LETTERS

No confidence not needed

Posted

To the Editor:

The Beacon article (5/9/19) entitled “Councilman dockets ‘no confidence’ vote against school finance director” by 8th ward Councilman Anthony Sinapi is an absolute embarrassment. As a dedicated member of the Warwick School committee for eight years, I had the displeasure of quietly listening to his neverending and discouraging comments at our school committee meetings for too many months. The Warwick School Department did not deserve these verbal attacks that diminished the education of our beautiful students given by our teachers, administrators and committee members.

Mr. Sinapi’s unfounded “Resolution of no confidence” against director Tony Ferrucci is beyond the pale. Mr. Ferrucci is one of the most intelligent and qualified administrators to serve the Warwick School Department. He is an exceptional human being who consistently works extra hours in his position, always the gracious gentleman. He doesn’t deserve such a mean-spirited mission by Mr. Sinapi, who is attempting to obtain other council backers for his diatribes against the school department.

I beg our other council members to realize what is happening here and stop this hateful resolution in its tracks. I plead with Councilman Sinapi to end your vendetta; it is not worthy of you.

Eugene A. Nadeau

Warwick

Comments

3 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Get the facts

Mr. Sinapi is not recognized as a lawyer in the State of Rhode Island as he failed the bar. He demanded extra time to take the test indicating that he has ADD. Maybe he needs extra time to study the upcoming budget. Just another charlatan.

SINAPI v. RHODE ISLAND BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS

Email | Print | Comments (0)

C.A. No. 15-311-M.

View Case Cited Cases

ANTHONY E. SINAPI, Plaintiff, V. RHODE ISLAND BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

April 15, 2016.

ORDER

JOHN J. McCONNELL, Jr., District Judge.

Plaintiff Anthony E. Sinapi applied to take the bar examinations in Rhode Island and Massachusetts after his graduation from Roger Williams University School of Law. Mr. Sinapi applied for testing accommodations due to his disability in the form of 50% extra time, a distraction reduced environment, and permission to take prescribed medication in both states. Massachusetts initially denied Mr. Sinapi's request, but granted it upon receipt of additional documents and reconsideration. Rhode Island denied his request. Mr. Sinapi requested reconsideration from the Rhode Island Board of Bar Examiners ("the Board") as well, offering to provide the same documents that appeared to convince Massachusetts of the merits of his accommodations bid. The Board declined, even when Mr. Sinapi's counsel reduced the time request to an additional 25%. He turned to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, filing an Emergency Petition for Review, but that court declined relief.

Feeling that he had no other route to pursue in light of the looming examination date, Mr. Sinapi filed this action for injunctive relief and damages, pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("the ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Rhode Island Constitution against the Rhode Island Board of Bar Examiners ("the Board") and the Board's individual members in their official and individual capacities. He sought a temporary restraining order ("TRO") so that he could sit for the July 2015 bar examination in Rhode Island with the 25% additional time and other accommodations. (ECF No. 2). Defendants objected that this Court lacked jurisdiction and/or that they were entitled to absolute immunity from all claims.1 (ECF No. 3). After a hearing, this Court granted the TRO on the ground that the Board's failure to give weight to the Massachusetts Board's decision to give Mr. Sinapi an accommodation appeared to violate Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") regulations.2 (ECF No. 6). Mr. Sinapi took his exams under the terms he sought in his motion. He passed Massachusetts, but failed the Rhode Island test.

Mr. Sinapi amended his complaint, adding a claim for violation of the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act ("RICRA"). Believing there was now an absence of case or controversy, because Mr. Sinapi received his requested relief of the test accommodations, the Court issued a show cause order as to why the case should not be dismissed, which order resulted in the motion to dismiss currently before the Court. Although he did not remove it from his Amended Complaint, Mr. Sinapi appears to have abandoned his claim for injunctive relief in light of the Court's decision to grant his temporary restraining order. Therefore, the Court is only presented with the issue of Defendants' immunity from his compensatory and punitive damages claims. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967).

CONCLUSION

Mr. Sinapi has failed to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed. His claims for money damages against the Board and its members in their official capacities are dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment. His claims against the Board members individually are precluded by quasi-judicial immunity. The Board's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Tuesday, May 14
DannyHall82

What a joke lol Great post Get the Facts

Tuesday, May 14
Corey

The above comments are demonstrative for our need of a city councilman like Mr. Sinapi. The number of bitter individuals related to the current school committee, some of whom are not so innocent, is alarming. It is not Mr. Sinapi who needs to end a vendetta, but those I reference above.

The facts leading Mr. Sinapi to the no confidence resolution speak for themselves, and are conveniently left out of the comments above. Mr. Ferrucci may be a nice man, but his position is not be nice or a gentleman. We should all be those things, unlike the commentator above.

Mr. Ferrucci's responsiblity is to serve our towns financial interests, particularly with regard to the school committee, which he failed to do. It could be a series of mistakes, but it is a series that makes me and many other residents question the accuracy or honesty of everything coming from his office.

Mr. Sinapi is an attorney in Massachusetts (I can Google, too); I don't feel poking fun at ADD is a great tactic, regardless of how you see it serving your anecdote. The internet can be a gift of information. It is not meant for attempted ridicule, especially anonymous.

Thank you Councilman Sinapi for serving the interests of those in your ward, even if it does not make you popular with the loudest voices on the internet.

Friday, May 17