ELLENVILLE – Ian Oglesby — the son of Sandra and Donald Oglesby, the Ulster Heights couple who are suing the Ellenville Central School District (ECSD) in federal court over numerous, alleged civil rights violations — was accused last spring of attempting to sabotage the ECSD computer system. Ian, it was alleged by the district, attempted to download and install the "April Fools" computer virus — also known as the "Conficker C" worm — a highly destructive virus that targets Microsoft computer operating systems such as Windows. For his alleged transgression, Ian had his computer Internet privileges revoked by ECSD for 30 days, according to the Ogelsbys.

To bring readers up to speed, the Oglesbys have had a contentious relationship with ECSD since approximately 2006, after the couple applied to the district for special-needs services for their adopted twin daughters, services the district is required under federal law to provide. The Oglesbys allege that the district appeared unwilling to provide the help for which they had asked, and that it ultimately retaliated against the couple by filing a complaint with Child Protective Services alleging parental abuse of the girls (the charges were later found to be baseless). Given this relationship, the Oglesbys feel that the incident with Ian fits the continuing pattern of malfeasance and retaliation they claim to have experienced.

"When I got the call at work, I went weak in the knees," says Sandra Oglesby, Ian's mother, in regard to the accusation against her son.

Mrs. Oglesby said that it was Middle School Assistant Principal Gene Stewart who made the call, and that it was he who stated that Ian had attempted to download the destructive virus in question.

"He specifically said 'April Fools virus,'" Sandra Oglesby claims.

But, a review of the documents related to Ian's case reveals that something entirely different occurred. What Ian accessed was not, in fact, a computer virus, but an April Fools "jokeware," or "prankware," application that is completely harmless. Apparently, the school district's security software, which is manufactured by Symantec Corporation, identified the program as a "Joke Screen Flasher" at which time the district's IT Director, Mr. Vince Napoli, sent the information to Scott Shaw, the Assistant Superintendent. It was after this that the "virus" accusation was made.

However, even a cursory examination of the computer logs, copies of which the Journal obtained from the Ogelsbys, would have established that the program was not harmful to the district's computer network. The Oglesbys feel that the district made an incorrect identification of Symantec's security alert, and that this, at the very least, was an overreaction to the situation. This overreaction is the latest example of the harassment and retaliation by ECSD to which they claim to have been subject. The accusation, in fact, prompted the Oglesby family therapist, Randoph Bleiwas, to file an additional civil rights complaint on behalf of Ian with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

"He [Ian] was the latest target," Bleiwas says. "The fact that there were other kids that were doing similar things, visiting [unauthorized] sites, the only one with any consequence was Ian."

R.J. Lindehof, CEO of RJL Software, Inc., the company that designed the jokeware program, said in a letter to the Ogelsbys that his company has created over 40 such applications and that they "[do] not contain spyware programs and are not viruses." Lindehof's letter also states that the computer log the school has cited as evidence against Ian does not actually show that a download occurred.

"There is no indication in the report if the software was actually downloaded," Lindehof's letter says.

Instead, the logs show that Ian conducted several searches for "April Fools pranks," and that one of these searches directed Ian to the RJL Software website, according to Lindehof's letter.

It should be noted, however, that the school district, along with many other businesses and institutions, were on high alert during this period, as the virus was programmed to make its attack on April Fool's Day. But, if the district did not understand this security alert, or simply overreacted to the potential threat, the Oglesbys want to know why it didn't admit its error and reverse Ian's suspension.

In his defense, Ian says that, when the alleged download occurred, the instructor was actually made aware of what he was doing, and that several other students had also visited this same website. Ian said he was simply sharing a joke among his friends.

"The next day, I wanted to show my friends because I thought it was so cool," Ian says. "I turned the computer around and I showed it to [the instructor, Mr. Justin Meyer]."

According to Ian, Meyer said "very funny; get back to work," which Ian did.

Ian says, however, that students routinely surf the web when they have time in between projects, and that he wasn't doing anything that he and other kids in the class hadn't done during previous computer sessions. Because of this, Ian says that he was surprised and upset that the school reacted the way it did.

Mrs. Oglesby says that she is concerned that this incident could go on Ian's permanent record and that this could someday come back to haunt her son.

The school district, however, spells out its Internet usage policy in very explicit terms. The policy states that, "Use of the network for non-school related communications is prohibited," which would appear to indicate that students and instructors cannot use the network to surf the web if it's not for school-related work. Thus it would seem to prohibit Ian, or the other members of Ian's class, from casual web browsing. It appears, however, that the district may not be enforcing its policy in a fair and consistent manner.

"It is suspect as to the selective enforcement of the district policy in this case as another boy sitting next to Ian visited the same website and was not suspended, which was stated in OCR documents,"Don Oglesby said. "Ian did not intentionally download a virus and a virus never existed."

Leading to even more confusion in this matter, the OCR originally dismissed Bleiwas's case. But a review of the OCR findings shows that the agency concurred with ECSD's erroneous assertion that the software Ian attempted to download was a virus.

A letter from OCR to Bleiwas regarding its decision states: "OCR concluded that the [Ellenville Central School] District proffered a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason that was not pre-textual for revoking the Student's Internet privileges, namely the Student's attempt, on April 1, 2009, to download a virus onto a school computer."

The case has since been appealed and is still working its way through OCR's reconsideration process.

It should also be noted that, throughout the process of assembling this article, the Journal has repeatedly asked for ECSD to comment on this situation. The Journal specifically requested information regarding the number of other students who had received similar discipline during the 2008-09 school year. ECSD superintendent Lisa Wiles, however, stated that she did not have this information at her fingertips, but there were other students who had received such discipline in 2008-09 for violating the district's computer policy; and, citing confidentiality of students' records, Wiles also said that she could not answer the other questions the Journal posed. "I can't comment about specific student concerns," Wiles said.

She did say, however, that the district is strict when it comes to enforcement of school rules.

"We take our code of conduct and our Internet usage policy very seriously," she said.

The Journal also spoke briefly with the person in charge of the district's computer maintenance, Mr. Napoli. Napoli also refused to answer questions, stating that that it was district policy to direct all media inquiries to the superintendent's office.

Sandra Oglesby simply wants the district to treat its students in a fair and equitable manner. She said that the district was perfectly within its right to punish Ian for unauthorized usage. But, she questions, why were other students not punished in a similar manner? Why, also, did the district continue to insist that Ian was guilty of doing something intentionally malicious, when a more innocent explanation was readily apparently?

"I would have agreed with the suspension if [other students] got one as well," says Mrs. Oglesby. "They all visited school-unrelated sites."