Commissioner upholds Witmer suspension Attny. for schools superintendent says he will appeal BY JAMIE ROMM Staff Writer After months of delay, the Middletown Board of Education finally has a decision on the district's suspended superintendent. On Dec. 24, state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy ruled that former Middletown Schools Superintendent David Witmer should be suspended for the remainder of his contract without pay.Witmer, 70, was suspended after being charged by the Board of Education with misappropriating nearly $23,000 worth of vacation and personal time and knowingly violating his contract while attempting to secure benefits to which he was not entitled, according to board attorney Christopher Parton. Davy upheld the board's suspension and added six months to the original four-month suspension, ruling that Witmer be suspended without pay for 10 months, which includes the remainder of his contract that terminates June 30. Parton said he was not expecting the decision to be made when it was. "I was surprised that the decision was made on Christmas Eve," Parton said. "By not having to wait through another extension period, we can finally move forward." Witmer was originally suspended by the Board of Education at a Jan. 31, 2006, meeting. Soon thereafter, the board filed charges with the state Department of Education. Witmer maintained that he had compiled the vacation days from previous years and that he had given proper notification when he took the time off. The original suspension was to be imposed for the first four months of the suspension and for the final two months of Witmer's term, totaling six months. Following seven hearings over a sixmonth period, in July 2007 Administrative Law Judge Joseph Martone ruled that Witmer was guilty of conduct unbecoming a teaching staff member and upheld three of the five charges filed against him in February 2006. Witmer originally was found guilty of three of the charges: misdirection of vacation time, misdirection of personal leave time, and intentional deception of the Board of Education. A decision on Witmer's future with the district was to be made Aug. 27 by Davy, but she took three 45-day extension periods. Davy's decision overturned Martone's original decision that Witmer should not be charged for misuse of office staff and abuse of authority. By attempting to carry 20 more unused vacation days than allowed and transfer seven unused personal days, as well as directing his subordinates "to take actions for his financial benefit, to which he knew or should have known he did not possess entitlement," Witmer was guilty of conduct unbecoming a superintendent, Parton said that Davy's decision stated. According to Parton, Davy referred to Witmer's actions in her report as "reprehensible" and "inexcusable." Parton said he had hoped that Davy would agree with the board's testimony "After repeated delays, we are relieved that Ms. Davy has rendered a decision," Parton said. "This ruling effectively terminated Mr. Witmer of his contract and is a positive step for us." Witmer's attorney, Frank S. Gaudio, said he was not surprised by the commissioner's decision. "I did not expect anything different," Gaudio said. "Why would the commissioner disagree with a decision made by an executive judge?" Gaudio said he would appeal the decision within the 30-day period provided by the appeals process. "The board did not achieve what it set out to do," Gaudio said. "They wanted to get Witmer completely off their books, and they failed in that regard." "Throughout this entire episode, I feel sorry for the taxpayers," Gaudio said. "They are the ones that in end have to pay." Gaudio said that he will appeal to the state Board of Education and that Witmer will "come out ahead." "I believe that after all is said and done, my client will be vindicated," Gaudio said. Since Witmer's suspension, acting Superintendent Karen Bilbao has been serving as interim superintendent. The board will now move forward to name a new superintendent. A closed meeting was held Monday, which a board notice stated was for the purpose of discussing personnel and litigation/ contracts.