DR. VARLEY’S LEGAL TEAM TRIES TO PREVENT RESIDENT FROM ATTENDING HEARING ON NEPOTISM ALLEGATION

BHCW received an email from a resident who filed an ethics complaint against Dr. Varley that alleges the Superintendent and Attorneys from the District are attempting to prevent the resident from attending a hearing in connection to a probable cause finding from the SEC that the Berkeley Heights Superintendent violated the District’s nepotism policy.

From the email, the following appears to have occurred:

(1) The Judge invited the resident to the hearing

(2) Dr. Varley’s attorneys attempted to have the Judge change their mind.

The email goes on further to state:

“I am requesting that the BOE investigate Dr. Varley and her attorneys for their efforts in attempting to lock me out of a hearing, for their use of the term “defamatory” when I am iterating facts, and that that they are still referring to these allegations as “baseless” despite a probable cause finding by the SEC. This is concerning in that it demonstrates Dr. Varley and her attorneys still believe they did nothing wrong despite what the policy clearly states and despite resident comments during the meetings leading up to the vote.”

The problem with the BOE investigating this matter is that Ms. Penna, Mr. D’Aquila, Mr. Cianculli, and Ms. Young voted to approve Dr. Varley’s request that her family member be employed (something the email points out).

There also appears to be some misunderstanding in the community as to the importance of this case. Here are some points that community members – especially parents, should consider:

1. A group of parents did not file the ethics charge; ONE parent did. That parent is in the field of education.
2. The parent who filed the ethics charge did not hire an attorney. The confusion may stem from Ms. Pam Stanley (BOE Member), who used taxpayer dollars to pay District lawyers to file ethics complaints against a BOE member.
3. Dr. Varley did not need to hire an attorney; she could have responded to what some argue is a minor matter. She could have admitted that she violated the policy. Instead, SHE used district resources on an attorney. That’s certainly her right; residents and parents should be clear on who is spending money on lawyers.
4. It’s not just about the money. BH students would have wanted to work that job, and the family member who got the job was not a BH student. In fact, all of the jobs in connection to the complaint went to non-BH students. It was not properly advertised. Additionally, Dr. Varley is inconsistent with her report on having the decision vetted by legal counsel.
5. Lastly, Dr. Varley attempted to have the entire BOE vote to change the nepotism policy to make the practice allowable before the matter got in front of a judge.
   

In summary, it appears that Dr. Varley spent our District’s money on Attorneys to make sure it was ok to hire a non-BH family member and then spent more on attorneys to find out that it wasn’t ok hire a non-BH family member and now is spending more on attorneys to keep the resident who filed the claim out of the hearing.

Copy of email sent to the BOE requesting an investigation into Dr. Varley’s actions: https://bit.ly/3R3xwnc

Related Articles:
DR. VARLEY’S NEPOTISM INVESTIGATION

OPRA, ATTORNEYS AND AWARDS CEREMONIES

DR. MELISSA VARLEY’S CONTRACT RENEWAL: ALL THE ARTICLES