Tuxedo Park FYI | Editorials

Open Letter to The Community: Bully Dan Castricone Is Unfit to Hold Public Office

Sean P. Madden
64 Tower Hill Loop Tuxedo Park, NY 10987

May 9, 2025

Dear Neighbors,

I write to bring to your attention what in my opinion is the shameful behavior of Tuxedo Board of Education President Dan Castricone, who is seeking your vote in the upcoming Board of Education (BOE) election. Castricone’s abuse of the legal system to stifle debate on matters concerning your tax dollars renders him unfit to serve. I urge him to do the honorable thing and withdraw his candidacy for reelection. I believe he lacks the character, judgment, and temperament to serve on the BOE, let alone lead as President.

In short, Castricone filed a frivolous “SLAPP” lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages against lifelong resident and TPFYI reporter Meg Vaught in a transparent attempt to muzzle her criticism of his leadership of the BOE. SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. As the Orange County Supreme Court observed in dismissing Castricone’s meritless lawsuit, “SLAPP suits are characterized as having little legal merit but filed to burden opponents with legal fees and the threat of liability and are meant to discourage others from speaking out in the future.” Castricone v. Vaught, Decision & Order (Supr. Ct. Orange Cty May, 7, 2025)(the “Decision”) at p. 4.

To combat the chilling effect of SLAPPs, New York (and over 30 other states) have adopted anti-SLAPP laws that provide mechanisms to lower the costs and other burdens associated with defending against meritless lawsuits aimed at chilling speech in connection with a public issue. The Court found Castricone’s lawsuit to be just such a meritless lawsuit that warranted expedited dismissal under New York’s anti-SLAPP statute and awarded Meg the attorneys fees she was forced to incur to defend this frivolous lawsuit.

Before detailing why I believe Castricone’s behavior should disqualify him from public office, let me first provide transparency about the basis for my views and interest in this situation. First, I have never met Dan Castricone and do not have a firsthand view of his character. Rather, the opinions I express herein are based on his actions in what I believe was clearly an abusive lawsuit against Meg, as well as the full record before the Court, which are publicly available. I urge you to read all the materials, and for convenience I have attached hereto Castricone’s initial complaint and the Court’s Decision dismissing it.

Second, I supported Meg’s defense of Castricone’s lawsuit because I am passionate about the free flow of ideas guaranteed by the First Amendment and because I loathe bullies that would infringe on the exercise such cherished rights.

Background

During business hours on Wednesday, November 20, Meg posted to her personal Facebook page reminding readers of that evening’s public Board of Education meeting and sharing the following:

“At the September meeting of the BOE, not long after they put Nancy Teed in place [as acting Superintendent] at a rate of $1K per day, BOE President Dan Castricone publicly stated that the District was NOT paying two Superintendents at once because Jeff White [the incumbent Superintendent] was on medical leave and as such not collecting a pay check. I FOILED the pay records and was not surprised to discover that the information provided to the public by Mr. Castricone was blatantly false. See below the record of payment to Mr. White. Guys, if we do nothing to hold these folks accountable, this stuff is going to keep happening. Our money is being misused and we are being lied to about it.”

Meg sincerely believed her post to be true when she made it, as evidenced by her contemporaneous inclusion of the FOILed payment data to support it. And Meg continues to believe her post was true. Nevertheless, Meg removed this post the very next day (November 21) because it was her mother’s birthday, and she did not want her BOE criticism to be juxtaposed against her celebratory post of the occasion.

Castricone (a practicing attorney) filed his $1 million lawsuit by lunchtime the day after Meg’s Facebook post in an apparent fit of pique at her criticism. Meg learned of the lawsuit Thanksgiving weekend when she discovered the summons and complaint taped to her front door. Classy Dan. Consider for a moment how Dan Castricone could possibly have been damaged to the tune of $1 million by a BOE-focused Facebook post by Meg Vaught that was up for less than 24 hours?

It doesn’t take a lawyer to appreciate the slapdash nature of Castricone’s complaint, which I believe is an embarrassment to the legal profession. It took Castricone virtually no time to produce his boilerplate and hollow complaint, but his SLAPP required Meg to hire an attorney and incur substantial legal fees and expenses. Castricone’s complaint also evinces a clear lack of diligence regarding applicable law, as his subsequent filings laid bare. Further, given Castricone’s knowledge of Meg’s role at TPFYI and her history of being critical of him, I believe his complaint was a transparent attempt to silence Meg’s exercise of political speech at the very apex of First Amendment protections: speech directed at an elected official, in his official capacity, concerning the expenditure of taxpayer funds.

Of course, Dan’s lawsuit intimidated Meg. The prospect of spending tens of thousands of dollars to defend a lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages is daunting. But that’s the whole point of a SLAPP: though lacking legal merit, the mere prospect of costly, protracted litigation discourages protected speech—and weaponizes the judicial system.

The Litigation and Dismissal Thereof

By letter dated December 27, 2024, Meg’s attorney detailed for Castricone why his lawsuit was baseless and doomed for dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute and beseeched him to discontinue it. Nevertheless, Castricone persisted in prosecuting his abusive lawsuit. When Meg’s counsel filed a legally compelling motion to dismiss, accompanied by damning affidavits from Meg and former BOE member Joe Rickard, Castricone tried to delay and deflect, but the Court saw through his shenanigans and denied his various motions.

Both Meg and Joe Rickard served on the BOE with Castricone, and in sworn affidavits submitted to the Court under penalty of perjury, they detailed Castricone’s troubling behavior on the BOE, including his repeated threats of litigation, displays of anger and intimidation. Joe Rickard detailed several examples of such troubling behavior, observing: “Plaintiff [Castricone] consistently demonstrated impulsivity, an inability to handle conflict, and was prone to bullying others to have them not oppose whatever Plaintiff wanted to do.” He concluded: “I have read the Affidavit of the Defendant Mary Vaught and the bullying and intimidating tactics of the Plaintiff [Castricone] described in the Affidavit toward her are sadly the same bullying and intimidating tactics the Plaintiff [Castricone] as a board Member used against me.”

Meg also expressed in Court papers that “Dan is a thin-skinned, hot-tempered confrontational bully who previously had threatened me in the Fall of 2019 when I was Board President with a baseless defamation lawsuit.” Further, Meg shared in her sworn Affidavit that Castricone had similarly threatened other Board Members with baseless defamation litigation.

The Court issued its Decision May 7, and not surprisingly it was a resounding rebuke of Castricone’s frivolous SLAPP lawsuit, which it dismissed and awarded Meg reimbursement of her attorney fees and expenses by Castricone. After the Court issued its Decision, you might have expected Castricone to remain quiet or express some humility or even remorse, but instead he made a defiant post to Facebook, continuing to mislead our community. For example, Castricone continues to maintain that Meg’s Facebook post was false despite the Court having conclusively found the contrary:

“Defendant’s Facebook post was made after she obtained records from a FOIL request which reflected payments to the Superintendent on leave, in direct contravention to Plaintiff’s statement at the School Board meeting on September 18, 2024. Accordingly, not only do the records disprove Plaintiff’s claim of the falsity of the statement, but they also provide objective support for Defendant’s claim that she knew the statement to be true.” Decision at 7 (emphasis added).

For anyone interested, I have attached as an Appendix hereto the text of Castricone’s Facebook post, with my comments correcting the record.

Final Thoughts and a Message for Dan

As indicated above, I do not know Dan Castricone, but I do know that the totality of the Court record in his shameful SLAPP should disqualify him from serving on a public board such as the BOE. In my opinion, thin-skinned individuals like Castricone should not seek elected office, but when they do, they “must expect that the debate will sometimes be rough and personal.”1 New York’s anti-SLAPP laws and historically robust protection of free speech principles reflect our communities’ commitment “to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”2 Dan Castricone betrayed these principles and should be voted out of office.

To a hammer, everything resembles a nail so I anticipate Castricone’s kneejerk reaction to this open letter may be to sue me. I am unconcerned with that prospect because he will lose if he files another SLAPP, and he will be ordered to pay my legal fees, just as he is now required to do in Meg’s case. Every word of this open letter is either demonstrably true, represents unactionable opinion or otherwise is protected by the First Amendment, the anti-SLAPP statute, and/or the fair report privilege.

Dan, you should also know that the last time a public official tried to stifle the exercise of my First Amendment rights, I spent over five years and $130,000 to hold him to account. Meg chose not to countersue you for damages under the anti-SLAPP statute—and I believe she has a strong case for damages—because she wanted to put this distressing episode behind her. However, I will show no such restraint should you file a SLAPP against me. As a fellow member (retired) of the New York State Bar, I am aghast at the abuse of the legal system your SLAPP against Meg represents. Should you choose to double down with another SLAPP, I believe you would bring disrepute to the legal profession, which would in turn raise ethical concerns the New York State Bar should be aware of.

Dan, it’s not too late to do the honorable thing and accept responsibility for an impulsive, regrettable lawsuit and withdraw your candidacy.

Any member of the community who would like to have a fact-based and respectful discussion of these issues should reach out to me.

Thank you for your consideration,

Sean P. Madden

1 Harte-Hanks Comms v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 687 (1989).
2 Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964)(quoting New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S., at 270)).

Click here to view Castricone's Initial Complaint

Click here to view the Court's deicison

Click here to view this open letter in it's original PDF Format

Appendix

Set forth below in black is the text of Dan Castricone’s Facebook post of May 7 responding to the Orange County Supreme Court’s Decision dismissing his frivolous defamation lawsuit against Meg Vaught. My annotated comments appear in blue italicized text. __________________________________________

Today, I lost a defamation lawsuit.
Back in November, I filed a suit against Meg Vaught for slander and libel. She had posted on Facebook that I made statements during the September school board meeting that I simply did not make. She then described those (nonexistent) statements as “blatantly false.”

Dan is flat wrong: according to the Court, Meg’s “Facebook post concerned the existence of records that directly contradicted Plaintiff’s verbal assertions at the School Board meeting that two superintendents were not being paid salaries simultaneously.” Decision at 5 (emphasis added).

The court ruled today that I did not prove—by the high legal standard of clear and convincing evidence—that she knew her statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That’s disappointing.

Forget “proof”, Dan didn’t even “plead facts” (i.e. make allegations) that Meg knew or should have known her statements were false. Nor could he because Meg believed her statements to be true and continues to stand behind them. As the court observed, “Plaintiff has failed to submit anything to meet his burden of [proof]...the Court finds no support for his claims.” Decision at 7.

I disagree with the outcome. Anyone can watch the recording of that meeting, hear what I actually said, and compare it to what she claimed I said. The record speaks for itself.

The record does speak for itself, and here is what the Court had to say: “Defendant’s Facebook post was made after she obtained records from a FOIL request which reflected payments to the Superintendent on leave, in direct contravention to Plaintiff’s statement at the School Board meeting on September 18, 2024. Accordingly, not only do the records disprove Plaintiff’s claim of the falsity of the statement, but they also provide objective support for Defendant’s claim that she knew the statement to be true.” Decision at 7 (emphasis added).

What many people may not know is that school board members—despite being unpaid volunteers—are considered public figures under defamation law. That means we’re held to the same standard as elected officials like senators and members of Congress when someone publishes false information about us. It’s a very high bar to clear in court.

Again, the court was very clear that “the records disprove Plaintiff’s claim of falsity of the statement”. Decision at 7. Dan is correct that BOE members are public figures under defamation law—of course they are! —elected officials who dispense taxpayer funds are obviously public figures in their communities, as any law student who passed Constitutional Law should know. But this is also irrelevant in this case. As Dan should know, neither the anti- SLAPP statute nor the Court’s Decision says anything about “public figures” or “elected officials”. Rather, as the Court and statute say explicitly, application of the anti-SLAPP statute turns not on the status of the complaining plaintiff but rather on whether the action involves “public petition and participation”.

I’ll be talking with advisors in the coming days to decide whether to appeal or simply move on. Either way, this has been a difficult process.

Yes, it has been a difficult process—for Meg! Dan, here is some free advice: the first rule when you’re in a hole is stop digging. Your lawsuit was frivolous on its face; you will lose any appeal; and any additional legal fees you wrongly impose on Meg ultimately will be for your account under the anti-SLAPP statute.

And if you’ve ever wondered why it’s so hard to get good people to step up and serve their communities—this is why.

Wow, that’s some chutzpah! In my opinion, “good people”—especially members of the bar who understand their ethical responsibilities—do not abuse the judicial process to intimidate critics on matters of public import. Our community will be better off without you on the BOE because, in my opinion, you have disqualified yourself based on your shameful actions.

I am writing to let you know that, after the events of Monday’s Town Board meeting, I have submitted my resignation to the Supervisor.

While I cannot go into details of personnel matters, I will say that the decision by the previous Town Board to accept the resignation of Mr. Maikisch from his position as Building Inspector was not taken lightly and was made to protect the Town.

While I understand the decision of the current Board to hire a Building Inspector directly instead of using a consultant, suggestions that we search for a different individual to fill the position were ignored.

I strongly believe that rehiring Mr. Maikisch is not in the Town’s best interest. I cannot in good conscious remain a member of a Board that would take such action.

Letters to The Editor: Congratulations to 2023 Winning Canidates (Posted 11/8/23)

I would like to congratulate Supervisor Elect McMillen, Councilmember Elect Kasker, and Councilmember Elect Marsh on their victories. I look forward to working with them, and Councilmember Murphy, over the next two years as we continue to advance and improve Tuxedo for all Residents.

I would also like to thank everyone who voted for me and supported my candidacy for Town Supervisor. I urge you to remain engaged and involved in the governance of our Town.

I would like to congratulate Dave McMillan, Chris Kasker and Rick Marsh for their victories. I wish them the best!

I also want to thank everyone in town who volunteered in my campaign and who supported my candidacy. Serving you these past four years has been a pleasure and a privilege.

In the interest of transparency and to avoid further confusion, it is important to lay out some basic facts surrounding the Town Board’s approval of the Tuxedo Farms Special Permit and the interaction of the Tuxedo Union Free School District.
There are two school districts in the Town of Tuxedo, the Tuxedo Union Free School District and Monroe Woodbury. The Tuxedo Farms Special Permit agreement only involved the TUFSD. The TUFSD negotiated all agreements, past and present, with Related independent of the Town Board.
In 2014, The TUFSD signed a legal agreement with the Related Organization regarding a land donation of undeveloped land (approximately 40 acres) and a monetary payment of $2,500,00. The Special Permit, as approved in 2022 by the Town Board, recognized this agreement but also allowed for renegotiation between the TUFSD and Related of the 2014 signed legal agreement. Again, this negotiation process was independent of the Town Board.
Ultimately, The District found the designated parcel to be undesirable, and requested a more suitable location on which to build a school and athletic fields. Several options were explored but, none meet the requirements or approval of the District.
The TUFSD asked the Board to delay executing the Special Permit while the District continued to re-negotiate a “school site” agreement, which they did.
While the TUFSD was encouraged to continue with their negotiations with Related, it became apparent that delaying the execution of the Special Permit was putting the entire project in jeopardy. Based on the interests of the entire Town, the Board was advised by legal counsel to avoid further delay and move forward with the execution of the Special Permit.
It is unfortunate that there is a belief that the Town Board ‘abandoned’ the District. The Town Board certainly supports a strong and vibrant school district and will continue to support the District in their effort to find a positive solution.
This project has languished for over 30 years and it is critical to the health of the Town to move forward. The needs of the TUFSD can be resolved, but without a sizeable development project moving forward, the survival of the TUFSD is in jeopardy.

Letter to The Editor: Concerns About Village Safety & Security (Posted 11/5/23)

Ms. Meg Vaught
TPFYI
P.O. BOX 681
Tuxedo Park, NY 10987
Re: Village Safety and Security
Subject: Concerns About Village Safety and Security

Dear Readers,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent developments surrounding the restructuring of our village police department. Our mayor must provide clear and transparent information to our residents.

In my email to the community on October 18, 2023, I highlighted some of the mayor's proposed ideas, which include:

1. Replacing all part-time police officers with security guards or a similar alternative.
2. Reducing the full-time police staff from four officers to three.
3. Eliminating the overnight shift.

While evidence exists supporting these discussions, it would be in the best interest of our community if the mayor were to provide clarification to our residents himself. This way, we can foster a sense of transparency and open dialogue.

Also, I'd like to encourage fellow residents to talk with members of the police department to gain a better understanding of these proposed changes and their potential impact on our village's safety and security.

Our village's safety is paramount, and we must work together as a community to ensure our concerns are heard and addressed appropriately and prevent their implementation.

Sincerely,

David McFadden
28 Pepperidge Road
Tuxedo Park, NY 10987

Response to Letter Concerning Tuxedo Farms & The Tuxedo School District (Posted 11/2/23)

I am Jay H. Reichgott, P.E., Tuxedo Council Member and Deputy Town Supervisor. (And Current Candidate for Town Supervisor.) I would like the opportunity to present some responses to Mr. Santoianni’s “Endorsement Letter” for candidates McMillen, Marsh, and Kasker. (Published on 11/1/2023 under the title “Letter Concerning Tuxedo Farms & The Tuxedo School District.”)

While Mr. Santoianni is, of course, entitled to his opinions, there are certain “matters of fact” that he raises that I would like to help clarify: (Some of this has already been presented in my response to TPFYI’s “Candidate Question #1”)

This decision was taken as the restart of construction of Tuxedo Farms was shown to be significantly “Tax Positive” to TUFSD and the Town, and have other projected benefits to the ENTIRE TOWN, including the start of operation of the new Hamlet Sewer Plant, immediate increases in the assessed taxable value of the Tuxedo Farms properties, and the immediate availability of over $1,000,000 of development funds for the Town Center Business District. To allow the Project to continue to languish would have denied all these benefits.

To conclude, while I appreciate that Mr. Santoianni does not agree with the decisions taken by the Town Board regarding the approval of the Special Permit for Tuxedo Farms, his arguments appear to be based on “selected facts”, conjecture, and a laser-like focus on a single issue to the exclusion of all other aspects of an exceedingly complex document. I urge the public to review the full package of information available on the Town’s website https://www.tuxedogov.org/tuxedo-farms and come to their own decision on this question.

I would also urge voters to consider not the rhetoric and proposals “promised” by the various candidates, but their real accomplishments and actions while in office that have affected the Town of Tuxedo and its Residents.

Dear Editor,
I'm a 53-year Tuxedo resident deeply concerned about recent developments. The approval of Tuxedo Farms' special permit amendments by our Town Board raises serious issues for our town, school district, and taxpayers.
Our schools are the bedrock of our community, luring families with quality education and reasonable tax rates. However, Tuxedo Farms' recent special permit approval, coupled with potential tax hikes, threatens our town's appeal and applies heavy fiscal pressure on its residents, which could possibly leave new and existing homes vacant. This affects not only Tuxedo School District residents but also our entire community's prosperity and desirability.
The "gifted" school site poses challenges due to high site prep costs on rugged terrain with venomous snakes. The DEC won't allow rock blasting near snake dens. Despite these issues, Related Companies insisted on this parcel, as a school site required by the special permit, and a payment of $2.5 million. This won't begin to cover site development or school construction. The Town Board's support of the developer is disheartening.
A meeting held on October 20, 2022, indicated that the Town Board would review the school's concerns about the "gifted" land. The current Town Board members, including Jay Reichgott and Maria May, who are seeking re-election as supervisor and council person, chose not to consider the school board's request to withhold approval of the special permit until a suitable resolution for the school site issue, agreeable to the Tuxedo School District, was reached. Instead, they voted in favor of the special permit modifications for Tuxedo Farms and should not be re-elected.
Prior town boards prioritized the school's interests during Tuxedo Farms discussions, but the current board's lack of emphasis on this matter raises concerns and places the entire town of Tuxedo into serious jeopardy.
A viable solution with Quarry Field exists. Candidates Dave McMillen, Rick Marsh, and Chris Kasker aim to pursue it, ensuring much lower costs, collaboration with the school board, and taxpayer equity preservation.
The "New" developer Lennar benefits from a strong school district without tax hikes, but the present costly school site issue risks a tax increase far exceeding $26 million. Tuxedo's future depends on immediate action.
It's time for new town leadership to address these challenges and secure our community's future.

To whom it may concern,

My name is Taylor Spivak and I graduated from Tuxedo in 2016. I'm writing to you about my experience in hopes that it will help you weigh opinions about the future of the school in regard to the upcoming vote.

I attended George F. Baker from September 2012 through June 2016, so I experienced what our school was like both with and without Greenwood Lake students. Both of these situations were beneficial for me and provided me with a lot of knowledge and experiences. There are many elements of my educational identity that I did not lose out on when my class size dropped. In fact, I feel that I gained the opportunity to develop skills in critical thinking, collaboration, and leadership. Throughout all of high school I had intellectual curiosity— I always wanted to delve deeper into what I was learning and understand the underlying concepts behind what I was being taught. I struggled with this for most of my high school career because teachers did not have the time to explain nuances of theories and equations to me when they had so many other students to attend to. However, my senior year (my only year without Greenwood Lake students) is when I really benefitted from teacher-student interaction. Being in classes that had 8:1 student teacher ratios as opposed to 20:1 not only allowed teachers to have more time to spend with each individual student, but also gave them a chance to get to know us personally. Every teacher I had understood my learning style and what was going on in my life outside of academics, so they knew how to teach in ways that made sense to us. This was incredibly valuable, especially in AP classes. I got to learn not only from my teachers lecturing, but also from my peers through class discussions that are simply impossible at larger schools. This enhances the learning process more than I could explain because it allows students to gain confidence in their own voice and to see the world through different viewpoints, which enhances critical thinking.

Furthermore, the opportunity to take part in however many of the school's extracurriculars I wanted was beneficial to me. I was on two sports teams when I was in ninth, tenth, and eleventh grade, and with a smaller school, I got to play three sports my senior year. Larger schools may provide more options, but smaller schools provide more opportunities for students to be included, involved, to step out of their comfort zones, and to develop their own voices. I participated in National Honor Society, Haunted Hallways, the spring musical, three sports, and more while taking four AP classes. I got to hold leadership positions and learn how to manage my time, both of which have been incredibly valuable in college.

I am aware that others are claiming that students in such a small school aren’t being prepared for college. I’d like to share my viewpoint of that statement. I am currently a junior at Colgate University in Central New York. I started my freshman year timid, as most students do. However, the interpersonal skills that I developed in high school through having class discussions and close relationships with my teachers allowed me to thrive in my college environment. I am a Behavioral Neuroscience major, which requires me to dedicate large amounts of time to studying and collaborating with others. Succeeding in rigorous coursework takes a lot of effort and time, but Tuxedo prepared me for that. I am double minoring in Educational Studies and Sociology. These are both fields that I first became interested in when I was in high school due to the relationships I had with teachers. Succeeding in these two departments requires critical thinking and seeing the world for what it is, rather than just as the sum of your personal experiences, which are both elements that Tuxedo instilled in me during my senior year. My interest in Educational Studies is focused around inclusion in the classroom. As my class discussions are filled with horror stories about my classmates’ experiences, I am always proud to give examples of how my small school allowed for inclusion and personalization for every student in every class. I have to put in more time and effort in college than I did in high school, but the confidence, interpersonal skills, and time management skills I acquired from my small school prepared me to excel in independent work, group work, discussions, and extracurriculars, while feeling comfortable going to my professors for help when I need it.

I think that all students, each to their own extent, hold their own intellectual curiosity. It would be not only unfair, but detrimental to put students in a setting that doesn’t give them opportunities to explore it.

When I was a senior at Tuxedo, I served on a panel in which I discussed my high school experience to potential incoming students. I told them that I felt that I was prepared for college because I went to a small school, and now that I have over two years of college experience, I can confidently say that I was right.

At this time, it is important to listen to all voices, but I think extra consideration should be given to the opinions of students who are currently enrolled at Tuxedo and those are experiencing the direct outcomes of the experiences and education that Tuxedo has provided.

Thank you for your time,
Taylor Spivak
GFB Class of 2016

As a former public school principal and district superintendent, I fully
appreciate the difficult decision you have to make with regard to our High School.
After carefully reading the study recently completed by our school
board's consultant, I can't help but conclude that it is sheer folly for
the board to continue to fight a losing battle: the George F. Baker High
School must be shuttered, at least for now. The board owes it, not only
to the taxpayers of our town, but to our students. Tuitioning them out
to a neighboring district is the best decision on their behalf, even if
not all realize it now.

It seems to me that the very viability of our wonderful town is at
stake, since it is clear that continuing the precarious nature of the
high school is driving away potential new families, including those with
school-age children. If the board is able to muster the courage and
good sense to allow the inevitable to happen now, once that hard
decision is made and the alternate school options for our teenagers are
clearly laid out, we are far more likely to regain our status as a
viable community for families with students.

We have lived in the Tuxedo Union Free School District for over 19 years and raised our children in this school. We have seen the district struggle and make difficult decisions through the years.The last 4 years have been the most challenging, separating from Greenwood Lake and living with the uncertainty. My family has always been pro-Tuxedo school. We believe in the small school model and all the benefits that the nurturing environment can provide in developing strong educated young adults. We also believe that a child should be in the best education environment that they thrive in and that it is individual to each child. If it is staying in TUFSD great and if it is a private school, that's great too. That is a family's choice!

Our school is part of the community and the community should come together to do what is best for future generations of this town. It is the center of this community and a vital part of the financial stability and promise for growth. The Tuxedo Town board should be focused on the needs of the town, partnering with the school to assist enrollment, building community relations, and fostering positive growth. There is a small group of community members speaking out against GFB. It is not the majority! You can not be pro-town and anti-school. It is a contradiction in itself, stunts growth and is purely divisive.   I do not agree with closing the school to meet a personal agenda or the ideal picture of what you feel is the best high school environment. This School may not be ideal for all and that is where families have choices. Choices to move to other districts or to go to private schools.  Choose what is best for your own child, focus on their education and the school that they attend, not ours.

We moved to this town knowing that it was a small district and so did everyone else. We had the town promise of a large development that would increase the population and bring a beautiful new high school. It has been 25 years and unfortunately we are still waiting for that development, it has not happened. It has been a natural attrition that some students go to private schools in this area. We are fortunate to be in a geographic area that broadens our choices.  Tuxedo has never had a football team or ice hockey team or swim team. The teams we do have are inclusive, competitive and strong. We are also combining with surrounding districts to be part of sports teams that we do not offer. The elite athletes are making the large school teams. Most kids are sitting on the sidelines or being cut and not making the teams at all.

The financial cost per student has been highlighted in this debate. It’s simple math, increase enrollment and the costs per student will decrease. Closing and going to another school district does not alleviate the financial commitment mandated by NY State. We will still pay school taxes, the costs are all relative. If this school should go to another district, the tax percentage will increase, we will loose a voice in the district and also be faced with the reality that the school will not likely reopen.  Ask our neighbors in Northern Tuxedo, in Greenwood Lake and in Sloatsburg.....

Our children in Tuxedo can be in the AP honors program, STEM program, sing in chorus, play a violin in the orchestra, be in the school play and be part of a winning Section 9 sports team all at the same time or be part of any variation of what they want to do. It is their choice. No one tells them that they are not good enough or that the club is full. Their teachers know their names and take a vested interest in their success. It's a small school with a big heart. Ask our Students.....

We truly feel that our BOE, Administration, Teachers, Aides, Coaches, Bus Drivers and all of our Staff have risen to the occasion to continue making our high school the best experience that it can be for our children. It has been proven. Our academic program is still strong, the music program has expanded and we are competing in sports at the Section and State levels. Our students are still getting into great Colleges. In keeping with GFB's long proud tradition, since 2016, we are still graduating kids going on to colleges like Cornell, NYU, RPI, RIT, Binghamton, Columbia, Stony Brook, Sacred Heart, Plymouth State University, University of Rhode Island, Manhattan College and Colgate, to name just a small few. It's about the quality, not quantity, at George F. Baker that has been the foundation that shaped our students into the successful adults they are today. Ask our many proud Alumni.....

The issue is not open or close anymore. We have proven sustainability.   The issue is increasing enrollment and together figuring out what is best for our town and school district.

We miss our GWL families and students. We encourage them to consider coming back and giving their students GFB as a choice. We would also welcome our Tuxedo kids from the north and all Tuition students that want to be part of this special place.

We have the best of the best administration, teachers and staff. They are all in! They care for our student’s futures and genuinely care about making this school the best it can be. All have put in countless hours to represent our town, do what is best for our children and our community. We choose this school and so do many others.  Our community will continue to rally around our school.

We are GEORGE F. BAKER STRONG!

Proud Parent of GFB Students,
Theresa Ruscillo

I am the acting Village Justice in the Village of Tuxedo Park. I am writing to you with respect to a letter from Ms. Paola Tocci and Mr. Robert Simon, regarding their resignations from the Board of Architectural Review, that you published on your website on October 18, 2016.

Within the body of their letter, Ms. Tocci and Mr. Simon stated that the Tuxedo Park Justice Court has jurisdiction to review the determinations of the Village Board of Architectural Review (BAR). This is incorrect. The Village Justice Court has no role in reviewing determinations by the BAR. Pursuant to the Village Code, decisions of the BAR are reviewable by the Village Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Any appeal from the BZA is taken to the State Supreme Court sitting in Goshen, pursuant to the New York State Village law and Article 78 of the New York State Civil Practice Laws and Rules.

I hope that you will publish this letter so that the residents of Tuxedo Park will be properlyinformed as to both the law and procedure for appealing from decisions of the BAR.

On Saturday, October 1, Mayor Guinchard, Trustees Guazzoni and Moon (with Trustees McFadden and McHugh dissenting) voted to fill the current vacancy on the Board of Architectural Review and appoint as its new Chair a person unknown to any of the BAR members, one who has never attended a meeting of the BAR, one with the briefest residency (less than a year) in Tuxedo Park, and one without expertise in any of the constituent fields (architecture, engineering, architectural history, construction and project management) that are required for responsible, proper determination of applications that can stand up to judicial scrutiny.

This action, which included the removal of both the sitting BAR Chair and Deputy Chair without prior notification or discussion, and without cause or explanation, in a public meeting at which no public comment was permitted, is not only an insult to all the BAR members who have served with great dedication over many years, but to the entire Village. In addition, the failure of the Board of Trustees to reappoint one of our most accomplished and valued BAR members – the only trained Architect on the Board, who holds a degree from M.I.T (one of the most rigorous architectural programs in the world) and who has developed a patented framing design for passive solar houses—solely as a ploy to elect a new member and Chair, is a reflection of the contempt and disrespect that the current administration feels towards the BAR, its members, and the Village. It is the latest in a series of executive decisions made by our Mayor, with the support of a majority of the Board of Trustees, that have created discord in our community and have threatened the continued safety and security of our Village. These include the wholesale dismissal and replacement of the Village’s police department, legal representation, and engineering consultants, as well as the elimination of the position of Consulting Architect, which had provided independent professional advice to the BAR, as well as to applicants and their architects, thereby resolving many potential conflicts –legal, aesthetic, and practical.

Over the period of our tenure, we have endeavored to make the BAR an asset to the community by protecting our architectural heritage while preserving the property rights and enhancing the property values of the entire Village. To that end, we have sought out and secured as members of the BAR residents who are accomplished and distinguished in the fields of architecture, engineering, architectural history, construction, and project management. At the same time, we have worked to provide clarity, transparency, and efficiency to the application process, while creating and establishing Design Guidelines to assist residents in the formulation of their new construction, restoration, or renovation plans. This has all been accomplished by BAR members who have devoted many hours a month over several years to conferences, site visits, and public meetings.

We have consistently received support and gratitude not only from Park residents and applicants, but from a succession of past Village administrations. We have accomplished this by scrupulously following our Village Code and remaining objective concerning the merits of each project no matter who the applicant might be. We are proud to state that the Tuxedo Park Board of Architectural Review has become a model for other historical communities, and has regained respect in the architecture industry. For the first time n a very long while, prestigious awardwinning architects and architectural firms are now attracted to working in Tuxedo Park and going through the BAR process. This has become a source of pride to us, our residents, and Village.

Recent developments in our Village have changed all that, and there is no secret that they began with the Mayor’s vehement opposition to a project initiated by her direct neighbor that had been approved by the BAR two years prior with no public objection at the time. Appreciation and gratitude for our long hours of volunteer service was replaced with disrespect, contempt, threats, and recrimination. Enforcement of Code violations has become selective. In perhaps the most blatant reflection of the current administration’s attitude, the renovation of the Keep and the rebuilding proposals of the Gatehouse –the most significant and recognizable structures in Tuxedo Park– have proceeded without any consultation, formal or informal, from the Board of Architectural Review. This is an incomprehensible lapse given the BAR members’ wealth of knowledge and experience in architectural preservation, restoration, construction, and costs. The Mayor has publicly stated to her Board and to the community in Board of Trustee meetings that she was working with a single BAR member on this matter – a claim that is blatantly false. After a significant public outcry and efforts by Trustee McHugh and McFadden, the gatehouse is now coming before the BAR. Still the Mayor continues to this day to spread serious falsehoods about BAR members, hoping to discredit them by casting aspersions on their character, integrity, and ethics.

After much consideration and deliberation, we can no longer continue to contribute our services as part of a Village government that has become profoundly undemocratic in its structure, secretive in its deliberations, and vindictive to many of its constituents. We are also concerned for the future viability of the BAR, not only due to its diminished expertise, but as it will now be led by a lawyer who is also a licensed real estate broker in Orange County and is married to our Village’s Acting Justice (who would need to rule on challenges to and enforcement of BAR decisions): both present serious conflict-of-interest concerns.

With considerable regret, we hereby tender our resignations. It is a painful decision that we do not take lightly as our many years of residency and volunteer service have demonstrated our love, passion, and devotion to the Village of Tuxedo Park. We apologize to the community and to any applicants whose projects may be delayed by our resignations and who will not benefit from our professional expertise.

Robert B. Simon
Resident, Tuxedo Park, since 1983
Member, Planning Board/Board of Architectural Review, 1987-1990
Member, Board of Architectural Review, 2006-2016
Deputy Chair, Board of Architectural Review 2008-2016

Paola J. Tocci
Resident, Tuxedo Park, since 1985
Consultant, Planning Board/Board of Architectural Review, 1993-1994
Member, Board of Architectural Review, 2006-2016
Deputy Chair, Board of Architectural Review, 2007-2008
Chair, Board of Architectural Review, 2008-2016

Thank you so much for your time as BAR Chair. Also, would like to thank Robert Simon for his time as Deputy Chair.

Mary Jo Guinchard
Mayor, Village of Tuxedo Park
(o) 845-351-4745, ext. 5
(c) 713-501-9960
mayormaryjo@gmail.com
Village of Tuxedo Park Office
P. O. Box 31
80 Lorillard Road
Tuxedo Park‎ NY‎ 10987

Tuxedo Park Garden Club letter regarding new parking lot at the Keep
Posted: October 18, 2016

TO:         The Board of Trustees of Tuxedo Park
                The Board of Architectural Review of Tuxedo Park
CC:        The Vestry of St. Mary’s in Tuxedo
FR:          The Tuxedo Park Garden Club
RE:          Proposal to construct a Parking Lot Adjacent to The Keep

There is a plan currently under consideration by the Board of Trustees that has come to our attention. We understand the plan would create a parking lot on a portion of the beautiful grassy area just inside the main entrance to Tuxedo Park, for police cars and for easier access to the back door of The Keep jail. The majority of The Tuxedo Park Garden Club members do not endorse this plan for a variety of reasons, the most important of which are:

The Tuxedo Park Garden Club has a fifty plus year history of serving our community and represents a sizeable percentage of Tuxedo Park residents. This letter reflects a unanimous opinion among our executive committee and the vast majority of our members.

We hope that this letter will persuade the Board of Trustees and the Board of Architectural Review to take a fresh look at this situation and come up with an alternative solution. Please consider re-examining the issues driving the decision to move the parking lot in the first place.
We applaud the efforts a few months ago to get input from the community via a survey and public comment sessions regarding the rebuilding of the front gate guard house. Please handle this situation for moving the parking lot with the same due diligence and community input as you did for the front entrance gate house.
Respectfully,

Jean Marie Thompson – President
Paula Sink – Vice President
Laura Garbett – Treasurer
Lili Neuhauser, Sandy Taylor - Co-Recording Secretaries
Susanne K. Williams – Corresponding Secretary
Stephen Brodheim – Chair Community Projects
Daphne Whelahan – Chair Programs
Dolores Marchand – Chair Conservation & Horticulture
Sara Cassis – Chair Special Projects

I recently learned of the departure of two distinguished members of the BAR,
Paolo Tocci and Robert Simon. I would like to express my appreciation for their service. I also wish to acknowledge and commend the BAR for its extremely capable stewardship under their guidance. The task of serving on the BAR was, and is, formidable.

Having had the good fortune of appearing professionally before the BAR over the past 20 years, I have witnessed a lot. Post 2007, the climate of construction certainly changed. As always, each project requires particular care and a wide scope of understanding. The BAR responded extremely judiciously post 2007, making sure projects moved through the process in a timely fashion, while holding high standards of design. The practical side of construction was understood. There also was a sensitivity to the pressures experienced by clients in the process. This requires unusual skill. To objectively judge others, who are undertaking extremely important endeavors that have a personal impact to their lives, is no easy task. To do so, as a volunteer, while living in such a small community, is absolutely daunting. In my professional opinion, they did it extremely well.

I did have the great fortune of serving as Mr. Simon’s architect. While I certainly have some bias in my appreciation of him, I can state sincerely that he always held his objectivity, sensitivity, and fairness in his service on the board during my presence.

While change is inevitable for Boards with such a high profile, the transition in losing these two outstanding members will undoubtedly be a challenge. I urge the trustees to seek ways of tapping into their talents, in whatever way possible. The interests of the Park are too great to miss out on their contributions.

TPFYI is intent on presenting polite public opinion concerning important issues relevant to Tuxedo and Tuxedo Park. However, TPFYI reserves the right to publish in full, abbreviate or dismiss any submissions at its sole discretion. Thank you.