Bills, Bills, bills; Not the song from Destiny’s child

In late August, I received legal bills from the district for May 2021-June 2022. I found the statements overly redacted and nearly impossible to decipher or begin to understand the mounting legal bills the district incurred. 

My original request was to find evidence to support Dr. Varley’s statements, under oath, that she consulted with a lawyer before hiring her daughter and then again sometime after the hire, whereupon it was recommended she remove her child from the position. This conversation would not need any redaction; the line item would/should state something to the degree of “telephone conversation with M. Varley re: hiring daughter/nepotism/etc.” 

Unfortunately, I came up with nothing due to redaction but saw that Dr. Varley consults with the lawyers a lot!

I took it upon myself to browse the legal bills after Pamela Stanley commented that when the Board/District receive an email containing an accusation, they have to send it to the lawyer because “that is the job.” I thought to myself, that is who’s job? And “how much work is the District having the lawyers handle?”

I did not examine each line item; I picked a few that piqued my interest:

1) 5/31/22 review/analyze/redact; costing the district $577.50

I’m not sure why OPRAs needing redaction are sent to the lawyers. This is the job of the records custodian/Board secretary/Business Administrator. In addition, by law, each redaction requires a reason for the redaction. ‘attorney-client privilege” does not suffice to cover the reasoning for redaction. (See Mears v. Boro of Lawnside; A-2936-19)

2) 5/25/22 Attend BOE Meeting (private and executive sessions); costing the district $775.50

The lawyer’s presence at all Board meetings has come up time and time again. Since counsel in addition to Board President were unable to preside over the Board, why exactly are we paying all this money to have someone sit through meetings and through award ceremonies?

3) 6/14/21 Draft and revise opinion letter; costing the district $82.50

Why is the Board paying lawyers to draft opinion pieces for publication in TAPinto? It defeats the purpose of publishing an opinion piece if someone else is writing it for you, no?

4) 6/29/22 Draft XX in support of XX; costing the district $313.50

It’s a mystery, why? What is the District/Board supporting?

5) 6/29/22 Review and respond to email re: opinion letter; costing the district $16.50

6) 6/29/22 Review opinion letter; costing the district $16.50

7)3/30/22 Review TAP into articles and draft email response re same; review ethics complaint;  costing the district $99

8)3/30/22 Review of community articles underlying ethics complaint allegations; costing the district $49.50

So, Here’s the kicker…on 5/25/22 R. Cianciulli motioned (P. Stanley seconded) to have the board attorney prepare an ethics complaint against S. Akiri. On 6/16/22, R. Cianciulli motioned (A. Penna seconded) to have P. Stanley file the prepared complaint on behalf of the Board which was was notarized by an employee of BHPS on 6/17/22. 

What I can’t locate are any logged hours or money spent on preparing this near 100-page complaint. 

You would think since it’s public, there would be no need to redact this exchange. In addition, P. Stanley does not have a single documented communication with the law firm, nor does the attorney, F. Febres, who prepared the complaint. I’m not claiming it doesn’t exist; I’m human. There’s a chance I missed it, or it’s redacted. 

BHPS Legal Bills 5/2021-6/2022

Disclaimer; I definitely recommend listening to Destiny’s Child “Bills, Bills, Bills” while reviewing, for your pleasure.

Related Articles:

DR. VARLEY, HIGH PRICED ATTORNEYS AND THE ANGRY SIX VS. SAI AKIRI

CONCERNS OVER GROWING LEGAL BILLS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED