Town Council hopeful flaunts candidacy in attempt to secure early kindergarten admission

Town Council hopeful flaunts candidacy in attempt to secure early kindergarten admission

Roseanne Nadeau to School Committee: You need an ally

NORTH SMITHFIELD - A candidate for the Town Council told members of the School Committee in an email this summer that if they let her 4-year-old daughter attend kindergarten this year, she would be more inclined to provide support for the district once elected.

Roseanne Nadeau, one of five candidates for five council seats, had expressed in early June her public frustration about the school department's refusal to waive the kindergarten cutoff age of 5 years old by Sept. 1.

Now she's saying her communication, sent to Supt. Stephen Lindberg along with all five members of the School Committee on June 26, has been misinterpreted, and that school supporters are using a letter from a concerned mother about her child's future for political gain.

The email was shared with The Breeze this week.

In it, Nadeau pleads with the board to reconsider its kindergarten entry policy, stating in part "you will need an ally on the Town Council this year."

The email was obtained via an Access to Public Records Act request by resident William Nangle.

The issue between Nadeau and the school board began last year, when the political newcomer spoke at several School Committee meetings, hoping to get an early admission waiver for her daughter, Ruby, who was just seven days too young to start North Smithfield's program this fall.

Nadeau told her story in a June 26 article in The Breeze headlined "School board stands firm on kindergarten entry policy."

Soon after, Nadeau declared her intent to run for the Town Council. She is one of only five names for the five-member board that will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot.

A 35-year-old resident of Old Great Road, Nadeau has said publicly that she plans to take a fiscally conservative approach to town government. It should be noted that Merredythe Nadeau, a 60-year-old candidate for School Committee and the wife of former town solicitor Richard Nadeau, shares Roseanne's last name, but has no relation.

In the email, sent the same day that the article about Ruby came out in the paper, the mother and soon-to-be declared candidate for Town Council wrote to school board members, who had twice formally turned down her request for a waiver, "You still have the chance to create the policy. If you grant the waiver, you set precedent. A policy can be drafted and sent to legal. There is still time."

Nadeau continues, "A lot of you aren't going to be sitting on the board next year, and there is a vacancy I believe the Town Council will fill. I will be sitting on that Town Council in December. I want to make the town better, and I am trying to make the schools better and more receptive to change and innovation."

"Even before my candidacy was announced, I have a voice and a name in this town. I have wonderful people in high places standing behind me. I say that only to show the support this fight has gotten me because of the many who agree."

"Please reconsider. One last time, please. You will need an ally on the Town Council this year. So far you don't have one. If my children attend the North Smithfield schools, I have reason to support our schools, because I will have a personal vested interest. Otherwise, my focus will be to reduce taxes, and the schools' budget is the highest burden in our town."

"If Ruby does not attend NSES this school year, my other daughter will not attend North Smithfield schools either, therefore, I won't have a child attending the public schools my taxes pay for, I will be paying private school tuition."

Nangle, who serves as president of the North Smithfield Athletic Association, said he found out about the email when he overheard a group of parents discussing it at a soccer game in September.

"I am disgusted that a Town Council candidate would use words that in my opinion closely resemble blackmail," Nangle said. "She is asking for support of her child and in exchange will support the schools? No support for her child means no support for the schools? What about all the other children who attend North Smithfield schools? I guess they just don't matter to Ms. Nadeau."

He also points to the candidate's Facebook page, where Nadeau posted obscenities over her frustration with getting signatures on her political petition over July 4 weekend.

"The good people of North Smithfield deserve better," Nangle said.

But Nadeau says Nangle and others have misunderstood the intent of her email.

"It wasn't supposed to come off like that at all," Nadeau said. "I'm not saying that they should grant my daughter a waiver because I'm a candidate. I'm saying as a taxpayer of the town, it's unfair that I can't have my kids attend the school that my taxes pay for."

Nadeau said her mention of "support" for district schools did not refer to financial support, but rather vocal endorsement, like she recently gave to the new proposed charter school in the area, RISE Mayoral Academy. She said that her younger daughter is enrolled in a private school this year, while her older daughter chose to continue attending North Smithfield.

"Obviously, North Smithfield schools do have my support and I do have a child there," she said. "I still stand behind what I said."

Nadeau said she does not believe that release of the email as a public document was legal, and that she is currently in talks with a lawyer. At the time the communication was sent, she points out, she was not officially a qualified Town Council candidate.

Describing herself as "a real person, not a politician, an honest individual, and a mother who will fight for her children," Nadeau added, "This carefully timed attack on me is political, however the email was a personal request as a mother regarding the future of my daughter. My children are not pawns in town politics and it is uncouth and vile to drag my children into this race. Nangle, who is supposed to be 'all for the children,' should be ashamed of himself."

Comments

I knew this person was poison but didn't know how deadly.
I wonder if any charges will be brought like blackmail or extortion ?

I also wonder if the other candidates she endorsed like town administrator and school committee candidates ( and we know who they are ) knew about these emails ?

I wouldn't touch her with a 10 foot pole.

This isn't about a mother and her children this is about her being pizzed off and getting even !!!

You send an e-mail to the Superintendent - and I am sure the school e-mail - and you think it's non-discoverable? There is no e-mail protection when you send an e-mail to a public official. And the sense of entitlement is disgusting. Your child wasn't denied access to NS schools. She is not old enough. Period. I don't care if your child is a genius. There are rules and that's it. Why is your child different from any other? They say today's kids are out of control. That's only a half-truth. Today's PARENTS are out of control. Get a grip lady.

Dear Veteran... Nadeau is POISON? How do you "know" this? How would she "get even, " by trying to (gasp!) improve the town she lives in? What are YOU doing for your town, besides hiding behind your keyboard spewing ridiculousness?

Dear "Call it, " You've already proven your own ignorance by stating even a "genius" should be denied early (by 1 week) enrollment ONLY because of some rule. Again, what are YOU doing??

Neither of you are doing ANYTHING to improve this town, so stop attacking those that ARE!!!

This is not shocking .....What was said and done is absolutely wrong. This proves even more R. Nadaeu does NOT belong on the TC. Good job on this story Sandy and to Mr. nangle for exposing the truth..

AMEN

Still, everyone here is quick to attack... Again, what are YOU doing for YOUR town besides flapping your gums?

Still, everyone here is quick to attack... Again, what are YOU doing for YOUR town besides flapping your gums?

Still, everyone here is quick to attack... Again, what are YOU doing for YOUR town besides flapping your gums?

Your username suits you well.

This part in the story sums it up pretty well that Nadeau said.

"She is currently in talks with a lawyer ".

yup, you'll need one now.

This is unbelievable but not shocking because I do know her.

liar !!!

I still don't see all the other candidates she is backing and the ones that (were) backing her.

I wish they would come out of hiding and post here about if they knew of these emails or not and where they stand now with Nadeau.

Speak up and be accounted for before someone outs you !!!

Yes, Bigmouth. I am a rules person. I like rules. They keep order and discipline. They are not a tool to be broken. They are not a means to find loopholes around. Rules are rules. And they apply to EVERYONE. EQUALLY. I know kids who have missed driver's ed by a week. Were their parents supposed to make a stink and demand that their child be allowed entry because of one week? When an officer pulls over a drunk driver who is one week shy of his/her 21st birthday - should they be given special consideration? See how that works?? This case is no more special than these other examples.

As far as what am I doing? I am following the rules. Living my life honestly. Can YOU say the same? I don't expect any special consideration. My family is no better than the one next door, down the street or across town.

I've known Nadeau for some time and this is typical. Assuming rules don't apply to her and being a bully are her standard operating procedure.

Is anyone going to ask that she be charged with a crime ? If it was a private citizen instead of a candidate they would be.
Anyone calling channel 12 ?
The State Police ?

Bullying ? Intimidation ? Blackmail ? Extortion ?

These are crimes damn it !!!

Well, "Veteran" what are you doing about it other than pasting anonymous blogs here? I've always been of the stance that I would never ask someone else to do something I unless I had done it before or was willing to do it first.

George Hemond

Let me interrupt the defamation and slander with a quick comment, then you can go back to your cozy position hiding behind your keyboards... Other than George, who posts as Old Man, I have no idea who any of you are. That's the truth. The only laws broken here are:
R.I.G.L. § 38-2-1 and R.I.G.L. § 9-1-28 by the School Administration. I have not broken any rules, I have not broken any laws, nor have I bullied anyone.
You can continue your lynching now.

LOL....My point exactly.

Anonymous posts have NO credibility no matter how valid they might "appear" to be on the surface. Be fair and at least identify yourselves.

I'll stay neutral in this exercise and let documented facts influence the voters decisions.

Allegations only become facts when and if proven so until proven they are merely comments to be ignored.

George Hemond

As always you are right, thanks George for reminding me.

Roseanne

Not even an apology for embarrassing this town.
Now the both of you are a disgrace.

Maybe George and Roseanne know more to this story.
Time will tell.

PermalinkSubmitted by Old man on Fri, 2014-10-24 16:47

Well, "Veteran" what are you doing about it other than pasting anonymous blogs here? I've always been of the stance that I would never ask someone else to do something I unless I had done it before or was willing to do it first.

George Hemond

Well then do the right thing George. Think of it as doing something to save the good name of North Smithfield which is now tarnished.

Taking out the trash per say.

BTW, that's why we have user names here.
If you want to promote your name go ahead.
In this situation I wouldn't.

In this situation I wouldn't?
2 people say they know her and she knows who you are, well she can't know who you are if you are hidden in "usernames". Funny thing about the internet, people say all kinds of things online but when it comes to revealing who you are or saying it to their face, they become cowards.

I noticed you didn't post your name.

Hiding something too ?

The Valley Breeze has no posted rules on usernames only that you can use them. Some people just want to promote their name and agenda for political reasons.

Get a clue.

I noticed other candidates in this election are not posting except for 2 of the quilty ones.

They know better than to get in on this blog and have their name attached to this black eye on the town.

Unless they are using just their username as others are.

Either way I don't give a damn !!!

George Hemond, Art Bassett and Roseanne Nadeau do NOT run the Valley Breeze Blogs and neither do YOU !!!

Once again you claim that you've done nothing wrong. Are you saying Sandy wrote a false article? Are you saying the quotes aren't accurate or words that you used in your email? I have no problem with you asking for a waiver for your daughter. ( Whether it should be granting is a different issue)

I DO have a problem with the words used in the email trying to sway and or pressure the SC to grant a waiver. You can't twist your way out of this one

This is the only comment I would like to post.

It certainly is one of my favorites being a United States Marine.

Moral Character and Ethics.

At the heart of one major approach to ethics—an approach counting among its proponents Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas—is the conviction that ethics is fundamentally related to what kind of persons we are. Many of Plato's dialogues, for example, focus on what kind of persons we ought to be and begin with examinations of particular virtues.

On the assumption that what kind of person one is is constituted by one's character, the link between moral character and virtue is clear. We can think of one's moral character as primarily a function of whether she/he has or lacks various moral virtues and vices.

The virtues and vices that comprise one's moral character are typically understood as dispositions to behave in certain ways in certain sorts of circumstances. For instance, an honest person is disposed to telling the truth when asked. These dispositions are typically understood as relatively stable and long-term.

Further, they are also typically understood to be robust, that is, consistent across a wide-spectrum of conditions. We are unlikely, for example, to think that an individual who tells the truth to her/his friends but consistently lies to her parents and teachers possesses the virtue of honesty.

Moral character, like most issues in moral psychology, stands at the intersection of issues in both normative ethics and empirical psychology.

This suggests that there are conceivably two general approaches one could take when elucidating the nature of moral character. One could approach moral character primarily by focusing on standards set by normative ethics; whether people can or do live up to these standards is irrelevant.

Alternatively, one could approach moral character under the guideline that normative ethics ought to be constrained by psychology. On this second approach, it's not that the normative/descriptive distinction disappears; instead, it is just that a theory of moral character ought to be appropriately constrained by what social psychology tells us moral agents are in fact like.

Moreover, precisely because virtue approaches make character and its components central to ethical theorizing, it seems appropriate that such approaches take the psychological data on character and its components seriously.

This desire for a psychologically sensitive ethics partly explains the recent resurgence of virtue ethics, but it also leads to numerous challenges to the idea that agents possess robust moral characters.

Veteran, I think you are Lafleur.

Bigmouth, I think you are R. Nadeau... Very fitting for you

I post as rnadeau78, no sudo here. I am not bigmouth. How about you post your name "Tired of the Ba...." Which sounds like something a farmer would say.
Roseanne

Once again you claim that you've done nothing wrong. Are you saying Sandy wrote a false article? Are you saying the quotes aren't accurate or words that you used in your email? I have no problem with you asking for a waiver for your daughter. ( Whether it should be granting is a different issue)

I DO have a problem with the words used in the email trying to sway and or pressure the SC to grant a waiver. You can't twist your way out of this one

We deserve answers!

Tired of Bad Politics