44 Comments

1. POSTED BY KB  |  September 25, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

   I TOTALLY agree. The letter from the DOB was vague but suggested some wrong doing. What if these “allegations” are unfounded? Where does Mr Rhaney go to get his reputation back?
2. POSTED BY snappyguy  |  September 25, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

   I respectfully dissent from Mr. Cates’ opinion.
   I think the letter was fine. When someone’s job involves the care of children, I think it’s entirely appropriate to tell people that a complaint has been lodged against them of some kind and that’s why they have been relieved of their duties pending an investigation.
3. POSTED BY jerseygurl  |  September 25, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

   Welcome to Montclair. Where no deed, good or bad, goes unpunished and unpublicized.
4. POSTED BY Sandy  |  September 25, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

   I totally agree with jerseygurl!
   There is too much crime lately in Montclair, and other problems. The only part of the center that’s still nice is from Park St and then going West to Valley Road. The lower part, beneath Park Street has too many bars and bar brawls, a seedy Pathmark and cannot compare to other nearby towns.
   Too much petty crime here & there, too.
   Okay, yes, it’s better than Bloomfield, but really how does it stack up against, W. Caldwell, Millburn, South Orange, Livingston? Not so good.
5. POSTED BY kyle41181  |  September 25, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

   Wow, this letter is a complete waste of time!
   “The proper way to deal with whatever happened would have been simply to announce a leave of absence for personal reasons.”
   The problem is that Mr. Rhaney was put on leave of absence indefinitely, which was directed by the BOE. If the BOE had said he left for “personal reasons” like Mr. Coates wanted, THE BOE would have been LYING!
   Which would have been worse, and extremely negligible.
6. POSTED BY kyle41181  |  September 25, 2009 @ 2:18 pm

   Sandy,
   Your statement makes no sense when you put MONTCLAIR in Context with the towns you mention below”
   “but really how does it stack up against, W. Caldwell, Millburn, South Orange, Livingston? Not so good.”
   Montclair has 38,000 residents, dramatically more than the following and look at comparable size towns to Montclair. Do some research before you make un-checked statements!
   Livingston 28,000
   W. Caldwell 12,000
   Millburn 20,000
   S. Orange 18,000
   Now lets look at the comparable in Population
   Bloomfield
   Belleville
   Hackensack
   Kearney
   Linden
   Teaneck
   There is always room for improvement, but Montclair is doing a great job with controlling crime!
7. POSTED BY Mrs. Martta123  |  September 25, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

   Sandy, not so sure that “it’s better than Bloomfield,” even though I believed that myself for many years.
   Sure, Bloomfield has its own set of problems but in the past 5 years of so, there’s a been a number of great restaurants opening and cultural happenings going on. In all the years I’ve been going to Bloomfield, I never had my car vandalized or tampered with. It’s more affordable than Montclair. You can park on the street overnight. Like Montclair, you can walk almost everywhere. It’s serviced by both trains and buses. It’s just as multicultural–if not mroe so–than Montclair.
8. POSTED BY cammy  |  September 25, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

   I agree with Mrs. Martta123. I really don’t know where Sandy gets off that Montclair is better than Bloomfield. What are you basing your assumption off of? I am a long resident and a BHS grad and I can assure you, I can go toe to toe with the best of them, educationally speaking of course. Goodness knows I would love a majestic home like the ones on Christopher and Up Montclair
9. POSTED BY Aflarfin  |  September 25, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

   I know we made a wise decision spending a little extra for the Glen Ridge school system.
   More and more of our limited take-out money goes to Bloomfield now. Some great food in Bloomfield. If they could just get their downtown together…………
10. POSTED BY Brian 9.0  |  September 25, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

    I don’t see anything “morally wrong” or “legally questionable” about the superintendent’s letter to parents. The letter contains the fact that the principal has been removed pending an investigation. That is morally correct – informing parents about the status of the principal. What is illegal about it? The letter contains no accusations, only the fact that an investigation is pending. If people infer guilt without knowing the outcome of the investigation, that is not the fault of the superintendant, that is the fault of the person jumping to a conclusion.
11. POSTED BY Laura P  |  September 25, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

    I’m a Watchung parent, too, and I agree with what Mr. Cates’ has written. I was dumbfounded when I heard that this letter went out to the whole district– I don’t remember receiving an e-blast about personnel changes at the Montclair public schools that my own children do not attend. Sending the letter to all of the Montclair Public School families seems like overkill, and makes us wonder what exactly did Mr. Rhaney do, since it must have been very, very, very bad. And that wondering makes parents nervous.
12. POSTED BY croiagusanam  |  September 25, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

    Reading some of the comments above should make it quite clear as to why, despite good salaries adn excellent benefits, many quality people decide not to seek administrative positions in education. Dealing with these sorts of armchair lawyers and hypersensitive “concerned” parents is enough to put anyone off.
    The letter states that the principal is being relieved while an investigation regarding a complaint from an employee is investigated. That is what happened. One poster suggests that the superintendent should have made something up. Wonderful advice, that. Another says that the principal must have done something very, very bad. Another boneheaded response.
    Complaints regarding administrative procedure as it applies to personnel, etc. have to be looked into. There is no presumption of guilt in this letter, and no accusation on the part of the superintendent. It simply states that while the process proceeds, the principal will be out of the building. This is all according to contract, and there is nothing immoral or illegal about any of it.
    Several years ago a similar situation occurred at Bradford school with their principal. He resigned, and life went on. It will this time as well.
13. POSTED BY Laura P  |  September 25, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

    I was trying to be sarcastic about the “very, very, very bad” comment, but if it came off as bone-headed, so be it. I was just truly surprised that the whole town was notified of Principal Rhaney’s “absence” from the building.
    I do hope that the BOE will resolve the matter quickly, and I have faith that Watchung School will be none the worse for it.
14. POSTED BY DubiousParent  |  September 25, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

    Hey, at least the guy had the juevos to sign his name — unlike you and me, croiagusanam. If he’s an armchair lawyer, what’s that make you?
    “Process proceeds,” nice going.
15. POSTED BY croiagusanam  |  September 25, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

    What does that make me? Why, person who comments on a blog. Just like you.
    Is there a point to your — well — point?
    Perhaps you, grammar and usage maven that you’ve shown yourself to be, should step in and hold down the fort while the investigation goes forward.
    Or hold something, anyway.
16. POSTED BY mhs12492  |  September 25, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

    I think this letter is acceptable; what Dr Alvarez did was not. I have known Mr. Rhaney for many years and he would NEVER EVER do something to compromise the safety of his students. To embarrass him by announcing his leave due to a complaint is completely unacceptable especially since he has yet to be found guilty. I hope everyone knows that you a playing with someone’s life. He is the most generous and caring person I know and I find it horrible that you pass judgment on someone you barely know; despite Dr. Alvarez’s letter. If your child was in danger, you would know. I hope the allegations aren’t true, and once Mr. Rhaney is found innocent, his career and reputation will be ruined because of that letter.
17. POSTED BY croiagusanam  |  September 25, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

    No one has suggested that the principal did anything to compromise the safety of students. In fact, the superintendent’s comments specifically note that.
    The superintendent is required, by law and by any standard of professionalism, to investigate allegations of wrong-doing. If there is nothing to the charge, the principal will be reinstated and life will go on. This type of thing happens more often than you might think, and reputations are not “ruined” unless the allegations are true.
18. POSTED BY young1  |  September 25, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

    I agree with Karl Cates that this letter is unnecessarily sensational and irresponsible on the part of Superintendent Alvarez. I agree that if the BOE felt that Mr. Rhaney needed to be temporarily removed, the Watchung community should have been informed only that he was on a personal leave of absence. Not only does the BOE have no legal or ethical obligation to inform the entire district that Mr. Rhaney is under investigation, it also has no good public relations reason to do so. What has Alvarez gained and what has been lost? Well, first and foremost, Mr. Rhaney’s personal and professional life has certainly been seriously tarnished if not destroyed, regardless of the outcome of this so called “investigation.” Watchung school has been disrupted more than necessary. I suppose it has provided great opportunity for the gossip mongers of this town to spend the past days speculating over what Mr. Rhaney could have possible done. Was this Alvarez’s goal? His goal should have been to solve a problem in a way that impacts the children, parents of Watchung school, and Mr. Rhaney in an effective, fair, and judicious manner, respecting the privacy of all those involved. He has clearly not accomplished this goal.
19. POSTED BY profwilliams  |  September 25, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

    Steve,
    I was on the fence with this one– despite my deep hatred of Alvarez I was leaning towards thinking was he did was appropriate.
    Thankfully, you’ve made a great reason why I can continue to hate him in peace.
    What ass!!
    But then again, maybe you are right in thinking his intention was to get the gossip mill (read: Baristanet) all wee-wee’d up.
    Mission Accomplished ‘ol Bearded fool!!!
    When is his contract up?
20. POSTED BY young1  |  September 25, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

    profwilliams,
    are you unable to spot sarcasm when you see it?
21. POSTED BY profwilliams  |  September 25, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

    steve young,
    What? Where?
    Alvarez is an ass.
    I spotted that years ago.
    I’m confused about the sarcasm.
    Was your initial post in jest?
    … No need to answer because I’ve wasted enough time on this one…….
22. POSTED BY Hmmm  |  September 26, 2009 @ 1:29 am

    Does the name Richard Jewell ring a bell? He died with his reputation still tarnished after being accused and then later absolved of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. And in a public service arena, particularly one entrusted with the care of our children, trust is extremely difficult to regain once there’s doubt about a person’s character. I believe Dr. Alvarez was wrong to disclose the nature of Mr. Rhaney’s leave of absence. As Dr. Alvarez himself stated in his letter, children were not involved “in any way,” so why does he disclose anything about the leave of absence? Brian 2 – It’s easy to say that it’s the fault of a person making a false assumption where there is no proof of guilt, but where does that leave Mr. Rhaney? At the mercy of perhaps faulty public opinion perpetuated by a vague reference to an employee complaint about Mr. Rhaney.
23. POSTED BY croiagusanam  |  September 26, 2009 @ 7:45 am

    The very same “faulty opinion” evidenced in your post.
    I guess it would have been better for Alvarez to simply say that the principal was “going away” for awhile.
    Then no parents would have been outraged that he simply up and left.
    Or maybe Alvarez should have lied about it. The no parents would have been outraged that they were lied to.
    Right.
    Alvarez has done what he was legally and professionally required to do, and what, by the way, is part of the contract signed by all parties.
    Richard Jewell and a terrorist investigation versus this? As MacEnroe would say, you CAN’T be serious.
24. POSTED BY digitalis  |  September 26, 2009 @ 11:05 am

    #1 I agree with Mr. Cates
    #2 I love how all the academia snobs and wannabes are trying their best to show off their vast knowledge of EVERYTHING. This town needs a lesson in humility!
25. POSTED BY readthis  |  September 26, 2009 @ 11:37 am

    So little of interest ever comes from the comments posted here. I am ALWAYS up for a good debate about any issue. Mr. Cates’ letter really made me think–and after thinking, I believe he makes some good points. Something about Alvarez’s letter worried me, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. I think it’s the immediacy of what happened, and the fact that it was made so public to the public even before anything has been proven. I don’t Mr. Ranney from Adam, but I can’t help but wonder how he’s feeling this weekend. And how the victim of whatever he “did” is feeling.
    But then the debate becomes about “academia (sp.?) snobs” and “wannabees,” and whether Montclair is a good or bad place to live. Huh? The beauty of blogs and comments and this form of communication in general is to foster discussion that might actually impact decisions and, in this case, the educational lives of our children (not to mention how we approach justice within society’s institutions). I mean, these are big issues and whether you want to admit it or not, they DO impact you.
    I live in Montclair, and I care what happens while I’m here. I want the truth, and I think that truth can be arrived at through honest discourse.
    In fact, I’d go out on a limb and say that this sort of crap contributes to a lot of the anger in larger society. I voted for Obama, but I think we have to listen to what people are saying about Big Government, even abortion and that stuff. I think when Dems, Repubs, Libs, or Conservs use the kind of rhetoric that is miniaturized on this page, NOTHING good comes of it.
    Why can’t we all just LISTEN, ask good questions, and stay focused on what we ALL want–a better life.
26. POSTED BY Hmmm  |  September 26, 2009 @ 11:58 am

    Well, you caught me. I suppose I shouldn’t read & post after midnight. I know it was an extreme example, but Jewell was the first name that popped into my head. The point I was trying to make is that reputations can be ruined. I hope the charges warrant this free-for-all – I hear that newspapers were at the school looking for parents to comment. Seems like a lot of noise being made over something that people have NO idea what the charges or facts are. I would not want to be in Mr. Rhaney’s position – would you?
    Mr. Rhaney was well-liked as a teacher and Vice Principal at Glenfield, where my kids go, and this charge seems to come out of nowhere. I also agree that it seems unecessary for the entire district to have been notified in this way.
    By the way, it tells me plenty that you would quote John MacEnroe, Croiagusanam.
27. POSTED BY Hmmm  |  September 26, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

    I agree, readthis. I normally don’t post anywhere, but this matter was important enough for me to add what I truly believe. And you’re right – these things impact our lives, and the demeaning “one-upmanship” of posters here don’t get us anywhere. We just have to hope that others are more reasonable and quietly listening to what others are saying. If I thought that the posters on baristanet represented the world, well, that would be a tough world to live in, no?
28. POSTED BY nielmtc  |  September 26, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

    I thought it was totally appropriate to share the Superintendent’s letter about Mr. Rhaney with all of the parents in the district. Keep in mind that for many years, he was a teacher at Glenfield for many years and recently the assistant principal there. Additionally, as principal, he is a role model to our children. It’s a shame to me that people jump to conclusions with no real information or facts to back them up.
29. POSTED BY Brian 9.0  |  September 26, 2009 @ 12:56 pm

    The Superintendent found it necessary to remove the principal pending an investigation. He then did the right thing by keeping parents informed of the principal’s removal and telling parents and teachers why he was removed. Parents simply have the right to know the information given. What parents do not need to know are the details of the accusations. If details of the investigation had been divulged in the letter it would have been wrong — because there are no facts, only unproven allegations.
    Parents would have learned the principal was gone, heard something or found out by calling the school, or speaking to other parents. Rather than forcing parents and teachers to rely on speculation or rumors or misinformation, he gave them direct and measured information. It was only information divulged on a need to know basis. And parents needed to know he was no longer there due to an investigation, rather than be left to the game of operator.
    Providing deception or keeping the public in the dark is not the road to protecting the reputations of the accused. Responsible, clear-headed thinking is the answer. Keeping a liberal and open mind in the absence of proof is the solution. Stopping gossip, being kind, and showing reserve is the solution.
30. POSTED BY spaceck  |  September 26, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

    Profwilliams, you have “deep hatred of Alvarez”? I have deep hatred for Adolf Hitler and his ilk, but Dr. Alvarez? Here’s a headline taken today from the Montclair Schools web site: “Dr. Alvarez declares Oct. 2 Read Aloud Day in the schools, in honor of The Little Read on Oct. 2-4″. Sounds fairly benign in my humble opinion. Just saying.
31. POSTED BY croiagusanam  |  September 26, 2009 @ 3:32 pm

    Brian 2 said it best. He’s absolutely right.
    And I wonder what quoting John MacEnroe “says” about me?
    That I have a wicked forehand?
32. POSTED BY WatchungMom  |  September 26, 2009 @ 9:58 pm

    I rarely respond to such postings, threads, etc. It is too bad that this is the only forum for comment on this troubling issue. (That is not meant to be a criticism of Baristanet, which is a valuable local source.) However, there are things people are missing here. The fact is, parents at Watchung School are upset, confused, and anxious. A number of the teachers also look upset and ill at ease. This can’t help having some impact on our children. I hope there was a very good reason to also create similar uneasy feelings throughout the district, although it it is hard to imagine what those reasons could be.
    Why are people nervous and upset? Because anyone who has lived here for a long time, or was raised here, has never seen a letter like this sent out to every single household in the district when it appears that the matter only affects one school. This action alone has caused many of us to conclude that the matter must be quite serious.
    If the letter was sent out for legal reasons, then why have we not seen similar letters before when complaints have been filed, as they surely have been? This can’t be the first complaint filed against an administrator.
    In addition, some of us might remember when Windy McGriff, (then Athletic Director) was taken out of the High School in handcuffs, due to what were ultimately unproven allegations, leading to a huge lawsuit against the district. Obviously no one wants a repeat performance of that travesty. While the letter may not be the same as actual handcuffs, many have noted that its career-ending potential might be similar. Windy still works at MHS, so the legal system did successfully protect his interests, while precipitate actions on the part of the powers that be incurred high costs, and not just in dollars.
    We find ourselves between a rock and hard place. If such a letter was necessary, it is hard to assume that complaint was not a very serious one – beyond the usual scope of complaints. If the letter was not necessary, then everyone in our community has been ill-served. No one wants to see people they have known and trusted (Mr. Rhaney), or whom they respect and rely on (Dr. Alvarez), to have made a terrible mistake, but at this point, that realization about one or the other is inevitable.
    Now we must wait and hope that the news reporters stay away from our school, the teachers begin to feel okay again, and the kids have a good school year, or as good as one can hope for under the circumstances.
33. POSTED BY snappyguy  |  September 27, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

    “Now we must wait and hope that the news reporters stay away from our school, the teachers begin to feel okay again, and . . . . ”
    Cripes. A tad self-involved are we. The news reporters stay away? Half the peopple in town now know why this happened — as well as every teacher at Watchung. I hardly think this going to cause Evewitness News 7 to fly the helicopter on an emergecy basis out from Manhattan.
34. POSTED BY momma-mia  |  September 28, 2009 @ 10:26 am

    snappy guy.
    You say half the people in town now know why this happened, as well as every teacher at Watchung.
    Will you please enlighten the other half? I seem to be in that group, and I am not alone.
    I would be a relief to hear it from someone who “knows.”
35. POSTED BY redflower  |  September 28, 2009 @ 10:56 am

    I just wish the people who don’t really know what happened would stop speculating and gossiping and let “justice” (one can hope) run its course.
36. POSTED BY momma-mia  |  September 28, 2009 @ 11:28 am

    In this time of speculating and gossiping, if someone “knows” what happened, as snappy guy implies, then it’s time for those folks to speak up and step up. And let justice run its course.
37. POSTED BY thissideofwatchung  |  September 28, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

    if I know what the accusations are, we’ve got to be in the 90 percentile of people who know, believe me. whether the accusation is founded on truth–very few know that which is why we should let the process go as untainted as possible.
38. POSTED BY baristagirl123  |  September 28, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

    the whole town knows what happend….
    the “incedent” was that Mr. Rhaney, a man that everyone loves and respects, comitted was sexual harrassment towards a teacher. Its a soft subject….. Mr. Rhaney is loved by everyone!
    The harrassed teacher definitly took what Mr. Rhaney said the wrong way… MONTCLAIR PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IS RUINING HIS CAREER AND LIFE.
39. POSTED BY RomanEmpire  |  September 28, 2009 @ 6:19 pm

    Well, what if it was more than 1 teacher? If so, did they all take it the wrong way?
    How about we wait until the investigation is complete.
40. POSTED BY croiagusanam  |  September 28, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

    Well, since baristagirl123 says that Mr. Rhanney is loved by everyone, and since she knows that it was just one teacher who “took it the wrong way”, that’s good enough for me!
    Who needs to look into this type of thing when “everyone knows” that there’s nothing to it!
41. POSTED BY baristagirl123  |  September 28, 2009 @ 11:16 pm

    mr rhaney has a wife and children the BOE were too harsh and are ruining HIS LIFE………….
    SAVE RHANEY™™™™™™™™™
42. POSTED BY AWB  |  October 01, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

    As a Watchung parent, I could not understand the decision to communicate to the district that our Principal was being investigated. In addition, why we needed to know it was a confidential personnel matter under investigation, is also not clear to me. Since the kids were not in danger, why did it need to be so widely distributed and with a focus on Mr. Raney’s integrity? The investigation should have proceeded while he was on a leave of absence. Did we need to know more than that? We still don’t know. What was Alvarez thinking?- that I would like to kow.
43. POSTED BY AWB  |  October 01, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

    As a Watchung parent, I could not understand the decision to communicate to the district that our Principal was being investigated. In addition, why we needed to know it was a confidential personnel matter under investigation, is also not clear to me. Since the kids were not in danger, why did it need to be so widely distributed and with a focus on Mr. Raney’s integrity? The investigation should have proceeded while he was on a leave of absence. Did we need to know more than that? We still don’t know. What was Alvarez thinking?- that I would like to know.
44. POSTED BY concerned parent  |  October 01, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

    For all concerned about Mr.Rhaney did you stop to think about the victim in all of this. Apparently,if it was a severe enough allegation to force an immediate leave of absence people should feel that everything was done to protect the safety of their children. This does not just effect a principal and an employee it effects the watchung community as a whole specifically the children. Everyone is so worried about Mr. Rhaney and his family, but no one is considering the victim and that family and the turmoil that they are going through. Let the truth come out before defending anyone or spreading vicious and unfounded rumors.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.