Report Inappropriate Comments

Dear Nathan,

For your edification I will provide you with the following information:

1. The "new" facilities director recommended spending approximately $12,000 on gps for all of the maintenance vehicles. In light of the massive theft of school materials perpetrated by Mr. Laplante and found in the home of Mr. & Mrs Laplante, coupled with the numerous video tapes released of school maintenance vehicles driving around wasting time, it was a common sence decision. Which by the way, the same decision has been put forth in almost every district in Massachussetts which has shown incredible cost saving results. Karen Bachus but the "kabosh" on the GPS units along with Mederios, who stated it is a violatioin of ciivil rights. What does gps in taxpayer owned vehicles have to do with civil rights? Again, another ploy to keep allowing union members to not be held accountable. Its a shame you are in her court. What about taxpayer rights?

2. The issue of the theft perpetrated by Mr. Laplante has everything to do with the school committee as utimately, they are in charge of distribution of the budget to the school department. In particular, niether the school committee nor the school department were smart enough to have a "writ of attachment" signed against the property owned by Mr. & Mrs. Laplante who are both employed by the school dept. With a combined income of $190,000 plus benefits and pensions, Mr. Laplante chose to steal from the taxpayers and students, and his wife, chose not to ask questions as to where all of the stolen goods came from. It was not until members of the general public notified the press that the house and its contents of stolen goods was put up for sale and a contract was signed by both of the owners. One could possibly argue that Mrs. Laplante, (warwick school teacher) was unaware of the 306 stolen goods that were confiscated from her home to include all major appliances, decking, granite counter tops, hard wood flooring, cabinets, etc..., however, after the arrest of her husband and the confiscation of $76,000 of stolen goods, how could it be possible that she is innocent when she knew that all of the stolen merchandise that was rigidly attached to the house remained in place at the time that they both signed a sales agreement on the house. Its called knowingly conveying stolen merchandise. Yet the Warwick teacher was not held accountable. Again, it was not until a taxpayer contacted the media to let them know that the Laplantes were quietly selling the house containing all of the stolen merchandise that belonged to the school department and the taxpayers of Warwick. Ms. Bachus did nothing proactively to stop the transaction. The fact of the matter is that upon the arrest of Mr. Laplante, the school department, upon the recommendation of the school committee, should have instituted a "writ of attachment". Again they collectively failed.

3. The school department in conjunction with the school committee went to the police to file a report of stolen goods. The police department did the investigation and made the arrest. How can someone who lives in the house and works in the school department along with her husband have no knowledge of the theft activity and the stolen goods within her own home? The school department should have immediatley fired her as they did with her husband. Ironicly, all of the teachers came to her support. At the school committee meeting when I held up the 7 page list of stolen goods, there was no condemnation of the act from the teachers, only consolation of the teacher that lived in the house full of stolen goods. It makes a great point. The point is union membership before the taxpayer. That my young friend is precisely why the school department is in the predicament that it is in today.