In a report of his findings, administrative hearing officer Ronald Kowalski said suspended CCS middle school principal David Pearlman's approach to students was friendly, personal and open, which invited personal contact and the development of friendships.

"This type of behavior on the part of a principal can be a positive feature of his role and does not rise to the level of misconduct unless the relationship becomes too intimate, results in a clear neglect of other duties, or interferes with the educational program," wrote Kowalski.

The school district believed that Pearlman's close relationship with a particular female student did cross the line of misconduct, and initiated a 3020-a disciplinary hearing over two years ago after which Kowalski found that Pearlman was guilty of thirteen specifications out of a possible sixty-nine.

"In July or August [1998], after she supposedly said that I was doing all these horrible things in this alleged discussion, Mary Jo McPhail gave me a great recommendation and made no mention of any of it. That's why fifty-six of the charges got thrown out. They were based on a directive I was never given," said Pearlman on Tuesday.

He was referring to one of the most widely debated points of the hearing, a conversation between district superintendent McPhail and Pearlman, which the district claims took place on February 4, 1998. Both sides agree, according to the legal briefs filed by their respective attorneys, that McPhail and Pearlman came away from that meeting with an understanding that Pearlman would not meet with a particular female student behind his closed office door, as the staff was beginning to notice frequent interaction between the principal and the student who was often a babysitter for the principal's children.

From there, the details get hazier.

"The superintendent recollects then instructing [Pearlman] to limit his contact with [the student] to public places," Kowalski said of the February meeting. "[Pearlman] has no recollection of the latter point but understood her concern and instruction to leave the office door open, which he asserts took place after this date."

Kowalski suggests that neither party may have been deliberately lying, but they nevertheless had differing recollections about the conversation.

Because the February 1998 meeting was not documented, there is no clear evidence of a directive from the superintendent, according to Kowalski.

McPhail said Tuesday, "The conversation was long and I was very clear. I have no control over how Mr. Pearlman chooses to perceive that conversation. I have absolutely no reason not to be truthful. I haven't done anything wrong. The board hasn't done anything wrong. We have a responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of our students. This has always been about the directly observed and documented inappropriate behavior on Mr. Pearlman's part."

She said the evaluation she wrote for Pearlman in the summer of 1998 reflected what she believed to be true at the time. Pearlman's attorney Louis Patack said it was the best Pearlman ever received during his employment with the Cooperstown district.

The briefs filed by attorneys for both sides summarize the flavor of the costly, lengthy hearings, and reveal that Pearlman's close relationship with this particular student is not the first he has maintained. Another relationship, discovered by a private investigator hired by the school district, is detailed — that between Pearlman and his former wife, who was a high school junior in the Rye Neck district when he met her in 1974 while employed by the district.

Hank Sobota, attorney for the Cooperstown school district, said Pearlman took a job at Rye Neck teaching English, and engaged in a series of "low level, part time administrative positions" such as administrative team leader and dean of students.

"While at Rye Neck," wrote Sobota, "[Pearlman] dated, secretly lived with, married and eventually divorced a Rye Neck student."

"They developed a close personal relationship during the school year," wrote Sobota, "which, by [Pearlman's] own admission, included kissing."

The couple later married and divorced.

Pearlman's ex-wife did not testify at the hearings.

"Neither did the private investigator hired by the district to find this all out," said Pearlman Tuesday. "I met this girl while I was a twenty-three-year-old teacher. She was a seventeen-year-old girl, and she was not my student. She was Swedish. She withdrew from the school after her junior year to return to Sweden. We began dating only after she withdrew. We got married and continued to live in the Rye Neck district. That has nothing to do with this case except that the district is trying to smear me. It may not have been an ideal circumstance, but it has no parallel here. They never charged me with sexual misconduct. In this case, there is no sexual misconduct. And the girl never complained."

The hearing officer, Pearlman pointed out, did not see the relevance of judging the present situation by the past. Kowalski allowed the information to be entered into the record of the proceedings, but did not take the twenty-seven-year-old relationship into account when determining the outcome of the 3020-a hearing.

According to Pearlman's attorney Louis Patack's legal brief, there is no evidence that Pearlman ever had a "sexual relationship while [the Rye Neck student] was still in school, and [Pearlman] testified that he knew he could not date her until she was no longer a student."

Kowalski began his recorded opinion by stating: "The case before the Hearing Officer in the instant matter has been long and difficult for all the parties. It has included testimony concerning events in [Pearlman's] life which reach back over twenty-five years. However, the Charges in the instant matter concern alleged acts of misconduct in the period from the fall of 1997 through April of 1999. While the Hearing Officer can understand how matters that date back twenty-five years may have been of interest, they occurred prior to the employment of [Pearlman] by the district some ten years ago. Unless these prior events are directly related to [Pearlman's] performance over a period of time in the Charges including the recent alleged misconduct they have no probative value. The Hearing Officer's scope of review is limited to the matters set forth in the charges."

"We were disappointed that the hearing officer didn't feel that the information was 'probative,"' said McPhail, using the hearing officer's word, "or that it established a pattern of behavior. Needless to say, we view it differently."

The legal briefs are public information, available in the district superintendent's office. School board president Kelly Branigan said she encourages members of the community to feel free to apply for the information.

"The lack of public information on this matter has been a source of frustration for this community for some time," said Branigan.

School board member Anthony Scalici wrote, in a letter to the editor this week, "Whatever opinions people may wish to voice, I hope they will be based on what is factual, not conjecture, and that they will not be made to create inflammatory reactions in the community. For those who want to speak their minds by voice or in print, there is first hand information available through freedom of information."