By ANDY GARDNER

MASSENA -- A Nightengale Elementary School principal convicted of driving while ability impaired will keep her job, according to Massena Central School Superintendent Patrick Brady.

The administrator in question is Amy Hornung, 44, of Brasher Falls. She was charged with driving while intoxicated and failure to keep right on Feb. 26 on state Route 11C in Lawrence. Although documents filed with Lawrence Town Court did not give her exact blood alcohol level, a DWI charge requires proof of BAC above .08 percent.

On March 15, Hornung pleaded to a reduced count of driving while ability impaired in Lawrence Town Court. She was ordered to pay $560 in fines and surcharges, according to court documents.

Brady declined to talk specifics of what action the district took.

“I can’t. This is a personnel issue. I can’t discuss how we deal with individual staff members involved in any type of discipline,” he said. “I can tell you what has been printed in the media about the way the district dealt with this case is misleading.”

He feels the Board of Education took appropriate action, although he wouldn’t go into any details about what was done or how they got there.

“The actions that the district took were wholly appropriate to the fact pattern that was presented to us,” Brady said.

When asked what he meant by the phrase “fact pattern,” he replied, “You take into consideration all the facts in the case. The police report, the information provided by the employee as well as others involved in the case.”

Later in the discussion while defending the district, he said he couldn’t confirm or deny the Board of Education actually did anything.

“I’m not saying there is or there wasn’t (action taken). I’m not going to get involved in releasing confidential information,” Brady said.

When asked to clarify what he meant by that statement, in light of having said earlier that it was misleading to say the district took no action, he responded, “The board was advised of the situation with this employee, of the administration’s dealing with this employee. The board, in terms of what would be available to them in this case would be simple termination and under the circumstances was not recommended by me … it doesn’t mean there wasn’t other measures. It’s just that the board’s only action would have been termination.”

He doesn’t know if he is legally prohibited from going into more detail about the case, but says common practice is to keep that information private.

“It’s a general policy. I don’t know of any school districts or public bodies that are going to release information about an employees’ personnel file or issues related to their employment,” Brady said. “I don’t know if we’re not legally barred from doing it. It’s just a matter of course that we don’t. Employees have a certain right to confidentiality in their employment. We have always followed that premise in making decisions about disclosure.”