Clark Searches for New Job

By .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Ejay Clark, a former science teacher at Westport’s Bedford Middle School, has been interviewing for a new teaching position, but it remains unclear if he has found a new job.

Lewis Brey, Clark’s attorney, said today his client has interviewed for a new position, but would not say if he has a new job.

“It’s Aug. 3, and he needs to secure employment elsewhere,” he said. “He has a family to take care of.”

Clark resigned from his position in March—which was effective at the end of the school year—when he was told he would not receive tenure after two years with the district. Parents and Clark have been battling for his job, but Westport school officials have ruled there is no avenue for Clark to appeal for his job.

Brey said Clark even considered applying for another job in Westport, but he could not say if it happened.

“He can’t sit around and wait until Board of Education members develop a conscious or courage,” he said. “He needs to continue his career and mitigate the damage.”

Brey compared the situation to a hypothetical if Schools Superintendent Elliott Landon was terminated by the school board.

“He would need to mitigate any damages done to him by finding another job,” he said. “It’s basic contract law.”

The meeting in early July where parents aired concerns about the Clark situation also sparked e-mail discussions with the Representative Town Meeting.

The e-mail correspondences are available for public viewing in a binder in the Town Clerk’s Office in Town Hall.

Matthew Mandell, RTM District 1, asked those who had attended the meeting to provide information on the proceedings.

Stephen Rubin, RTM District 7, responded on July 14 saying it was obvious the school board was instructed by board attorney Tom Mooney, Landon and Chairwoman Mary Parmelee “to be nothing but a stonewall.”

“They won the award for following orders and making no sounds whatsoever,” he wrote. “They said nothing, did nothing and remained the puppets that they are.”

Rubin further wrote that the board also won the award for “arrogance, lack of caring, not able to be flexible, not the transparent board they claim to be and clearly they all broke every promise they made during the campaign.”

Kim Mathias, RTM District 9, responded on July 17 to Rubin’s e-mail requesting RTM members to refrain from “personal and degrading remarks as ‘the puppets that they are’ when referring to BOE members—or anyone for that matter.”

“In my opinion, such phrases do nothing to advance an informed debate and constructive resolution,” wrote Mathias, whose husband Mark is Board of Education vice-chairman. She also copied Mark Mathias on the responding e-mail.

Rubin, responding on July 17, wrote he hoped Mathias understood the high level of frustration at the meeting.

“If so, I think you may realize that ‘degrading’ is not the word you should imply and it was nothing but simply calling it as it was and the word ‘puppet’ was the correct word to use under the circumstances,” he wrote.

“I would have been happy to substitute the word ‘puppet’ with understanding, fair, caring, flexible or any pleasant, positive word, but that clearly would not describe what went on.”

Rubin wrote that he feels an error was made with Clark and no one knows how to reverse it.

Dewey Loselle, RTM District 8, also responded to Rubin’s comments although he had attempted to stay out of the matter.

“However, Mr. Rubin’s latest bombast and the other personally abusive and vindicate comments which have been hurled upon our Board of Education members by some in the RTM is intolerable and an embarrassment,” he wrote.

“I know most of the BOE members personally. . .and they are all excellent and caring people who only have the best interests of our children and school system at heart.”

Loselle wrote he met with several school board members following the meeting and they were “near tears from the horrible situation in which they were placed and the excrement which was hurled upon them.”

He also describes a similar situation to the Clark circumstances from 10 years ago of a Ms. Almog, a third grade teacher at Long Lots Elementary School.

She was not offered tenure and she appealed, he wrote, and many parents spoke in favor of the teacher, including he and his wife, because of the effect she had on their children.

He wrote that he and other parents later learned that not everyone had positive experiences with Ms. Almog and were afraid to speak out because of how popular the teacher was with parents.

He also learned from some former school board members that the teacher had “extreme preferential treatment for some students and maltreatment of others, inappropriate physical contact, expensive gifts, trips, dinners” given to students.

“I hope that maybe we can all learn from this past story and understand that all may not be ‘as it seems on the surface’ and that there may be things that cannot be talked about and that we should allow/trust the administration and the board to do their job as they see fit and as is their responsibility,” Loselle wrote.

Rubin responded stating that if Loselle is against allowing the public to speak at a public meeting “you have a major problem.”