The-Leader_1989-07-13

              Freeport • Baldwin
THE LEAD S5lh Year, No. 28 Freeport. N.Y. 11520 OQiciil newspaper of the Village of FrcepocfFreepoR and Baldwin School Districts Thursday. July 13.1989 25c
RNE FISHING: Abovt, from laft, Baldwin raaldanta Frank
Scarola, John Sbnnlrl, and Bob and MOca BaUlnztinl show olf
th« bluadsh they caught during tha fourth annual Chris Laifcin
Momorlal Fishing Toumamant at Guy Lombardo Marina In
Fraapoit on Saturday. According to Bath Aroyo, a davalop-ment
aaslatant for South Naaaau Communltit* Hoapltal,
approxlmataly $12,000 was ralsad by tha 240 boats that par-ticlpatad
to benafit tha hoapl^l. Uaanwhils, tan-yaarold
MelUaa Egbert, below, did soma fishing on her own at lou'a
Fishing Station at tha marina.
pholDt by SuW Gninro
'Right-to-know' case settled
by Joan Deianey and
Andrew S. Ripps
A four-year court case
between the.Baldwin School
District and New York State
involving an employee's "right
to know' about toxic sub­stances
in district buildings
has been settled.
According to the June 16
settlement, the school district
is to pay $6,000'in lieu of civil
penalties" and an additional
$1,000 in court costs. School
ofTicials have also agreed to
survey all district buildings
for toxic substances, train all
employees annually with
regard to the haiards of these
substances, and report all
employee complaints and
"right to know" requests to the
attorney general for the next
three years.
District Assistant Superin*
tendent for Business Lee
Chapman said that ongoing
education courses speciHcally
geared towards eaui employ­ee's
job category and building
win be given. He added that a
Health and Safety officer was
hired to handle this trainings
before the settlement had
been reached.'
"Hie district has not, howev­er,
admitted any guilt for its
actions.
'You can go to any other
school in New York State and
you'll find non-compliance
there, as well," Mr. Chapman
said. "We were the test case."
Ihe stiit, though it was ofG-ciaBy
Hied by ^ e stat« in the
State Supreme Court in Mine-ola
in 1985, was originally
brought up as an issue jn
1983. Baldwin Haibor Junior
High School Industrial Arts
teacher Robert Sawyers had
Gled complaints inTOlving the
district's alleged violation of
the 'right to know" law, health
problems he blamed on
asbestos and other substances
in the building, as well as a
one->'ear disciplinary suspen­sion
placed on him by district i
administrators. His com­plaints
prompted the state
attpmey general to file the
suit-
Mr. Chopman asserts, how­ever,
that the cose only
involved accusations of non­compliance
with the "richt to
know" law, and not Mr.
Sawjt^.
The attorney general had
charged that the suspension of
Mr. Sawyers by the district
was in retaliation for his com­plaints,
but those charges
were dropped due to a lack of
sustainable evidence.
"Both sides arc just happy
to get it resolved," Mr. Chap­man
stated.
Sawyers unsatisfied
Mr. Sawyers, an employee of
the district from 1957 until
his retirement in June, 1988,
received no bock pay or dam­ages
OS a result of his being
dropped from the suit.
He was diagnoeed as having
a malignant melanoma in
1978. which led to the first of
his several requests for
asbestos locations in the
junior high school building in
1980. It was not determined
whether or not his illness was
the result of asbestos in the
school.
The industrial arts teacher
has filed a case of his own
against the schools, this one a
discrimination case pending
with the U.S. Department of
Labor. In the suit, he charges
that discriminatory actions
against him by the district
have included such events as
accusations of asbestos test
tampering and his disci-phnary
suspension.
According to Mr. Sawyers.
he was accused of effecting the
outcome of an air filter wst
that was to check for asbestos
in the junior high school. He
was found guilty at a
subsequent hearing and sus­pended
for one year, without
pay, by the state commissioner
of education. Mr. Sawyers
summarily denied the accusa­tions
against him and ques­tioned
the leiiimony of the
firm hired to conduct the
asbestos test.
Mr. Sawyers stated thai he
does not feel vindicated by the
results of the case, calling the
settlement by the district a
"token effort to appease the
attorney general with no sin­cerity
in their efforts."
Court rules for marina developers The developcn of Jdfcrton
Marine Services have been
Scared lo continue construction
of the boat iioragc facility due lo
a State Supreme Court decision
to lift a temporary restraining
order issued by ihe Village of
Freeport.
The \illage has l>etn seeking to
halt construction at the site on
Jefferson Street sirKc area resi­dents
asserted that the building
would <«cwpy 82 percent of the
lot, 32 percent more than alio»cd
under village zoning guidelines
for a marine business district.
Village Attorney WilHam
Glaclcen laid that the viHagc
plans to submit an appeal on the
decision by Judge Alfred S. Rob-bins
by the end of this week.
Judge Robbins. in addition to
handing down his written deo-sion,
has also set July 20 as the
date for the hearing on a prelimi­nary
injunction bang sought by
the \-illaEc, Construction at the
site would cea5c if such an order is
issued, pending a permanent
injunaion trial in the future. If
the injunaion is not issued, the
dc^elope^s could continue to
build ihc facility "at their own
risk." according to Mr. Glacken.
pending the permanent injunc­tion
trial.
Donald Van Holt and Wesley
Ford, the developers of the
46.500-$quarc-fooi facility, said
that construction nil] continue.
adding that they will ibide by the
final court ruling
Philip Bensi, the attorney
for the developers, said that
his clienu "want to please
everybody and be able to do
business in Freeport.' He
added that he and the devel­opers
have made t»'o separate
settlement offers to the vil­lage,
neither one being
accepted.
The developers have also filed
a countersuit against the «llagt
in an attempt to block injunction
attempts against them and force
the village to grant them building
permits despite 7ontng la»
discreparicies,
Mr. Glacken called ihu *uit
"premature." ho^^c^er. staling
that Jefferson Indoor Manna,
Inc. has options it can choose
aside from Uking action against
the village. He said that a revision
of the building plans to conform
to the zoning regulations li jusi
one possibilit>.
The developers could also
appl> to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a variance, he added
A \-ariance ti the allowance of a
legal exception to yonmg rules
Mr. Van Hoh and Mr ford
had a 30da> pcnod.beginning on
June 21. toscck a variance Thev
have not done so as of press iimc
and.accordingtoMr Glacken.n
docs not appear that they inters
to file for the \ anance or redesign
their building plans A.R.