IRANDOKHT TOORZANI, PLAINTIFF, Pro Se

Date: March 13, 2012

Page 1 of 20

Irandokht Toorzani, Plaintiff, vs.

Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Bergen County Docket No: L-8966-11

Elmwood Park Board Of Education; William Moffitt, in his official capacity as Board Secretary; Richard D. Tomko, in his official capacity as Superintendent For The Elmwood Park BOE Defendants

CIVIL ACTION VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Irandokht Toorzani, hereby files this Verified Amended-Complaint requesting damages and declaratory relief, and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff brings this verified amended-complaint upon information, direct physical evidences and belief that Elmwood Park Board of Education (hereafter BOE); William Moffitt, Board Secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, Superintendent, (hereafter defendants) intentionally and willfully violated the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq) since: i. Defendants failed to indicate anything in regard to bringing tenure charges 1 on the published agenda 2 [EXHIBIT 1] of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting. There was
1

Not only Plaintiffs direct physical evidences prove these false tenure charges which have been brought against plaintiff by defendant Tomko (superintendant) under oath, had been established by PERJURY, but also all 28 false tenure charges were/are the same issues and claims of Plaintiffs Federal Complaint against Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA, et al ( Doc. No. 94[re-amended complaint]; CASE #: 2:09-cv04262-SRC MAS, which was dismissed with prejudice based on Defendants Elmwood Park BOEs request after plaintiff had informed the court about plaintiffs inability to participate in oral depositions
Footnotes continued on the next page

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 2 of 20

no resolution in regard to matter of tenure charges on the published agenda of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting, while on that agenda, there was a resolution in regard to withholding Plaintiffs increments, which proves that the omission of matter of tenure charges in the agenda of 6/28/2011 had been intentional and designed to deceive the public, in violation of OPMA. Since defendants had already caused deep concerns in the Elmwood Park community by declining to renew the contracts of many teachers district-wide in 5/24/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting, defendants did not want to inform the public in 6/28/2011 BOE meeting, that in addition to withholding plaintiffs increments, they had also brought tenure charges (which had been established by PERJURY) against Plaintiff, a teacher who had been fully, adequately and completely performing all of the functions, duties and responsibilities of her employment with Elmwood Park BOE based on the State and district requirements in a professional and outstanding manner (despite the constant discriminatory and harassing conducts of defendants which she had to endure for several years that caused her to file a law suit against defendants as a last resort) and had earned a great amount of respect from students and their parents during her years of service as a Mathematics teacher at Elmwood Park Memorial high school, so as to deceive the public;
by submitting a doctor note which was explaining plaintiffs medical conditions and plaintiff requested the court to let plaintiff be deposed in any other way than orally and did not attend in the depositions) and Doctrine of Res Judicata absolutely was/is barring Defendant Elmwood Park BOE from bringing the same issues and claims of Plaintiffs Federal Complaint within the tenure charges to be adjudicated one more time to obtain multiple judgments. These false tenure charges had been initially established by PERJURY and NEVER been discussed in 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting (based on the admission of Ms. Patricia Otten, Confidential Executive Secretary, who takes meeting minutes of Elmwood Park BOE meeting). Not to mention that there is no sign or indication of any resolution, discussion, decision or vote in regard to matter of tenure charges either on the agenda or in the minutes of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting which affirms Ms. Patricia Ottens admission as well.
2

Tenure charge documents filed with the local School Board's secretary are public records [Williams v. Bd. of Ed. of Atlantic City, 329 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 2000)].

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 3 of 20

ii.

Defendants failed to adopt a resolution 3 in regard to matter of tenure charges before moving to the closed session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting to discuss the tenure charges against plaintiff ( defendants claim that they had discussed the tenure charges against plaintiff and voted on, in the closed session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting, while on 8/1/2011 Ms. Patricia Otten, Confidential Executive Secretary, who takes meeting minutes, admitted that matter of tenure charges had never been mentioned in the 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting);

iii. Defendants failed to inform the public in regard to their decision about matter of tenure charges after defendants moved from closed session to open session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting (while defendants claim that the tenure charges against plaintiff had been discussed and voted during the closed session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting); iv. Defendants failed to indicate anything in regard to matter of tenure charges in the published minutes 4 of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting [EXHIBIT 2] (which its draft was published for the public on or about 9/17/2011, after two more BOE meetings which had been held on 7/13/2011 and 8/23/201. Not to mention that the minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting was approved during the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 9/27/2011) while defendants claim that the tenure charges against plaintiff

Resolution must be adopted - N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 a. General nature of subject, and time and circumstances under which discussion can be disclosed. N.J.S.A. 10:4-13. b. Simply reiterating exceptions is not enough. Council of New Jersey State College Locals v. Trenton State Bd. of Trustees, 284 N. J. Super. 108 (Law Div. 1995) Minutes - N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 Each public body shall keep reasonably comprehensible minutes of all its meetings showing the time and place, the members present, the subjects considered, the actions taken, the vote of each member, and any other information required to be shown in the minutes by law, which shall be promptly available to the public to the extent that making such matters public shall not be inconsistent with section 7 (N.J.S.A. 10:4-12) of this act. Minutes are required for all meetings including closed session. Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 1 1998.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 4 of 20

had been discussed and voted during the closed session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting, in violation of OPMA; v. Defendants failed to provide plaintiff with a notice (Rice notice) prior to 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting that withholding plaintiffs increments would be discussed in the BOE meeting of 6/28/2011, in violation of OPMA; vi. Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of OPMA by discussing withholding plaintiffs increments in the open session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting without plaintiffs consent or request, in violation of OPMA. On 8/4/2011 defendant Tomkos [superintendents] admitted that withholding plaintiffs increment had been discussed and voted in the open session of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting; vii. Defendants failed to publish the draft of minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting on time 5 (draft of minutes was published on or about 9/17/2011 after two more BOE meetings which had been held on 7/13/2011 and 8/23/201. Not to mention that the minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting was approved during the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 9/27/2011), in violation of OPMA; viii. Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of OPMA by censoring the public comment in regard to the defendants action taken against plaintiff during the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011, in violation of OPMA; and ix. Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of OPMA and OPRA by denying plaintiffs request for inspection or obtaining a copy of draft of the minutes of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting that plaintiff requested on or about 8/1/2011 and 8/4/2011 (a month after 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting) without giving plaintiff any explanation in writing or verbally, in violation of OPMA, OPRA, and the common law right of access to public records.

The board minutes of 5/17/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting was also published for the public on 10/25/2011.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 5 of 20

PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Irandokht Toorzani, residing at =======================of New Jersey.

3. Plaintiff has been a Mathematics teacher, employed by the Elmwood Park Public School District since September 2002. 4. The defendants in this action reside (work) at 60 East 53rd Street, Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 (Elmwood Park Public Schools) in the County of Bergen, State of New Jersey. 5. Defendant Elmwood Park BOE is a Public body and all meetings of Elmwood Park BOE are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act. 6. Defendant Richard D. Tomko ("Richard Tomko") in his official capacity who is currently Superintendent of Elmwood Park public schools. 7. Defendant William Moffitt in his official capacity who is currently Business Administrator and Board Secretary of Elmwood Park public schools. JURISDICTION 8. Jurisdiction over this matter is vested in the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:4-15. FACTS 9. On 6/11/2011, plaintiff received a letter from Elmwood Park BOEs attorney and learned that defendant Richard Tomko (superintendent) had brought 28 tenure charges against plaintiff. (Plaintiffs direct physical evidences prove that these false charges were established by perjury. Plaintiff filed a complaint regarding this matter with the Bergen County Prosecutor Office on 10/25/2011 , after almost 2 months Plaintiff was informed by the Bergen County Prosecutor Office that her complaint was not investigated by the Prosecutor Office because of lack of prosecutorial resources. Therefore Plaintiff filed her complaint with the Office of Attorney General on 1/19/2012 in regard to this matter which is still pending; and filed another complaint with the Office of Governor Christie on 2/13/2012 which is also pending).

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 6 of 20

10. Plaintiff received a rice letter dated 6/20/2011[EXHIBIT 3] from defendant Richard Tomko (superintendent) that:
Dear Ms. Toorzani: Please be advised that the Elmwood Park Board of Education may, at their Work and Regular Meetings scheduled for Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. and 8 p.m. in the Memorial High School Teachers' Faculty Room & Media Center, discuss matters in your terms of your employment. The board will discuss this in closed session. This is to afford you adequate notice that you may request, in writing, that your matter be discussed in public session. Said written request should be delivered to the board secretary's office not later than 4 p.m. on the date of said meeting

which was a notice to plaintiff that defendants were going to discuss matters in plaintiffs terms of her employment in 6/28/2011 Elmwood park BOE meeting and was not a notice in regard to withholding plaintiffs increments in anyway, since not only the above letter was not indicting anything in regard to withholding plaintiffs increments for 2011-2012 school year but also later, on or about 6/23/2011, plaintiff received the contract for 2011-2012 school year [EXHIBIT 4] which was not implying anything about withholding plaintiffs increments for 2011-2012 school year. Not to mention that Plaintiffs end of year evaluation report had recommended plaintiff to receive increments for the 2011-2012 school year as well and in addition plaintiff had received a letter from defendant Tomko dated 5/10/2011 that at the regular meeting of Elmwood Park BOE, defendant Tomko would be recommending that the trustees re-new plaintiffs employment contract for the 2011-2012 school year[EXHIBIT 5 ]. 11. On 7/9/2011, plaintiff received a letter dated 7/8/2011 from defendant Tomko [EXHIBIT 6] that Elmwood Park BOE had withheld plaintiffs increments for the 2011-2012 school year based on defendant Tomkos (superintendants) recommendation in their meeting of 6/28/2011 without providing plaintiff with any prior notice . Plaintiff had never been advised at any time that either defendant Tomko had recommended Elmwood Park BOE to withhold plaintiffs increments or defendant Elmwood Park BOE was going to discuss withholding plaintiffs increments in its meeting of 6/28/2011. 12. After plaintiff did not receive any response to her letter dated 7/11/2011 [EXHIBIT 7] which plaintiff had written to defendants Tomko (superintendent) and Moffitt (board

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 7 of 20

secretary) in regard to not being served with a Rice Notice about defendant Tomkos recommendation to Elmwood Park BOE for withholding plaintiffs increments prior to 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting, plaintiff called Elmwood Park BOE office on 8/01/11 to request a copy of draft of the minutes of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting. But the Business office secretary told plaintiff that they could not provide plaintiff with a copy of the minutes of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting since minutes had not yet been approved by the board members because no BOE meeting had been held after 6/28/2011 BOE meeting. When Plaintiff told the Business office secretary that plaintiff needed to know about the decisions which had been made about plaintiff in that meeting, she looked at the minutes of 6/28/2011 and told plaintiff that, the only decision which had been made about plaintiff in that meeting, was withholding plaintiffs increments and nothing else. Therefore plaintiff asked her what about the Tenure Charges that defendant Tomko had brought against plaintiff and were certified by BOE members in 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting? Business office secretary surprisingly asked plaintiff, June 28, 2011?! and plaintiff said, Yes, then she said, let me [Business office secretary]connect you [plaintiff] to the superintendents office, she connected plaintiff to superintendents office and plaintiff spoke with Ms. Hayes (BOE secretary), Ms. Hayes asked plaintiff to hold on and when she came back, she took plaintiffs phone number and she said, she was going to call plaintiff back, but she never called plaintiff. 13. On or about 8/4/2011, after about 3 days, plaintiff called the BOE Office again to ask for a copy of the minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting, plaintiff was connected to the superintendents office, plaintiff talked to Mrs. Levinson (superintendents secretary), and after she put plaintiff on hold, defendant Tomko (superintendent) answered the phone. In that phone conversation that plaintiff had with defendant Tomko, he told plaintiff that there was no information either on the agenda or in the minutes of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting in regard to matter of Tenure Charges, since the decision about the Tenure Charges had been made and voted on, in the closed session of the 6/28/2011 BOE meeting, and defendant Tomko added that, but both agenda and minutes of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting contained information in regard to withholding plaintiffs increments since it had been discussed and voted in the OPEN SESSION of 6/28/2011 (the same meeting).And when plaintiff asked

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 8 of 20

defendant Tomko (superintendent) how withholding plaintiffs increments had been discussed in an open session, defendant Tomko told plaintiff, if plaintiff had not wanted them to discuss withholding plaintiffs increments in the open session of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting, plaintiff should have made a request 6 and asked them to take the matter to the closed session (when the law says otherwise). 7
N.J.S.A. 10:4-12. Meetings open to public; exceptions. (8) Any matter involving the employment, appointment, termination of employment, terms and conditions of employment, evaluation of the performance of, promotion or disciplining of any specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employee employed or appointed by the public body, unless all the individual employees or appointees whose rights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed at a public meeting.

Defendant Tomko (superintendent) knowingly and intentionally made the statements which were/are contrary to law and proves that the omission of matter of tenure charges in Agenda and Minutes of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting had been intentional and designed to deceive the public, in violation of OPMA. COUNT I - WILLFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE OPMA N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8) 14. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 herein. 15. The action of defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8) when defendants did not provide plaintiff with a notice (rice notice) to inform plaintiff that withholding plaintiffs

While plaintiff had never been advised at any time that either defendant Tomko had recommended Elmwood Park BOE to withhold plaintiffs increments or defendant Elmwood Park BOE was going to discuss withholding plaintiffs increments in its meeting of 6/28/2011. Agenda - N.J.S.A. 10:4-8d. a. Not required for meetings included in annual notice - N.J.S.A. 10:4-8d b.If agenda is developed; items not on agenda may be raised, so long as there was no intent to mislead the public. Tenure charge documents filed with the local School Board's secretary are public records [Williams v. Bd. of Ed. of Atlantic City, 329 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 2000)]

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 9 of 20

increments for 2011-2012 school year would be discussed in the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011.
N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8): Prior to discussion of personnel, affected employees must be given notice, known as a Rice notice, which gives the employee the right to request a public hearing..

16. The defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8). 17. The defendants are presumed to have knowledge of the law. 18. The defendants willfully and knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8). 19. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare that the defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8). 20. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare the actions taken against plaintiff at the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 void and also demands judgment against defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful and intentional violations of Open Public Meetings Act as the court may deem proper. COUNT II - WILLFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE OPMA N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8) 21. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 herein. 22. The action of defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8) when defendants discussed withholding plaintiffs increments in the open session of Elmwood Park BOE meeting on 6/28/2011 (During the phone conversation of 8/4/2011, defendant Tomko, superintendent, admitted that withholding plaintiffs increments had been discussed and voted in the open session of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting).
N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8): Any matter involving the employment, appointment, termination of employment, terms and conditions of employment, evaluation of the performance of, promotion or disciplining of any specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employee employed or appointed by the public body, unless all the individual employees or appointees whose rights could be

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 10 of 20

adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed at a public meeting.

23. The defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8). 24. The defendants are presumed to have knowledge of the law. 25. The defendants willfully and knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8). 26. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare that the defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8). 27. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare the actions taken against plaintiff at the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 void and also demands judgment against defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful and intentional violations of Open Public Meetings Act as the court may deem proper. COUNT III - WILLFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE OPMA N.J.S.A. 10:4-8d 28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 herein. 29. The action of defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-8d when defendants failed to indicate anything in regard to bringing tenure charges 8 on the published agenda of 6/28/2011

Not only Plaintiffs direct physical evidences prove these false tenure charges which have been brought against plaintiff by defendant Tomko (superintendant) under oath, had been established by PERJURY, but also all 28 false tenure charges were/are the same issues and claims of Plaintiffs Federal Complaint against Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA, et al ( Doc. No. 94[re-amended complaint]; CASE #: 2:09-cv04262-SRC MAS, which was dismissed with prejudice based on Defendants Elmwood Park BOEs request after plaintiff had informed the court about plaintiffs inability to participate in oral depositions by submitting a doctor note which was explaining plaintiffs medical conditions and plaintiff requested the court to let plaintiff be deposed in any other way than orally and did not attend in the depositions) and Doctrine of Res Judicata absolutely was/is barring Defendant Elmwood Park BOE from bringing the same issues and claims of Plaintiffs Federal Complaint within the tenure charges to be adjudicated one more time to obtain multiple judgments.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 11 of 20

Elmwood Park BOE meeting. There was no resolution in regard to matter of tenure charges on the published agenda of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting, while on that agenda, there was a resolution in regard to withholding Plaintiffs increments, which proves that the omission of matter of tenure charges on the agenda of 6/28/2011 had been intentional and designed to deceive the public, in violation of OPMA.
N.J.S.A. 10:4-8: As used in this act: d. "Adequate notice" means written advance notice of at least 48 hours, giving the time, date, location and, to the extent known, the agenda of any regular, special or rescheduled meeting, which notice shall accurately state whether formal action may or may not be taken Agenda, not required for meetings included in annual notice - N.J.S.A. 10:4-8d; If agenda is developed, items not on agenda may be raised, so long as there was no intent to mislead the public. Tenure charge documents filed with the local School Board's secretary ar e public records [Williams v. Bd. of Ed. of Atlantic City, 329 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 2000)]

Since defendants had already caused deep concerns in the Elmwood Park community by declining to renew the contracts of many teachers district-wide in 5/24/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting, defendants did not want to inform the public in 6/28/2011 BOE meeting, that in addition to withholding plaintiffs increments, they had also brought tenure charges (which had been established by PERJURY) against Plaintiff, a teacher who had been fully, adequately and completely performing all of the functions, duties and responsibilities of her employment with Elmwood Park BOE based on the State and district requirements in a professional and outstanding manner (despite the constant discriminatory and harassing conducts of defendants which she had to endure for several years that caused her to file a law suit against defendants as a last resort) and had earned a great amount of respect from students and their parents during her years of service as a Mathematics teacher at Elmwood Park Memorial high school, in order to deceive the public. 30. The defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-8d. 31. The defendants are presumed to have knowledge of the law. 32. The defendants willfully and knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-8d.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 12 of 20

33. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare that the defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:48d. 34. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare the actions taken against plaintiff at the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 void and also demands judgment against defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful and intentional violations of Open Public Meetings Act as the court may deem proper. COUNT IV - WILLFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE OPMA N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 herein. 36. The action of defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 when defendants failed to adopt a resolution in regard to matter of tenure charges before moving to the closed session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting to discuss the tenure charges against plaintiff (Defendants claim that they had discussed the tenure charges against plaintiff and voted on, in the closed session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting. While on 8/1/2011 Ms. Patricia Otten, Confidential Executive Secretary, who takes meeting minutes, admitted that, matter of tenure charges had never been mentioned in 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting and Elmwood park BOE only passed the resolutions on the agenda of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting. Not to mention that the agenda of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting did not contain any resolution in regard to matter of tenure charges) 9.
Resolution must be adopted - N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 a. General nature of subject, and time and circumstances under which discussion can be disclosed. N.J.S.A. 10:4-13.

In addition to Ms. Ottens admission, there is no sign or indication of any resolution, discussion, decision, or vote in regard to matter of tenure charges either on the agenda or in the minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting which affirm that matter of tenure charges had never been discussed in 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting which accordingly constitutes the action of defendant William Moffitt, Board Secretary (certifying that the tenure charges against plaintiff had been discussed and voted on, in 6/28/2011 BOE meeting) to be PERJURY.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 13 of 20

b. Simply reiterating exceptions is not enough. Council of New Jersey State College Locals v. Trenton State Bd. of Trustees, 284 N. J. Super. 108 (Law Div. 1995)

37. The defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-13. 38. The defendants are presumed to have knowledge of the law. 39. The defendants willfully and knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-13. 40. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare that the defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:413. 41. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare the actions taken against plaintiff at the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 void and also demands judgment against defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful and intentional violations of Open Public Meetings Act as the court may deem proper. COUNT V - WILLFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE OPMA N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b) 42. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 41 herein. 43. The action of defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b) when defendants voted in the close session of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting in regard to tenure charges (as defendants claim) and failed to inform the public in regard to their decision about matter of tenure charges after defendants moved from closed session to open session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting (defendant Tomko, superintendent, claimed that the tenure charges against plaintiff had been discussed and voted during the closed session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting).
Closed sessions are limited to discussion; all formal actions must be made in the open, regardless of subject matter N.J.S.A. 10:4-12: b. A public body may exclude the public only from that portion of a meeting at which the public body discusses...

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 14 of 20

44. The defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b). 45. The defendants are presumed to have knowledge of the law. 46. The defendants willfully and knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b). 47. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare that the defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:412(b). 48. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare the actions taken against plaintiff at the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 void and also demands judgment against defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful and intentional violations of Open Public Meetings Act as the court may deem proper. COUNT VI - WILLFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE OPMA N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 49. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 48 herein. 50. The action of defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 when defendants failed to indicate anything in regard to matter of tenure charges in the published minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting ( the draft of the minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting was published (posted) for the public on the district website on or about 9/17/2011, after two more BOE meetings which had been held on 7/13/2011 and 8/23/2011, not to mention that the minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting was approved during the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 9/27/2011) while defendants claim that the tenure charges against plaintiff had been discussed and voted during the closed session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting.
N.J.S.A. 10:4-14: Each public body shall keep reasonably comprehensible minutes of all its meetings showing the time and place, the members present, the subjects considered, the actions taken, the vote of each member, and any other information required to be shown in the minutes by law, which shall be promptly available to the public to the extent that making such matters public shall not be inconsistent with section 7 of this act.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 15 of 20

a. Minutes are required for all meetings including closed session. Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 1 1998. b. Minutes must be provided promptly available to the public, subject to approval at next board meeting. Matawan Regional Teachers Assn. v. Bd. of Ed., 212 N.J. Super. 328 (Law Div. 1986) 2 weeks/next meeting; Liebeskind v. Mayor and Mun. Council of Bayonne, 265 N.J. Super. 389 (App. Div. 1993) 3 business days prior to next meeting c. Minutes of closed session must be made available to the public when the reason for confidentiality no longer exists. Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 1 1998 Time of disclosure, fact sensitive, case by case basis; d. Tenure charges filed with the board secretary are public records. Williams v. Bd. of Ed. of Atlantic City, 329 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 2000)

51. The defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-14. 52. The defendants are presumed to have knowledge of the law. 53. The defendants willfully and knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-14. 54. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare that the defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:414. 55. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare the actions taken against plaintiff at the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 void and also demands judgment against defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful and intentional violations of Open Public Meetings Act as the court may deem proper. COUNT VII - WILLFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE OPMA N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 56. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 55 herein. 57. The action of defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 when defendants failed to publish the draft of minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting on time10. The draft of the minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting was published (posted) for the public on
10

The board minutes of 5/17/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting was also published for the public on 10/25/2011.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 16 of 20

the district website on or about 9/17/2011, after two more BOE meetings which had been held on 7/13/2011 and 8/23/2011, not to mention that the minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting was approved during the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 9/27/2011.
N.J.S.A. 10:4-14: Each public body shall keep reasonably comprehensible minutes of all its meetings showing the time and place, the members present, the subjects considered, the actions taken, the vote of each member, and any other information required to be shown in the minutes by law, which shall be promptly available to the public to the extent that making such matters public shall not be inconsistent with section 7 of this act. a. Minutes are required for all meetings including closed session. Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 1 1998. b. Minutes must be provided promptly available to the public, subject to approval at next board meeting. Matawan Regional Teachers Assn. v. Bd. of Ed., 212 N.J. Super. 328 (Law Div. 1986) 2 weeks/next meeting; Liebeskind v. Mayor and Mun. Council of Bayonne, 265 N.J. Super. 389 (App. Div. 1993) 3 business days prior to next meeting c. Minutes of closed session must be made available to the public when the reason for confidentiality no longer exists. Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 1 1998 Time of disclosure, fact sensitive, case by case basis; Tenure charges filed with the board secretary are public records. Williams v. Bd. of Ed. of Atlantic City, 329 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 2000)

58. The defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-14. 59. The defendants are presumed to have knowledge of the law. 60. The defendants willfully and knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-14. 61. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare that the defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:414. 62. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare the actions taken against plaintiff at the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 void and also demands judgment against defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful and intentional violations of Open Public Meetings Act as the court may deem proper. COUNT VIII - WILLFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE OPMA N.J.S.A. 10:4-14& N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 63. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 62 herein.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 17 of 20

64. The action of defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-14& N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 when defendants failed to comply with the requirements of OPMA and OPRA by denying plaintiffs request for inspection or obtaining a copy of draft of the minutes of 6/28/2011 BOE meeting that plaintiff requested on or about 8/1/2011 and 8/4/2011 (a month after 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting) without giving plaintiff any explanation in writing or verbally. 11
N.J.S.A. 10:4-14: Each public body shall keep reasonably comprehensible minutes of all its meetings showing the time and place, the members present, the subjects considered, the actions taken, the vote of each member, and any other information required to be shown in the minutes by law, which shall be promptly available to the public to the extent that making such matters public shall not be inconsistent with section 7 of this act. a. Minutes are required for all meetings including closed session. Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 1 1998. b. Minutes must be provided promptly available to the public, subject to approval at next board meeting. Matawan Regional Teachers Assn. v. Bd. of Ed., 212 N.J. Super. 328 (Law Div. 1986) 2 weeks/next meeting; Liebeskind v. Mayor and Mun. Council of Bayonne, 265 N.J. Super. 389 (App. Div. 1993) 3 business days prior to next meeting c. Minutes of closed session must be made available to the public when the reason for confidentiality no longer exists. Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 1 1998 Time of disclosure, fact sensitive, case by case basis; Tenure charges filed with the board secretary are public records. Williams v. Bd. of Ed. of Atlantic City, 329 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 2000)

65. The defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 & N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. 66. The defendants are presumed to have knowledge of the law. 67. The defendants willfully and knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 & N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. 68. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare that the defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 & N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.

11

The public enjoys a common law right of access to public records generated or maintained by public entities. See, e.g., Keddie v. Rutgers, the state university, 148, N.J. 36. Defendants failure to provide the requested meeting minutes of 6/28/2011 to the plaintiff violates the common law right of access to public records as well.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 18 of 20

69. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare the actions taken against plaintiff at the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 void and also demands judgment against defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful and intentional violations of Open Public Meetings Act as the court may deem proper. COUNT IX - WILLFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE OPMA N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a) 70. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 69 herein. 71. The action of defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a) when defendants failed to comply with the requirements of OPMA by censoring the public comment in regard to the defendants action taken against plaintiff during the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011. Defendants censored the public comment/question in regard to plaintiffs employment during the public comment portion of the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 which has been indicated and referred to, as Item H4 in the minutes of that meeting (Daniel Golabek 74 Godwin Avenue Questions and comments relative to: Item H4, Assistant to Athletic Director; Basketball Coach vacancies; Release of Coach, Tennis Program.).
When addressing the public body, the public body is not required to respond to your questions. The public body cannot censor your speech during a public comment portion because it does not agree with you or like what you are saying.

72. The defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a). 73. The defendants are presumed to have knowledge of the law. 74. The defendants willfully and knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a). 75. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare that the defendants violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a). 76. Plaintiff asks that this Honorable court declare the actions taken against plaintiff at the Elmwood Park BOE meeting of 6/28/2011 void and also demands judgment against

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 19 of 20

defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for their willful and intentional violations of Open Public Meetings Act as the court may deem proper. JURY DEMAND 77. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this case. PRAYERS WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Irandokht Toorzani demands judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. Declaring Defendants decision in regard to withholding Plaintiffs 2011-2012 increments at 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE public meeting to be null and void as a result of defendants intentional and willful violations of N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq; 2. Declaring Defendants decision in regard to certifying tenure charges (which had been initially established by PERJURY and NEVER been discussed in the 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting based on the admission of Ms. Patricia Otten, Confidential Executive Secretary, who takes meeting minutes)12 against Plaintiff at the 6/28/2011 BOE public meeting (as defendants claim) to be null and void as a result of defendants intentional and willful violations of N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq and ordering Plaintiffs reinstatement in her position; and 3. Also requesting judgment against defendants for their willful and intentional violations of N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq and Open Public Records Act: a. For punitive damages because of intentional and willful violation of New Jersey Statutes;

12

In addition to Ms. Ottens admission, there is no sign or indication of any resolution, discussion, decision, or vote in regard to matter of tenure charges either on the agenda or in the minutes of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting which affirm that matter of tenure charges had never been discussed in 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting which accordingly constitutes the action of defendant William Moffitt, Board Secretary (certifying that the tenure charges against plaintiff had been discussed and voted on, in 6/28/2011 BOE meeting) to be PERJURY.

Irandokht Toorzani (Plaintiff, Pro Se)

March 13, 2011

Page 20 of 20

b. For damages for humiliation and harm to plaintiffs reputation as a result of discussing withholding plaintiffs increments in the open session of 6/28/2011 Elmwood Park BOE meeting; c. For reimbursing Plaintiff for all lost pay and benefits; d. For compensatory damages; including but not limited to damages for economic losses, benefits, back pay, and front pay; e. For attorneys fees (if applicable) and costs of suit; and f. For such further relief as the court deems equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE IRANDOKHT TOORZANI

VERIFICATION Irandokht Toorzani, of full age, certifies as follows: I am Plaintiff in the action captioned Irandokht Toorzani v. Elmwood Park Board Of Education, et al.; Docket No: L-8966-11. I certify that the foregoing statements in my verified complaint dated 3/13/2012 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./

PLAINTIFF, PRO SE Dated: March 13, 2012 IRANDOKHT TOORZANI