The Berkeley Heights Public School 2022 Budget Controversy: Synopsis

The article was originally published by TapInto Berkeley Heights as an Op-Ed on 05/13/2022.

It’s been some time since I’ve updated this site with an article. We’ve been trying to provide information to the public while at the same time working to prevent the Superintendent and the BOE from making some unfortunate decisions. As a result, we’ve been more active on social media. Over the next few months, I plan to record everything that’s transpired this year since Berkeley Heights voted out two incumbents and voted in two candidates (Dr. Foregger and Sai Akiri) who ran on a platform of transparency, evidence-based decision making, and accountability.

Most residents agree that this year’s budget process was a circus, but not every resident may know everything that occurred in this saga between the District and the public. This article is an attempt to provide the public with the entire story.  

Before diving into that, it is essential to understand the context. In 2012 the Berkeley Height Board of Education voted to discontinue a public vote on the budget. This was an option granted to them by the State of NJ – they were not required to terminate the public vote. There are Districts in NJ that continue this practice. One BOE Member (Paul Beisser) who voted against discontinuing the public vote stated:

_{“With a school budget of $45 million, that breaks down to approximately $12,000 per homeowner. It’s important for the taxpayer to weigh in on the budget,}” [https://bit.ly/3Mar2AG]

It is important to note that since the Berkeley Heights BOE removed the public vote, the District’s proficiencies in Math and Language arts have declined. In contrast, costs per pupil have skyrocketed – surpassing Districts that perform better than Berkeley Heights despite declines in enrollment. A portion of these costs include piles of new administrative positions this District has never had and comparable Districts still do not have. [https://bit.ly/38tnevA]

Since the public vote was removed and until 2019, the District provided BOE members with FULL copies of the budget weeks in advance and held a public meeting before BOE approved the budget. That means BOE members and the public had the opportunity to review the entire budget and were provided a forum for discussion before a vote.

Fast forward to March 17, 2022 – the date the Berkeley Heights Board of Education voted to approve the tentative budget. During this meeting, residents discovered that the District did not provide BOE Members with the total budget, and what they were given was delivered 48 hours before the date of the vote.  

Amazingly only two BOE members (Dr. Foregger and Ms. Akiri) voted no (or said anything of substance) on the tentative budget and insisted that the BOE provide members and the public with greater access to the budget and more time to review the budget. Other BOE members assured the public that the opportunity for feedback would occur at the next meeting. [https://bit.ly/3L2DCkd]  

This budget included increased administrative positions and a tax increase on residents [https://bit.ly/3MgVeu8]. 

As a result of this massive deviation from practice, Ms. Akiri published an op-ed where she stated:

_{“The 2021 Audit Report demonstrated an 8% increase in per-pupil cost (above 24,000 per student from the previous year) which is way more than what the school district of Millburn spends per student, and now we are seeking an even higher increase for 2022-23, especially when we have seen a decreased enrollment due to various reasons and continued issues connected to math and language art proficiencies.}

_{Also given that Board members were not given detailed information on what is included with these increased costs. Given the increasing investments in attorneys and administrators, I want to be sure that each dollar is going to the classrooms.}

_{………………………………}

_{There is no good reason not to slow this down and open the process up.”} [https://bit.ly/3lb6cFf]

The BOE President and Vice President (Mr. D’Aquila and Ms. Penna respectively) responded to the article in publishing an OP-Ed that they claimed represented the opinion of the entire BOE (I have an email with questions that have not been answered on this issue). In this article, they claim:

_{“Having both served on the Board of Ed for several years, we can assure you that a 24-hour notification for the preliminary budget is standard. Part of the job of a Board member is both to trust your fellow members and respect their work by diligently processing the large volumes of complicated information they have spent hours developing. As Board of Education Members, that is our job. “}

That letter received quite a bit of backlash due to its tone [https://bit.ly/3yzWHaK] and level of inaccuracy:

_{“Instead of understanding the fundamental issues Ms. Akiri and Dr. Foregger made regarding the budget, the response was to attack them for questioning and rather suggested some “blind trust” in the adm}i_{nistration. Time and time again, the reasonable and informed opinions of some are ridiculed with inaccurate facts, eye rolls, interruptions and petty game play.}

_{Neighboring districts (even our own township) made the preliminary budget available to the public and its Board members multiple days (and in some cases weeks) before the Board discussed and voted. BHPS district, up until 2019, always had a public meeting to review the budget before Board approval. “} [https://bit.ly/3McL3Xf]

Amazingly, when confronted with facts in evidence that contradicted Mr. D’Aquila’s and Ms. Penna’s inaccurate response to Ms. Akiri’s letter – instead of acknowledging the mistake, the District attempted to have the article removed. [https://bit.ly/3FGeVJl]

A former BOE President also added an alternative to Mr. D’Aquila’s and Ms. Penna’s interesting version of history. [https://bit.ly/3Pst2q6]

In the background, I attempted to obtain the full copy of the budget via OPRA requests. My original request occurred on 4/3/2022, and I was given the “user-friendly version” (not the entire budget) on 04/11/2022. 

It was not until after emailing the County Superintendent (multiple times), State offices and representatives that I received the full budget from the State of NJ (https://bit.ly/3wqUsUj) directly.  

Okay, now remember when I wrote that BOE members indicated that the initial vote was just tentative and that people would be able to provide feedback at the next meeting involving the final vote on the budget? Their commitment to hearing feedback looked like this[https://bit.ly/3w4r5bE] and this [https://bit.ly/3Ph7tc0].  

If there wasn’t enough to this soap opera, District staff appeared to rush out inaccurate minutes misquoting Dr. Foregger as perhaps a distraction away from more significant issues on the budget. Or maybe it was to teach him a lesson on speaking up about administrative costs.  

The minutes containing inaccurate quotes (I have never seen minutes from BOE Committee Meetings that included quotes) were rushed out within three days based on an OPRA request -just in time for this meeting. This gameplay represents a shocking and dangerous practice by District staff to influence public opinion of a BOE member inappropriately. Reference: [https://bit.ly/3FGSweP] and [https://bit.ly/3svp5am]

Some good came out of this. The BOE indicated that there MIGHT be a public Finance and Facilities meeting with the budget next year. Let’s see what they mean by that – based on the last meeting; residents may be required to wear a blindfold and duct tape over their mouths as a condition.