> 111 r 1-,d w ' 111 ni ~ h li>r '1wn ;1l d m:1.tmu . . 111&11 1
Was Mayor Carafa
n1 itro11 and t1 :rn ;;1J<)1'1:11l<1 n an,l lw:i lt h c :i 1< Tl ean b C' chffn ull 10 ,-0111:m1 ~ 11d1 " '''-h n-lult' al<>o n' m :Hmnp \'Vlfh lll th1'
with Joe Capizzi
, 1nte-i.naadated 2 p<'rceut cnp 011 mr re a w ~ IL' the g<m<>ral fond tax leq , i:..~u a l roll<' >:ud.
16 names submitted
"T hi' ~<ld1trn11 :1 l aid <IO<' ' lw lp 11 ... .11 Q11:111011t; <,;! Ill
vacant BOE seat.
- s.-.. 111 ort ;lt http ffw ww u011h111s1.y \'01 1 lh w w~ 'l od1 - ,t hiX1l - l 11 u l p:' l - r:l 1.> f'<i - p row r t y - l a ;.;.1 '> -b ) '- l '; .J .
; , ~; j:

'> R'iNS#, t!ia ,h W ql'G:1 H dp11f

Isn'tthere a $15,00t
day payouts for ..

"Lodi trustees susp{

2 of 4 6/25117, 10:21 PM
Lodi by the Numbers: Make no mistake, taxes were raised for the Lincoln Schoo l project. http: //lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/2017/01 /make-no-mistake-taxes-were-raised-for.htm I

contract, opt for I

Here is where your tax dollars were stashed away for the Make no mistake, t~
raised for the Lin
project:
Great news for Lod
getting a referend

Reorganization toni
Advertised Recapitu lation of Ba lances LODI BOROUGH
Should one week ar
duck cost you $7.

l Jn t.'J " f:{_: Look at what Alpini

---G~n .:ra 0-:?ra:ing ::,uct ;2t 0 1 OC-9 ~2G i ,07C 179 I 070, 17'1 I ()7:l 79 nearly $5M at no
. l~i--Crn ~ mP.n: :;)f ,.Jt :-it ~~~4 1) 1 3 0
l"1 .:,trir 11lfl in; ;Sp1( :if1 : ,..>I ll . ')~. ( ( ~11) 1 ' ,11 f)p, ' 1,1t 1n1-;i t i I J~ li; :\I Friday deadline for
- -Ca o1t~ I Res~r1e 3 :15i:i,&:J6 '3 2~:J [ IJ6 vacancy:
.o' ~u ; FcJ:a l '.)11 f'r~ Jra ns 0 ...
~. I .! 11 ,t:rr.1 ::~ I<, :r.r,t ! C ;111H'frurn r; (1 II i) Jamie Ciofalo want:
--L;ige Re~eriie ta\ in r n:i-\ h ih(' <i 1 81'.l,27 1 1.-:.~ 1 ,1.1s 24f., 13G (1
Miller as board p
-- ... .1 1 f. r. R.::;..;:.r.1F ll I.it' c (1 0
{ . 1 ff~1 : t->:j':t 1 "'S: ~1 rl. 1 t~i n 1y ~i:.. ~~ t -\,' , , :.1 :)" )"{ ~ .::1: 1 t-t i , ~: ..:01 ,h!111 0! '.) 11i'-<I Time for more publ
Re:>3) c1ilm cf Oet: and video recordi
-R~ trctec f-:or R-:i:a~mt- ,. ! o; ::t=-bt c (1 0 0

~ 2016 (257)

~ 2015 (215)

~ 2014 (123)

Al Matrofilpo Jr was right to refer to this as "prepaid". ~ 2013 (47)

The Board increased taxes before hand and then tried to

sell it as a project that didn't require a tax increase. This blog contains i
personal writings 0
opinions). I do not~
The Board had no right to take away your vote and

3 of 4 6/25117, 10,21 PM _L
Lodi by the Numbers: Budgets Should Be Based on Education.. . http ://Jodi overhaul.blogspot.com/2014/09/budgets-should-be-based-on ...

G+l o More Next Blog lodioverh:=

Lodi b'y the Numbers

Saturday, September 6, 2014 Blog A

... 201

Budgets Should Be Based on Education ... ... 201

... 201

T 201
... I
Lodi: ...
... (

. '' T

H
Revenues from Local Sources:
Local Tax Levy 10- 210 38,057,473 38,818,622 3S.330,150
Unrestricted Wscellaneous Revenues 400 .190 145.600 168,960
Interest Earned On C rrem E xpense Emergency Res 671 0 v
Interest Earned On Caprtal Reserve Funds 21 0
Subtot3 1- Revenues From Locaf Sc rces 38.458,355 38,964,222 38.4!19.1 10
T

Revenuee. from State Source~

Categorical ransportation Aid -3 121 122.971 133,818 '133,818 R

E xtraordinar)' Aid -3131 435 ,540 538,0 4 435,540
Categorical Special Education Aid 10-31 3:? 2,093,$33 2,0~6.287 2,096,287
Equal auon Aid 10-3176 11,.303,487 11,767 ,635 11,767. 636
Categorical Security Aid 10-3177 -02 ,147 224,397 224,39 7
Other State Ards 10 -3 XXX 0 7 S, 8~9 147,1 09
Subtotal. Revenues f rom State Sources 14.657 ,678 14 ,836,891 14,804 ,787 T

Revenues from Federal Sou rces :

Medicaid Rei11bursemem 10-42 0
Edu cation dis Fund 18-4522
Sub1ot:i 1- Revenues From federal Sources

Bud9eted Fund Ba lance - Opern ting B ud~et 10-303

Adjustment For Prior Ye;ir Encumbrances
Actual Revenues (Overl/Under E xoenditues
Total Operatilg Budget

Granis and Entitleme 1s:

Otl1er RevenJe From LoMI Sources
Total Revenue::; From Local Sou rces

1 of5 6/25/17, 10:37 PM

Lodi by the Numbers: Budgets Should Be Based on Education... http ://lodi overhaul. blogspot.com/2014/09/budgets-should-be-based-on...

B
The Lodi BOE's "total
, operating budget" really stands out amongst
its neighbors. How could it increase $8,645,540 in just one year? T
Why was it adjusted to show an even larger increase than what the
papers initially reported? How could the "Adjustment for Prior
~
Year Encumbrances" in '13-'14 be so large in comparison to any
~
other district you look at?
~

Hasbrouck Heights: ~ j

Op ieo r~tirg 6 udgo?t: ~

Reven u ~s from Local Sourc,:s:

Local T ::ix Le'y 10- 1210 24 ,154,5i- 25,506,889 26 544,747 ~ 201
Tomi Tuition 10- 1300 '128.534 0 0
Rents A1d Royalties HJ- 19'10 48 ,WQ 0 0
Unrestricted ~ iscelbnecus Revenuez 10- 1 x 228 .073 56,15- 156, 51 This l
Sub o tal - Re,enu es From Le.cal Sources 24 ,559,<:.39 '.!5 ,663,04 26,700,898
perso.
Revenues from State Sources: opinil
Categorcal Transportation Aid 10-3121 ll 3S.8~9 35,899
E:>:1raorc1nary Aid 1Q-313 1 227 .458 268~ 258 268,258
behal
Culr;:yv1 t.uf S1Jc - i.::! E c.lut.:.J tiu 1 AiU l {)-~ 1 ::.2 .oee,n7 997r.:Hl4 997,404 organ
Equahzi;t n A<c! 10-3176 0 16.036 6,038
Categorcal Secu - y Aid 10-3177 0 4 ,5 7 40,567
O ther Slate Aids 10-3XXX 0 14.451 53 ,471
Subo1al - Revenues From Stile Sources l ,314,2)5 .372,611 1,41 ,637

Buclgeted Fund Balanc;; - Op;;rating Buclget 10-303 0 !08,320 249,596

'J\'ilhdm1a l Froni Maim. Reserv e 10 -310 0 2 .000 0
Adjustm~nt For Prior Year Ercumbmnces 0 206.736 0
Actual Revenues (Over)/Und ;;r Exp end itures -319,739 0 a
Total Operating Sudgel 25,554 ,4)5 27 ,470,713 28,32,131

G rams ~ nd Ent lemems

Other Revenu e From local Sources W- 1 x~x 0 27,20 50,000
Total Reven ues From local Sources 20- 1XXX 0 27.20 50,000

Othe r Resuicted Entillen ent< 20-32XX 0 273.034 273 ,1 35

T otal Revenues From Stille Sources {} 273,034 273, 3S

Saddle Brook:

2 of5 6125117, 10:37 PM

Lodi by the Numbers: Budgets Should Be Based on Education... http ://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/2014/09/budgets-should-be-based-on ...

Operating Budget:
,
Revenues from l oca l Sources:
local Ta x Levy 10- 210 26 .813,073 27,349,334 28, 157 ,707
Total Tuition -i300 50,000
Unrestricted Miseefl(lneous Revenues -lXXX 3 7.593 271 .SCO 263 ,300
Interest Earned On Capital Reserve Funds - xxx 0 500 500
Subtot::lf - Revenues From Local Sources 27 ,130,666 27.621 ,334 28,5 1,507

Re1,.enues from State Sources:

Categorical Transportation Aid 1 -3121 49 .976 50.831 50,83 '1
E xtraordina rt Aid 10-3131 331.761 350.000 300,000
Categorical Special Education Aid -3132 967 .657 964.9 17 964,917
Equalization Aid -3176 20,727 18, 383 18,383
Categorical Seturity Aid 10-3177 34 ,7% 39,026 39,026
Otller State Aids 10-3XX 24 056 34 ,060
Subtotal - Re venue~ From Staie Sources ,428,975 ,423. 157 1,4 7.217

Revenues from Federal Sources:

Medicaid Reimbursement 10-42 0 0 15,334 1'5,728
Subtota l - Reven 1e~ From Federal Sources 0 15.334 16,726

Budgeted Fund Balance - Opera ng Budget -303 0 374.463 300,00D

Withdmwa f Fro11 C3P Res-For Local Share -307 300,537 a
Transfers From Other Funds 10-520-0 493 0 300 ,000
Adiustment For Prior Year Encumbrances 55.81 1 0
Aciu::;I Revenues IOverl/Under E xoenditures 367.317 0 0
o! al Operating Budgel 28 ,927,451 29,790 , 6~& 30.525,452

Granis and EnttleJl1ents:

Other Revenue From Local Sources 20- lx~x 53.803 0 0

Wood-Ridge:

3 of 5 6/25/17, 10:37 PM
Lodi by the Numbers: Breaking down Licata's lies ($7.5 million administration building) ... http://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/20 16/08/breaking-down-licatas-lies-7 5-million.html

G+1 o More Next Blog lodioverhaul@gmail.com Ne'

~\i\~,*' ~
Lodi by the Numbers

Thursday, August 11, 2016 Blog Archive

.... 20 17 (209)

Breaking down Licata's lies ($7.5 million T 20 16 (257)

.,.. December (39)
administration building) ... .,.. November (35)

.,.. October (42)

.,.. September (31)

T August (29)
Licata voted YES o
attorney's bills ...

Good News Page:]'

safety incidents a

BOE Trustees Mara

should be comme

The SAT Exam is s1

important, but no

BOE 's "Goal" for ti

Licata: "Last school year the Board of Education received

1 of6 6/25/17, 10:16 PM

Lodi by the Numbers: Breaking down Licata's lies ($7.5 million administration building) ... http://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/20 16/08/breaking-down-licatas-lies-75-million. html

shows how delusi

a report from the structural engineer that the Lincoln
School building, a building that is more than 120 years old Lodi al ready uses C
"HI Bstervention,.
and suffered two fires, was not structurally sound."
BOE Special Meeti1
Wednesday, Aug1
Truth: The first line of the structural engineer's executive This was the additic
summary begins: "The building is generally sound and information subrr.
in good structural condition ... Joe Licata received
unfavorable deci~

People can read the whole report for themselves. It is Joe Capizzi switche
cars, drives aroun
contained in the link below:
Scorzetti's Tahoe vs
Median Househo
http://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/2015/12/what-are-
Opportunity "rather
capizzis-true-motives-there-is.html presented itself' ..

Ten people filed to 1

As for the fires, they occurred over forty years ago. That Lodi Board of Ed
isn't relevant to the issue today. Three best friends, (
the November ba

.. Licata stated at the November meeting that children meet There is NO benefi1
belittling of tea...
with the Child Study Team in that building and he
Why the School Bo
wouldn't want it on him if someone got hurt. Licata had directly impacts)
children meet there for nine months since making that Lodi Chief's retiren
statement. So much for the fake urgency. was a whole lot n

Joe Licata: fudging

or "social promot

2 of6 6/25117, 10:16 PM

Lodi by the Numbers: Breaking down Licata's lies ($7.5 million administration building) .. . http://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/20 16/0 8/breaking-down-licatas-lies-7 5-million.html

Licata: "The board, after weighing a multitude of options, Breaking down Lie<
($7.5 million adrr
unanimously supported a decision to build a new
Licata: long-windec
building." the place, but ne ..

Almost a decade of
Truth: Neither Licata nor any Board member were able to appeals, and still
name one other option discussed when questioned at the Borough bills are m
November and December meetings. August...

AXA attorney's thre

nowhere.
An OPRA request was placed seeking the meeting dates of
To fix Lodi . we mm
the supposed 4-person sub-committee, the location of the wall ... along the ~
meetings, and who was in attendance. That request was Attention Lodi Teac
met with an empty response. school leadership

Donald Scorzetti's s
All evidence shows that Joe Capizzi planned this building increased $24,77 .

before he retired and before there was any engineer Dominic Miller's si:
increased $12,27'.
report. No other options were ever considered.
$1,596.86 more tax
went to Licata's 1

Nick Vara: Empty S

Licata: "Fortunately, the board has resources in its Capital Chair. Why hasn
Improvement Fund to cover the project."
~ July (18)

Truth: After the Board already voted to move forward ~ June (15)

with $7.5 million project, it did NOT have enough in their ~ May (7)

Capital Improvement Fund. They had to make a bunch of ~ April (12)

3 of6 6/25/17, 10:16 PM

Lodi by the Numbers: Breaking down Licata's lies ($7.5 million administration building) ... http://lodioverhaul .b logspot.com/20 16/08/breaking-down-licatas-lies-7 5-million.html

budget transfers after the fact. ..,.. March (8)

..,.. February (6)

..,.. January (15)

Licata: "The Lodi Board of Education has not had to go to
.... 2015 (215)
referendum or needed to implement major tax increases to
.... 2014 (123)
fund capital improvement projects in our schools."
.... 2013 (47)

Truth: By taking away the people's right to vote (no

referendum), Lodi became ineligible for any State grant This blog contains i
money. 100% of the project will be funded by Lodi tax personal writings 0
dollars. A large chunk of the money came from this major opinions). I do not:.
tax increase: behalf ofany indivi,
organization.
http://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/2016/07/will-anyone-be-
held-responsible-for.html

.. Licata: "Curioni has attempted to label the Lincoln

School project solely as "an administration building,"
leaving out the fact that the new building will house the
district's Child Study Team."

Truth: In other districts the Child Study Team meets

with parents, children, and staff in a conference room

4 of6 6/25/17, 10:16 PM

Lodi by the Numbers: Breaking down Licata's lies ($7.5 million administration building) . .. http://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/20 16/08/breaking-down-licatas-lies- 75-m il lion.html

(within a school). Other districts do not spend $7.5

million on an administration building for approximately
22 employee and then justify it by pretending that the
Child Study Team facility has to be something that it
isn't.

Licata: This project will not increase taxes or compromise

the quality of education in our school district.

Truth: The Capital Improvement Fund has been depleted.

Any future repairs or projects will result in major tax
.
increases.

Parents at Wilson School and Washington School keep

asking why they don't have air conditioning when the
Board is squandering $7.5 million on this project.

Side Note: There has been no transparency. Timelines

don't add up. Other options were never considered.
What are the TRUE MOTIVES behind those pushing
this project?

5 of6 6125117, 10: 16 PM

Assessment finds Lodi administration building could be repaired http ://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/lodi/201 7/03/16/assessment-lodi-administrati...

Assessment: Lodi administration building could be fixed

Kristie Cattafi, StaffWriter, @KristieCattafi Published 10:36 a.m. ET March 16, 20171Updated11:42 p.m. ET March 16, 2017 '/2 z<-h'l b'L-+ Jd 5
LODI - A structural assessment has concluded that the 121-year-old school administration building that was
slated to be demolished this year to make way for a new building at $6 million is safe but needs some
renovations .
BM
L A $2,200 structural assessment update was conducted by Becht Engineering BT Inc. Richard Lee Burke, the
civil and structural division manager for Becht, presented recommendations to the board Thursday night. The
cost of the renovations was not immediately made available.
(Photo: Kristie
Cattafi/NorthJersey.com) The new report said the building is in "fair condition and can continue to be safely used for office space."

Concerns include first-floor joists beneath a non-load-bearing corridor partition that are not up to current code limits, but are stable. The report also says
the floor framing is not adequate for large storage loads and would require reinforcing. There are also cracked rafters in the framing, which was named as
a concern in the 2015 inspection. More deterioration has occurred in the brick and mortar identified in 2015.

The main difference between the reports, Burke explained, was that in 2015, there was one critical area found in support framing and ceiling frames. He
said they were completely unsupported and unsafe, but they have since been repaired and are currently holding to safety codes.

"There has been no increase in problems since the initial inspection two years ago," Burke said. "The building is structurally sound. The
recommendations with maintenance will give the building a long life."

Burke said the original report listed complete renovations that would cost millions of dollars, but the new report listed recommendations that are cost-
effective after seeing that there was no progression in deterioration. For example, the original report recommended replacing all the windows, but Burke
now said the framing of the windows needs to be refreshed to prevent water damage.

"The cost is far less now than in 2015," Burke said. "It's low-hanging fruit. Two guys and one trip to Home Depot can do everything in the attic in a day.
Other mason work can be done in a week. These are not high-dollar repairs but will give you a lot of bang for your buck."

The board didn't discuss what actions they will take at the meeting. Board Secretary-Business Administrator Marc Capizzi said the board will discuss its

1 of3 612511 7, 7 :22 PM

Assessment finds Lodi administration building could be repaired http ://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/lodi/201 7/03/16/assessment-lod i-administrati ...

options at a future meeting and then will need to seek out cost estimates on any work they want to conduct.

The administration building at 8 Hunter St. - a former elementary school - currently houses 24 employees, the school board offices, the
superintendent's office and the district's child-study team. Demolition work was originally scheduled to begin March 1, after the board in December
accepted a $6,053,500 bid to demolish and rebuild the building from Vanas Construction Co. of Bogota. However, in January, newly elected board
member Ryan Curioni made a motion to put a hold on construction until a public vote can be held, which the board approved.
New assessment ordered on Lodi building
(http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/lodi/2017/02/20/structural-
assessment-ordered-121-year-old-building/97950006/)

In January, the board voted in a split decision to postpone razing the building until a referendum can be held. The last assessment, also by Becht
Engineering, was done in 2015. At the time the findings said the building was in good structural condition but needed "critical repairs."

"I'm very concerned about the building and the whole situation," board member Michael Nardino said. "I hope we can take some proper actions whether
we repair or replace it. The board really needs to concentrate on this effort. Many people visit the building every day. We just want to do the right thing."

The two-story building, which has survived two fires, is 19,000 square feet. The proposed new one would be 18,000 square feet.

A public vote was not needed originally because funding was coming from a capital reserve fund. Curioni argued that the project is still being funded by
taxpayers, and that they should have input in the decision.

"I think that no real problem presented itself," Curioni said. "I think the administration went looking for a problem. Columbus Elementary School is 100
years old, but I don't see them sending a structural engineering report on the building or other buildings approaching that age. It seems like their minds
are made up and they tried to justify it."

Curioni said the board hasn't selected a time for the referendum, but he is pushing for the upcoming November election to save money on the cost of a
special election and to encourage more voter turnout.

Email: cattafi@northjersey.com

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2m4WcBj

2 of3 6/25/17, 7:22 PM I