Rumors swirled for weeks from December last year into January: Did Maria Dorr, the principal of the Amagansett School, take a red envelope containing a gift card meant for another school employee on Dec. 15? A disciplinary hearing ongoing since July 10, conducted by the New York State Education Department, has sought to answer that question.
Ms. Dorr, a tenured principal whose career in education spans 25 years but who has been on paid administrative leave since mid-January, has denied taking it. However, Richard Loeschner, who was the interim school superintendent at the time, has maintained that security camera footage shows Ms. Dorr taking the envelope from the other employee’s office mailbox.
Mr. Loeschner has testified twice so far as a witness, on Aug. 8 and on Monday of this week, to support the district’s case for discipline before an Education Department hearing officer. Ms. Dorr’s attorney grilled Mr. Loeschner for several hours this week, seeking to discredit his earlier testimony and the school district’s overall handling of the matter. The hearings have been virtual.
According to a Jan. 8 East Hampton Town police report, on Dec. 15, Cassie Butts, who worked in the school office but has since retired, told Christina McElroy, a contractual provider of occupational therapy, at 10:40 a.m. that a parent had recently dropped off a holiday card for her, and that it had been placed in her mailbox. But when Ms. McElroy checked her mailbox at 11:15 a.m. that day, there was no card.
District email records indicate the timeline of events that morning based on time stamps in the security camera footage: Ms. Butts left the mail room at 8:24 a.m. and Ms. Dorr entered the mail room at 8:37, spending less than 30 seconds there in all.
Police looked into the matter, but ultimately, eight days later, on Jan. 16, the investigation ended when Ms. McElroy signed an affidavit saying she did not want to prosecute anyone in connection with the case.
“After careful consideration of all the information, circumstances, and considering all of my options that were explained to me by [Police Officer] Timothy Tierney and others at the East Hampton Town Police Department, I am choosing to close the case with no further police involvement. I do not wish to pursue criminal charges, and make this decision alone without having been made any threats or promises to do so,” Ms. McElroy wrote in the affidavit.
On Jan. 22, Mr. Loeschner suspended Ms. Dorr, and on Feb. 6 he filed formal disciplinary charges with the Education Department.
Arthur Scheuermann, Ms. Dorr’s representative from the School Administrators Association of New York State, asked Mr. Loeschner this week if he had received any new information between Jan. 16 and Jan. 22 that would have justified the disciplinary charges. Mr. Loeschner said he had not, but defended his actions by saying, “If the police don’t pursue something in a matter of a school, it doesn’t mean the school is not going to move forward with some type of disciplinary action.”
Mr. Scheuermann asked Mr. Loeschner if he’d ever given Ms. Dorr the opportunity to decline to answer his questions, and if he’d allowed her the chance to have a legal or union representative with her during the multiple “interrogations” he had with the principal before her suspension. This is known as a “Cadet right” under New York State education law, which says a tenured educator can refuse to answer questions at an investigatory interview and that he or she may have a representative present.
Mr. Loeschner disagreed with the attorney’s use of the word “interrogation,” describing it instead as simply “meetings” and “interviews.” He also confirmed that Ms. Dorr did not have representatives present during those sessions — Tom Mager, the district treasurer, had been present as a note-taker at some of them — but couldn’t recall whether she said she wouldn’t answer his questions. “She had a right to exercise her Cadet rights whenever she felt necessary,” Mr. Loeschner said.
Mr. Scheuermann’s line of questioning turned to the gift card itself. Ms. Dorr, he said, had shown Mr. Loeschner a different card — a Shell gas station gift card, also red in color — that she had received in her own office mailbox. That was the card seen in the security camera footage, she has maintained.
Mr. Scheuermann asked whether Mr. Loeschner attempted to find out where the Shell gift card came from; the former superintendent’s answer was “no.” The answer was also no when Mr. Scheuermann asked Mr. Loeschner whether he’d looked into the origins of the actual gift card in the missing red envelope, said to be an Amazon gift card in the amount of $25 or $50.
At multiple times during Monday’s hearing, Timothy Taylor, the state hearing officer, paused the proceedings to allow Mr. Loeschner to review his previous text messages to find time stamps on pieces of evidence that lacked them, and to resubmit them. In more than one instance, Mr. Scheuermann used this as an opportunity to assert that the school district had not turned over all documents and other pieces of evidence in a timely and complete fashion.
“This is a pattern with this district, and it shows to my mind there are still text messages and emails that haven’t been produced,” he said.
Steven Goodstadt, an attorney representing the school district, lodged one of numerous objections, saying, “It was produced. Mr. Scheuermann is using this as an attempt to smear the school district. I think it’s inappropriate.”
Michael Rodgers, who succeeded Mr. Loeschner as district superintendent beginning on July 1, was present for the virtual hearing on Monday. Reached by phone at the school the next day, he said he could not comment publicly because the legal proceedings are ongoing.
The hearing is to continue on Tuesday with more testimony from Mr. Loeschner. Additional sessions are planned for Oct. 14 and Oct. 30.