Motion to Dismiss filed by BOE Attorney Rejected In It’s Entirety by School Ethics Commission
At a meeting of the New Jersey School Ethics Commission (SEC) on October 17th, a decision was rendered on one of the ethics complaints filed against several members of the Berkeley Heights Board of Education. Although some residents would have you believe that a formal ethics complaint is a lawsuit, it is not. Some would have you believe an ethics complaint is merely unsubstantiated opinion levied by angry parents. While angry might occasionally apply, the rest of that statement does not.
Ethics complaints must have substance. Otherwise, the person filing is at risk of being penalized for filing a frivolous complaint. While a lawyer is not needed to file a complaint, there is a need to provide documentation and sworn affidavits, and a claim must very specifically identify how the School Ethics Code was allegedly violated. Which leads to…
The complaint issued against Robert Cianciulli, Pamela Stanley, Mike D’Aquila, Angela Penna and Jordan Hyman. A decision about this complaint was adopted at the SEC meeting this week . The complaint alleges that multiple sections of the ethics code were violated when these members of the board voted to have the board attorney draft ethics charges against Sai Akiri. Despite Akiri’s reasoned warning, and Tom Foregger’s impassioned pleas to stop and think about what these board members were doing, they insisted on pushing forward.
Now the SEC has found that with the evidence presented – really the only evidence needed was the meeting itself – there is probable cause that these board members DID violate the code of ethics. The board attorney had replied to the complaint with a Motion to Dismiss, but that motion was denied in its entirety. The complaint will now be forwarded to the Office of Administrative Law, a state agency in the Executive Branch of New Jersey Government. It is the third complaint to be forwarded for judicial review in the past year.
One BOE member who was present for all of this – Angela Penna – is up for reelection.
Angela Penna had the opportunity to speak up and stand with residents when Superintendent Varley was questioned by those residents and they expressed their concern on the hiring of her daughter and daughter’s friends. This became the first ethics violation to go before a judge in the last year.
Angela Penna made the choice to publish a letter claiming to be written on behalf of the entire board which denigrated a fellow board member, which lead to another complaint of the School Ethics Code being violated.
Angela Penna went along with the vote to have the board attorney attempt to find charges against board member Akiri. Number three on the recent list of ongoing complaints.
Ethics violation number four has now been discussed by the SEC and will see a decision adopted next month.
This Board of Education and Administration needs to stop fighting against its two members who are putting forth questions posed by the residents of the town.
Questions and requests for more information are not dangerous practices. Making information available to the public doesn’t harm our students. Involving parents in key decisions about our children’s education isn’t going to ruin the district and doesn’t mean a halt to progress. We have the opportunity next month to try and right the ship. Please consider your vote carefully when choosing candidates. Most of them have made it clear where they think our district should be headed and who they plan to stand with.
Excerpt from most Recent SEC Decision:
Related Articles
UPDATE ON SEC MATTER INVOLVING SUPERINTENDENT
DR. VARLEY, HIGH PRICED ATTORNEYS AND THE ANGRY SIX VS. SAI AKIRI
DR. VARLEY’S LEGAL TEAM TRIES TO PREVENT RESIDENT FROM ATTENDING HEARING ON NEPOTISM ALLEGATION
CONCERNS OVER GROWING LEGAL BILLS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
OPRA, ATTORNEYS AND AWARDS CEREMONIES
DR. VARLEY’S NEPOTISM INVESTIGATION
UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BOE: ALL THE LETTERS
23 thoughts on “School Ethics Commission decision Involving Five BOE Members Moves Case to Office of Administrative Law”