LI school trustee accuses board of 'corruption' over Thunderbirds 'Mascotgate'
A Connetquot school board meeting turned contentious when one trustee accused her colleagues of trying to strong-arm a backdoor deal to modify their Thunderbirds team name, while also claiming members withheld critical information from the public.
'In my two years of service, I've never witnessed such blatant corruption carried out to serve personal and self-interested agendas,' board member Jacquelyn DiLorenzo shockingly said during a July meeting on Long Island.
Advertisement
5 'In my two years of service, I've never witnessed such blatant corruption carried out to serve personal and self-interested agendas,' Jacquelyn DiLorenzo said.
James Messerschmidt
'I cannot, in good conscience, make an irreversible decision that could strip future boards and future generations of their right to determine their own path,' she added.
The district has been under fire from Albany over a 2023 statewide ban on Native American mascots and logos, which it initially fought in court along with other Long Island districts. Schools that are non-compliant with the ban risk loss of state funding and removal of board members.
Advertisement
5 The district has been under fire from Albany over a 2023 statewide ban on Native American mascots and logos.
James Messerschmidt
More recently, however, the Connetquot district quietly communicated to the state Education Department that it had, since around 2020, been allocating at least $23 million for a logo change.
Both entities decided in late June to propose to condense Thunderbirds into the already in-use T-Birds. The compromise came just days before Sec. of Education Linda McMahon announced a federal probe over the deal, which her office says may violate Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act.
5 The Connetquot district quietly communicated to the state Education Department that it had been allocating at least $23 million for a logo change.
James Messerschmidt
Advertisement
However, Jaquelyn Napolitano-Furno, a six-year trustee who stepped down this month, is irate over the backroom deal, as T-Birds was initially considered an unacceptable replacement.
'Mascot-gate is unfolding in Connetquot because the School Board decided to defy the will of the people,' Napolitano-Furno told The Post Monday.
'For four years, [T-Birds] was derogatory, and now it's not derogatory,' she previously said.
Advertisement
DiLorenzo also pointed to 'multiple community surveys' that blatantly show taxpayer interest in continuing the fight rather than kowtowing to the mandate.
Both DiLorenzo and Napolitano-Furno said that the school board was reluctant to publicize the data last month and blasted the lack of transparency over the multimillion-dollar issue.
The board's reasoning, according to DiLorenzo, is 'for the sake of saving their own trustee seats.'
Napolitano-Furno spoke to The Post about the issue in late June, adding that at least one survey showed 60% of residents wanted to continue the legal battle for Thunderbirds.
'Worse, [the board] ignored the rest of the survey suggestions … because it doesn't fit the narrative they've already decided on,' DiLorenzo added. 'They've asked for your input through surveys they never intended to honor — unless the results gave them political cover.'
5 However, Jaquelyn Napolitano-Furno, a six-year trustee who stepped down this month, is irate over the backroom deal.
James Messerschmidt
She also said that Napolitano-Furno, who remains an individual plaintiff in a lawsuit to retain Thunderbirds, 'has been relentlessly pressured to drop her case' by the board as a means to instead move forward with the T-Bird compromise.
'The pressure didn't stop, not even during her daughter's graduation,' said DiLorenzo, who is also personally in favor of keeping the Thunderbirds.
Advertisement
Napolitano-Furno, who spoke at the July meeting, was informed that an emergency session would have been held in June to approve the deal — outside of public view — had she changed her position.
5 The board's reasoning, according to DiLorenzo, is 'for the sake of saving their own trustee seats.'
James Messerschmidt
'It's disgraceful and sad to see Connetquot blatantly violate Title VI,' said Napolitano-Furno's attorney, Oliver Roberts.
Advertisement
DiLorenzo, who said she fought tooth and nail to have the board release survey information, also firmly believes that the public must be further involved.
'If change ever becomes unavoidable, it should be done with full community involvement,' she said.
'Not through backdoor assumptions.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Washington Post
Park gift shops could remove books on slavery and the Civil War
National parks employees have raised the idea of removing books on slavery, Native Americans and George Washington from their gift shops as part of Trump officials' efforts to scrub these popular sites of 'corrosive ideology' that disparages Americans, according to internal records reviewed by The Washington Post. Agency employees were required to report items for review by last week. The inventory of books possibly running afoul of the administration's directive includes 'The 1619 Project' on the history of slavery in America and a picture book about former Interior secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American Cabinet secretary. Those works are sold at the Fort Sumter, Fort Moultrie and Liberty Square park stores in Charleston, South Carolina, along with three other books on slavery and the Civil War that were flagged.
Axios
15 hours ago
- Axios
Supreme Court temporarily pauses rollbacks to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court paused a lower court's ruling that would have weakened the Voting Rights Act on Thursday, granting Native American groups that brought the suit a temporary win. Why it matters: If the Supreme Court ultimately sides with the lower court, the legal battle could further diminish the landmark voting rights law when the Trump administration is already moving away from bringing civil rights cases in court. Had the lower court's decision been permitted to take effect, it would have prevented private groups in seven states from challenging race discrimination in election maps perceived to be violating the 1965 law. The intrigue: None of the justices provided reasoning for their votes, but the order did note that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch would have denied the tribal nations' application. Catch up quick: The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe and three Native American voters filed a lawsuit against North Dakota's Secretary of State in 2022, claiming that the state's redistricting plan unfairly diluted Indigenous voting power. The groups brought a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to allow voters to sue if they think the government has diluted or denied their voting rights on the basis of race or color, according to SCOTUSblog. A district court sided in favor of the Indigenous groups and ruled that the redistricting maps violated this section of the act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case after the district court, and ruled 2-1 that only the government can bring challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. What we're watching: The two tribal nations are preparing to ask the Supreme Court to complete a full review of their case so that North Dakota can finalize which redistricting plan the state should use for elections in 2026. The intrigue: The ruling comes just weeks before the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed by President Johnson following the bloody beatings of civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama. Since the signing of that law, the number of Black Americans elected in the U.S. has shot up from just a few in 1964 to about 9,000. A majority of Black Americans are aligned with the Democratic Party, but Black Republicans have won high-profile races in Kentucky, New Mexico and California. The bill also helped elect Native Americans, but Indigenous leaders say Native communities continue to face voter suppression, racial discrimination and systemic barriers to the ballot box. Context: A number of states with GOP-controlled legislatures have passed bills in recent years that critics argue impose new restrictions on Indigenous voters. Some GOP proposals seek to impose new address requirements despite many Native Americans lacking addresses.
New York Times
15 hours ago
- New York Times
Supreme Court, for Now, Pauses Lower Court Decision Limiting Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would block for now a federal appeals court ruling that would sharply curtail the Voting Rights Act by limiting who can sue to enforce protections against racial discrimination. The decision was unsigned, and it did not provide the court's reasoning, as is typical in such emergency orders. Three of the court's conservative justices — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said they would have denied the request and allowed the lower court decision to go into effect. The order by the court stated that the pause would remain in place pending the filing of a petition by the parties involved and a decision by the Supreme Court on whether to hear the case. The case, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, involves two North Dakota tribes and several individual voters, who brought a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act challenging a state legislative map. The challengers argued that the map denied Native American voters an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. A federal appeals court in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the tribal nation and Native American voters should have been barred from bringing the lawsuit at all, finding that private individuals and groups cannot bring challenges under the Voting Rights Act. Such a decision could have sweeping repercussions for the act, a landmark piece of legislation from the civil rights era, and would severely curtail the kind of challenges to racial discrimination that have been brought for decades. Historically, many voting rights challenges have been brought by individuals and private groups, including civil rights organizations. On July 15, the tribes filed an emergency application with the justices, seeking a temporary freeze on the appeals court decision. The following day, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who handles emergency applications from that region of the country, issued a temporary block while the justices considered the application. The court's order on Thursday extends that temporary pause. Next, the tribes have said they will ask the court to hear the case on its merits, and the justices will decide whether to add the case to the court's docket. In recent years, the court has chipped away at the Voting Rights Act. If the justices agree to hear the North Dakota matter, it will be the second major voting rights case in the upcoming term, which begins in October. The justices are already poised to hear arguments in a long-running dispute over Louisiana's voting map, although a date for argument has not yet been set.
