MS 226 Principal Rushell White Key Words: Checks From Ruben Wills

Under the business model for education, Rushell White, Principal of MS 226, can take all the money she wants from Ruben Wills, and do whatever she wants with it.

Ruben Wills and Rushell White

The job of a principal in New York City is to be a CEO, a Chief Executive Officer. Unfortunately, there is no Board of Directors to oversee what happens right, or wrong. That is the mistake that has changed the face of education in America, and certainly New York City. 

Rushell White

Principals have too much unchecked power. The Principal's Union, CSA, defends the rights of their members to have total power over their school.

When I reported the $225,000 missing grant money at PS 6 (Carmen Farina was Principal) from the Annenberg Challenge For the Arts,  to Annenberg in or about 2001, their final conclusion after all the grants had been assessed, was that the money should not have been given to principals without safeguards for its' use. Without safeguards in place, too many principals did not use the money correctly, as the grant required.

That's the problem.  Principals have unilateral power. And, without the necessary safeguards for using money within the school, the possibility that nefarious actions may occur is unsurprisingly high.

In 2004, I published the letters from the UFT on the Special Education Mess, with children not getting the services they needed. Special education remains a mess, and I keep publishing the missing services and money on my blogs and website Parentadvocates.org. I still represent children and their parents at Impartial Hearings. No one at the DOE is fixing anything, and special education teachers are getting hit with 3020-a. Alot of them.

See NYC UFT Gives an Overview of the 'Special Education Mess'

The Checks

A picture is worth a thousand words.

When you enter MS 226, you quickly see huge pictures of checks on the wall. The checks -  the representations of checks - are from District #28 City Council Member Ruben Wills, to MS 226 (the school is in District 27). The checks add up to $500,000, but the real amount given last year was more than $1 million.

For what? Supposedly, technology. Here is where the facts stop and guessing begins. What technology? Where is it?  No comment from the school.  In the school library, TVs and computers are missing.

A former custodian says that Wills, who makes a visit once a day to the school (wife does not come along) and White stay in the building until very late, and that there is often an officer from the nearby police precinct, NYPD precinct #106, stationed at the door. Students have reported seeing the pair kissing each other in a car early in the morning. Questions about this "affair" have not yet been answered.

There is no doubt at all that Mr. Wills is in alot of trouble right now.

Queens Councilman, Facing Criminal Charges — Doesn't Show up in Court — Or at City Hall

Already indicted City Councilman Ruben Wills busted again for filing bogus reports to hide finances: officials

Ruben Wills arrested

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS,  February 3, 2015,

LINK

An already-indicted Queens City Councilman is in fresh trouble with the law.

Ruben Wills, 46, was arrested Tuesday morning on charges he filed bogus documents with the city Conflicts of Interest Board, officials said.

The Jamaica Democrat filed a total of five bogus financial disclosure reports between 2011 and 2012 in which he concealed his extracurricular dealings, the state Attorney General’s office said.

State Attorney General EricSchneiderman said submitting phony documents “is a serious crime” that could land Wills behind bars for up to four years if convicted.

Wills has been caught in Schneiderman’s crosshairs before.

He was busted in May for allegedly stealing public campaign funds and using the cash for a pricey Louis Vuitton handbag and shopping sprees at Nordstrom and Century 21 and other locales.

He’s also accused of taking a $33,000 member item from since-convicted Sen. Shirley Huntley for his sham charity but pocketing most of it. Those charges are pending.

The $112,500-a-year pol hasn’t exactly been lighting it up at work either - the Daily News reported in December that he’d missed 27% of the City Council meetings he was supposed to attend in the year that ended June 30, the worst attendance record on the Council.

The latest charges were the result of a joint probe by the AG and the state Controller’s office.

Controller Thomas DiNapoli said Wills’ “alleged actions reveal a disdain for honest disclosure.”

Wills, 46, was arraigned Tuesday morning in Manhattan Supreme Court and pleaded not guilty. Justice Laura Ward released him without bail.

Wills’ lawyer, Randall Unger, said they’ll fight the charges - as soon as they figure out what exactly it is his client allegedly did.

“I don’t know what is is they’re accusing Mr. Wills of doing,” Unger said. "We just got the indictment — that doesn’t tell us very much. We’ll be filing motions for discovery so we can find out what it is they’re actually accusing him of.”

Ruben Wills

Queens councilman implicated by pal in pass-through scheme

By Carl Campanile and Michael Gartland

January 14, 2016 | 6:51pm

A pal of Councilman Ruben Wills implicated the Queens politician in court Thursday in a scheme to steal thousands of taxpayer dollars by ordering him to deposit and withdraw funds from a sham company.

Jelani Mills fingered Wills for the corruption after pleading guilty to one misdemeanor count of falsifying business records in a case brought by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Ruben Wills

The damning plea statement against Wills capped a bizarre three days that initially centered on Mills’ mysterious whereabouts.

On Tuesday, Mills was expected to enter a plea and turn on Wills but he bolted court after noon — leaving his lawyer in the lurch and Judge Barry Kron fuming.

A bench warrant was issued for Mills and he showed up in court on Wednesday and was ordered held when the judge did not buy his explanation that he left because his 9-year-old daughter had got sick at school.

On Thursday, Mills said it was Wills who urged him to set up a fictitious language translation company called Micro Targeting in a pass-through scheme to steal funds from Wills’ 2009 council campaign committee.

Mills said he filed the paperwork to incorporate Micro Targeting using a false address. He was the sole proprietor.

“At the direction of Mr. Wills, I deposited a check in the amount of $11,500 in that account, which was drawn on an account named, `Ruben Wills for New York.’ This $11,500 was not the result of money earned by Micro Targeting,” Mills, 29, said.

“I do not speak Spanish and I have never translated any campaign literature or any other documents for Micro Targeting or for Ruben Wills or his campaign committee. I have never submitted an invoice for such services to Ruben Wills or his campaign committee,” Mills said.

In November 2009, he said, Wills directed him to withdraw $2,500 from the Micro Targeting account.

“Mr. Wills directed me to give that cash to him, which I did,” Mills said.

Later, Mills said he withdrew $2,000 from the bogus firm for his own “personal use.” But the councilman objected, he said.

“Upon learning of that $2,000 withdrawal, Mr. Wills told me that the money in the Micro Targeting Chase account did not belong to me, and that I need to return $2,000 that I had withdrawn,” he said.

Wills’ attorney Steve Zissou dismissed Mills’ statement as a desperate “lie.”

“It’s not a surprise that someone in jail would lie to get out of jail,” he said. “Some people will say anything to get out of jail — Jelani included,” Zissou said.

The duo was accused of scamming the city Campaign Finance Board by accepting public matching funds to pay Micro Targeting for helping with Wills’ failed 2009 City Council bid.

The indictment also alleged that Wills stole more than $30,000 in state grants sent to a nonprofit he founded New York 4 Life. He is charged with using the tainted cash for a shameless shopping spree where he purchase items at Macy’s, Nordstrom’s and Century 21 — including a $750 Louis Vuitton handbag.

As part of the plea settlement, Schneiderman’s office is recommending that Mills be sentenced to one year’s probation and perform 10 days of community service.

Note from Betsy:
Rushell White has been seen carrying a Louis Vuitton handbag, but she has told no one where she got it. Everyone is wondering....

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice

DONT Resign if You Want to Have Tenure In the Future: the Matter of Grant Springer

If you have a tenured position and resign to follow another dream, you may withdraw your resignation within 5 years BUT you will have to submit a written request to that effect and have a medical examination and the approval of the Chancellor.

Say what?

Do you really believe that after the DOE gets you to resign or you voluntarily resign, they will welcome you back and return your hard-earned tenure to you?

I have a bridge to sell you.

If you resign and decide to come back so that you can get a tenured position, I believe your chances of getting to this goal is zero. The NYC DOE is currently spending too much money and time to throw tenured pedagogues out.

However, I guess there will be a few lucky ones who know where to pass the buck.....

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice

Is a tenured teacher who resigns from teaching and then subsequently applies and is hired to teach at another school automatically entitled to tenure in the new position? by edlawfaqs

No. Chancellor's Regulation C­205 provides that a tenured teacher who resigns "remain[s ] tenured," but requires the teacher to first submit a written request to withdraw his or her resignation, subject to a medical examination and the approval of the Chancellor.

The petitioner, a culinary arts teacher attained tenure in his license area and then resigned from the DOE to pursue a professional culinary career. Within 5 years he applied for and obtained a position in the same license area at a different school.

His principal advised him that he did not have tenure and upon further inquiry and consultation with a UFT representative filed a formal written request to withdraw his resignation. After the DOE insisted that he still did not have tenure because he never filed a timely request to withdraw his resignation, he brought a proceeding in Court.

The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeals, our highest state court and his appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeals held that a tenured teacher who resigns , and later seeks to return as a tenured teacher, must strictly comply with the regulation and submit a written request to withdraw his or her prior resignation.

2016 NY Slip Op 02553. IN THE MATTER OF GRANT SPRINGER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,               Respondents.  No. 41. Court of Appeals of New York. Decided April 5, 2016.

2016 NY Slip Op 02553

IN THE M ATTER OF GRANT SPRINGER, Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET  AL.,

Respondents.

No. 41.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided April 5, 2016.

Michael J. DelPiano, for appellant. Devin Slack, for respondents.

Opinion by Chief Judge DiFiore. Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus­Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur. DIFIORE, Chief Judge.

The issue presented on this appeal is whether a tenured school teacher who resigns from teaching, and then subsequently applies and is hired to teach at another school, is automatically entitled to tenure in the new position. Specifically at issue in this determination is paragraph 29 of New York City Board of Education Chancellor's Regulation C­205 (C­205[29] or the  Regulation). The Regulation provides that a tenured teacher who resigns "remain[s] tenured," but requires the teacher to first submit a written request to withdraw his or her resignation, subject to a medical examination and the approval of the Chancellor. We hold that a tenured teacher who resigns, and later seeks to return as a tenured teacher, must strictly comply with the regulation and submit a written request to withdraw his or her prior resignation.

I.

Petitioner was employed as a teacher in the catering license area at M288 — Food and Finance High School, located in Community School District No. 2 in Manhattan, beginning in September 2001. In January 2011, after achieving tenure, petitioner voluntarily resigned to pursue a career as a corporate chef. He had never been the subject of formal disciplinary charges nor had he ever received an annual rating of "unsatisfactory" prior to his resignation. Several months later, petitioner decided to return to teaching. After a stint as a substitute teacher, petitioner applied for full­time teaching positions in the summer of 2011.

In October 2011, petitioner was hired as a teacher in the catering license area at M415 — Wadleigh Secondary School for the Performing and Visual Arts (Wadleigh), located in Community School District No. 3 in Manhattan. He was hired under his prior license and file number and at the same salary he received at the time of his resignation. Herma Hall, the principal of Wadleigh who hired petitioner, knew that he had resigned with tenure in January 2011.

During the 2011­2012 school year, Hall was replaced by a new principal, Tyee Chin. In April 2012, Chin informed petitioner that he believed petitioner did not have tenure. At that time, six months after his reinstatement, upon the advice of his union representative, petitioner submitted a form to withdraw his resignation. Respondents told petitioner that the form would not be processed because it was submitted too late. In May 2012, petitioner received a rating of "unsatisfactory" for the 2011­2012 school year. As  a result, petitioner was terminated effective June 22, 2012. Prior to his termination, petitioner was not served   with disciplinary charges in accordance with the procedures for removing a tenured teacher set forth in Education Law §  3020­a.

Petitioner never filed a grievance or other administrative proceeding related to the events detailed above. Instead, in October 2012, petitioner brought this CPLR article 78 proceeding against respondents. Petitioner argued that under paragraphs 28 and 29 of Chancellor's Regulation C­205, as well as the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Board and the teachers' union, he "was a tenured teacher upon his reappointment" and, therefore, "[r]espondents' decision to terminate his employment without just cause and without following the procedures" in Education Law § 3020­a was unlawful and "arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion." Petitioner sought reinstatement to his teaching position at Wadleigh and related relief.

Respondents cross­moved to dismiss the petition, contending, among other things, that the petition failed to state a cause of action and that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Supreme Court granted the cross motion, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, concluding that the petition was "premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies." Petitioner appealed.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, but on a different ground (121 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2014]). The court concluded that "[t]here is no question that petitioner failed to comply with . . . C­205(28) and C­205(29), which govern withdrawal of a resignation and restoration to tenure. Hence, when petitioner was rehired by a principal, his tenure was not ipso facto restored" (id. at 473­474). That same panel granted the portion of petitioner's subsequent motion seeking leave to appeal to this Court, certifying the following question of law: "Was the [Appellate Division] order . . . properly made." We now affirm.

II.

Pursuant to Education Law § 2590­h, the Chancellor has the authority to promulgate regulations "necessary or convenient" to  the administration of the public school system (Education Law § 2590­h [16]). Relevant to this appeal, paragraph 28 of Chancellor's Regulation C­205, entitled "Withdrawal of Resignation Generally," describes the general procedure for withdrawing a resignation. Paragraph 29 of Chancellor's Regulation C­205, entitled "Withdrawal of Resignation Within Five Years by Tenured Staff," describes the procedure for the withdrawal of resignation by tenured teachers to permit them to return to teaching with tenure.

There is no dispute that petitioner was a tenured teacher upon his resignation in January 2011; the question is whether, upon his hire at a new school in October 2012, he was reinstated with tenure. C­205(29) provides, in relevant part:

"[A] non­supervisory pedagogical employee who had attained permanent tenure prior to the date of resignation shall, remain tenured and, upon written request, be permitted to withdraw such resignation subject only to medical examination and the approval of the Chancellor, provided that reinstatement is made on or before the opening of school in September next following five years after the effective date of resignation. If reinstatement is made after this date, a two year probationary period will be required."

By its very terms, C­205(29) provides that a tenured teacher who has resigned may avoid a probationary term in a new position by submitting a "written request" to withdraw the prior resignation. That request will be "subject only to medical examination and the approval of the Chancellor," so long as reinstatement is made in accordance with the timing requirements set forth in the Regulation. The CBA between the Board and the teachers' union contains a parallel provision.

Petitioner argues that he complied with the requirements of the Regulation when he applied in writing for various teaching positions. He maintains that when the Board rehired him in October 2011, within five years of his prior resignation, the Board effectively accepted the withdrawal of his resignation. Therefore, petitioner submits that he was a tenured teacher at the time of his termination in June 2012 and that the Board violated his due process rights by failing to provide him with the procedural protections required by Education Law § 3020­a.

According to respondents, petitioner ignores the important role of the written request for withdrawal, most notably the Chancellor's role in the process. By virtue of the written request, the Chancellor is afforded the opportunity to assess the teacher's work history and competence and may reject a request to withdraw a resignation. Further, the procedure permits important hiring information to be conveyed to a hiring principal, including the fact that the teacher would have full tenure rights in the teacher's new position.

III.

The tenets of statutory construction apply equally to administrative rules and regulations (Matter of Cortland­Clinton, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health, 59 AD2d 228, 231 [4th Dept 1977]). We construe the Regulation in accordance with its plain  language (see Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. v Silva, 91 NY2d 98, 107 [1997]). By its plain terms, C­205(29) requires submission of a written request for withdrawal of resignation prior to a teacher's reinstatement with tenure. "It is an accepted rule that all  parts of a statute are intended to be given effect and that a statutory construction which renders one part meaningless should be avoided" (Rocovich v Consol. Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 515 [1991]). If, as petitioner argues, post­resignation application and hiring alone were sufficient to withdraw a prior resignation, then the language of the regulation requiring "written request . . .

subject only to medical examination and the approval of the Chancellor," would have no meaning. C­205(29)'s provision that a written request be subject to the Chancellor's approval gives the Chancellor the opportunity to reject a request to withdraw a resignation. Under petitioner's theory, the Chancellor's role in the process is entirely eliminated. Petitioner's interpretation of the Regulation is not in keeping with its plain language.

Because petitioner did not withdraw his resignation through the mechanism of a written request, the requirements of C­205(29) were not met and petitioner was not reinstated with tenure.

This result does not minimize the public policy interests that have prompted this Court to "construe the tenure system broadly in favor of the teacher, and to strictly police procedures which might result in the corruption of that system" (Ricca v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 47 NY2d 385, 391 [1979]; see Matter of Gould v Board of Educ. of Sewanhaka Cent. High School Dist., 81 NY2d 446, 454 [1993]). Nor does it undermine this Court's recognition that a tenured teacher has a "protected property interest in [his or] her position" and right to retain that position absent discharge in accordance with Education Law § 3020­a (Gould, 81 NY2d at 451). As we have also recognized, a teacher may "relinquish [his or] her tenured rights . . . voluntarily by resigning" (id.). C­205(29) contains the procedural requirements for a teacher who has voluntarily resigned from a tenured teaching position to be reinstated with tenure. Petitioner does not challenge the validity or constitutionality of the Regulation  itself, but argues only that he complied with the Regulation by submitting applications for jobs and being hired to a new position. He did not. Absent a written request to withdraw his resignation, a request subject to the Chancellor's approval, petitioner failed to meet the requirements of C­205(29) for reinstatement with tenure.

We do not address the effect of petitioner's April 2012 written request to withdraw his resignation, which he submitted six months after he was hired at Wadleigh. Any argument related to that request is not before the Court in this proceeding.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary.

Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

NYC DOE needs a Deputy Director for OEO

Somebody with integrity who understands discrimination please help the NYC DOE Office of Equal Opportunity!

 OEO does the same bad job looking at cases of discrimination, harassment, and abuse that the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and the Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI) does.

All these groups go after the messenger. If you file a complaint, they will charge you with what you are complaining of. Please make note of the fact that you do not have to have any legal background.

If you want to be a whistleblower, go to an agency outside of the DOE, like the Department of Investigation, the District Attorney or the police.

Do not go to your principal.

Betsy Combier
 betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice

Top of Form

Deputy Director, Office of Equal Opportunity

Tracking Code

11658

Job Description

Please see special note underneath minimum qualification requirements.

Position Summary: The Deputy Director, Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) manages a variety of professional, confidential, and policy level Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activities including:complaint investigations, employee training, Contract Compliance, Disability Rights and Reasonable Accommodation Compliance. The Deputy Directors supervises the OEO line units and oversees operational support of the Office of Equal Opportunity’s (OEO’s) budget and personnel. The Deputy Director also ensures that the Department of Education (DOE) is able to respond and comply with legal obligations. Performs related work.

Reports to: Executive Director, Office of Equal Opportunity

Direct Reports: Equal Rights Compliance Specialists and OEO support staff.

Key Relationships: Works closely with the Executive Director, OEO; DOE central managers and supervisors; and school based leaders.

RESPONSIBILITIES

OEO Law and Policy Guidance

·         In conjunction with the Executive Director, OEO establishes OEO program policy and supervises theprocessing complaints of alleged discrimination.

·         implementation and dissemination of related rules, regulations, procedures and guidelines for

·         Provides policy and legal guidance to DOE supervisors/managers with regard to Chancellor’s Regulation

·         A-830 (Filing Internal Complaints of Unlawful Discrimination/Harassment).

Program Administration

·         Conducts investigations of staff and student complaints, as necessary.

·         Supervises the OEO disciplinary/corrective action process on substantiated EEO discrimination complaints.

·         Plans, assigns and reviews work assigned to staff in the Complaint Unit, Training Unit, Contract Compliance Unit, Disability Unit, and the Diversity Management Unit.

·         On behalf of the Executive Director, supervises and administers the standardized complaint intake process that includes a record archival of all discrimination complaints. Supervises their resolution through investigation or appropriate referral.

·         Collaborates with and reviews information from the Division of Instructional and Information Technology (DIIT) to ensure data integrity for EEO-5 reports.

·         Directs the analysis of employee data and the preparation of related reports to assess complaint trends.

Staff Training and Development

·         Evaluates and addresses requests from DOE organizations for various equal employment opportunity and diversity trainings.

·         Prepares EEO training based on data collected related to Minority and Women Owned Business

·         Enterprises and diversity initiatives.

·         Develops and conducts training for OEO attorneys and investigators.

·         Develops and supervises EEO/Diversity training programs and presentations; modifies and updates

·         training materials targeted to specific audiences as necessary.

Qualification Requirements:

Minimum

1.      A master's degree from an accredited college in economics, finance, accounting, business or public administration, human resources management, management science, operations research, organizational behavior, industrial psychology, statistics, personnel administration, labor relations, psychology, sociology, human resources development, political science, or a closely related field, and two (2) years of satisfactory full-time professional experience in one or a combination of the following: working with the budget of a large public or private concern in budget administration, accounting, economic or financial administration, or fiscal or economic research; in management or methods analysis, operations research, organizational research or program evaluation; in personnel or public administration, recruitment, position classification, personnel relations, employee benefits, staff development, employment program planning/administration, labor market research, economic planning, social services program planning/evaluation, or fiscal management; or in a related area. 18 months of this experience must have been in an executive, managerial, administrative or supervisory capacity. Supervision must have included supervising staff performing professional work in the areas described above; or

2.      A baccalaureate degree from an accredited college and four (4) years of professional experience in the areas described in"1" above, including the 18 months of executive, managerial, administrative or supervisory experience, as described in "1"above. Position is open to permanent Administrative Staff Analysts or candidates who have filed for the upcoming Administrative Staff Analyst exam. Candidates who are not permanent Administrative Staff Analysts and have not filed for the exam must demonstrate the above described experience in an educational program or institution.

Note: Candidates with permanent NYC Civil Service status as Administrative Staff Analyst or candidates who have taken the most recently held Administrative Staff Analyst Civil Service examination are strongly preferred. Candidates who are not permanent in the Administrative Staff Analyst title or have not taken the exam must demonstrate the above described experience in an educational program or institution. Please indicate in your cover letter if you are permanent in the Administrative Staff Analyst title or have taken the exam.

Preferred

·         Strong writing, negotiation and organization skills.

·         Experience providing EEO and diversity training.

·         Internal candidates preferred.

Salary: $94,328+

(Internal candidates who are selected for this position and who currently hold comparable or less senior positions within the DOE will not make less than their current salary.)

Please include a resume and cover letter with your application. 

Applications will be reviewed until position is filled. We encourage applicants to apply as soon as possible.

NOTE: The filling of all positions is subject to budget availability and/or grant funding. 

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

It is the policy of the Department of Education of the City of New York to provide educational and employment opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, creed, ethnicity, national origin, alienage, citizenship status, age, marital status, partnership status, disability, sexual orientation, gender (sex), military status, prior record of arrest or conviction (except as permitted by law), predisposing genetic characteristics, or status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual offenses and stalking, and to maintain an environment free of harassment on any of the above-noted grounds, including sexual harassment or retaliation.  Inquiries regarding compliance with this equal opportunity policy may be directed to: Office of Equal Opportunity, 65 Court Street, Room 1102, Brooklyn, New York 11201, or visit the OEO website at http://schools.nyc.gov/OEO

Job Location

NEW YORK, New York, United States

Position Type

Full-Time/Regular

New Posting

Yes

Readvertisement

No

Recanvass

N/A

District

Bottom of Form

N/A