I attended the October 20th meeting in person. It was nice to see some of the other candidates as well. I want to share some observations and questions regarding what was discussed and on the proceeding itself.
- The presentation on the NJSLA results had some positives and some negatives. Based on the results, it seems that our kids are performing well in elementary and middle school. However, the results dip to below 50% proficiency in math (Alg1, Geometry, Alg2) and ELA (9th grade). In September of 2021, the District performed a learning gap analysis and the “Road to Recovery” plan was presented to bridge the gap. The Start Strong Fall 2021 results were presented in Jan 2022 and showed poor results in Alg1, Geometry, and Alg2. The caveat is that there is an impact on the scores due to the assessment content vs. course content alignment. In January 2023, we should have the Start Strong results from September 2022. This will give the Administration at least three data points. I hope there will be more definitive determinations regarding where gaps exist and the root cause of these gaps (i.e. curricular, instructional, or student need).
- This was probably the most civil meeting I’ve attended, which is a good thing! However, must a parent or resident who is there to speak get played off by Snoopy ringtone? A resident, perhaps unfamiliar with the process, was attempting to get through her questions regarding the rent and custodial fees for facility use. She was told to come back next month to finish her statement. She came to this meeting because she had not heard back from the Administration in 2 weeks. Dr. Varley stated that they are aware of the request and will revert. It made me question the purpose of the 3-minute time limit. Is it to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak? Well, there are very few residents who attend in person and even fewer who ask questions. Allowing a bit more time would not deprive anyone of the opportunity to speak. Is it to keep the meeting from running long? Perhaps but the BOE meeting is scheduled once a month. As this is the most direct way residents can communicate with the board, is it an issue to allow extra time for someone to finish what they came to say? The board is supposed to represent the community and welcome engagement from residents. If elected, I would work to change the current atmosphere of friction and welcome feedback from the community.
- It is of minimal value to read a list of correspondence received. Knowing the subject line doesn’t give any context for what’s in the emails. Given that these were once publicly read and in the spirit of transparency, I would include the emails as part of the attachments.
- During the public comment section, a resident spoke about legal fees and the complaint filed against Ms. Akiri. She stated that the complaint against Ms. Akiri was filed to protect the District. Ms. Akiri’s offense was publicly disparaging BOE members and administration staff even after repeated warnings from the board attorney. My question here is, how does this resident know the nature of the complaint? Was it ever made public? I was at the meeting when the BOE voted to have the board attorney prepare to file ethics charges against Ms. Akiri. No specific violations were cited then, nor did the board answer any subsequent questions on the topic. Given these were described as public acts, why has no one – not even the BOE – pointed out what these were?
- The resident also said that we need to be honest about legal fees and that we should look at the entire list of complaints. I agree. While there have been some complaints that were dismissed, there were more that were substantiated by the SEC. So is the argument that we need to avoid legal fees even when there is a valid concern? In light of the other ethics complaints which have been validated, I would argue that the best way for the District to reduce legal fees is for the Administration and BOE to adjust their behavior and be more transparent. This will go a long way to reducing legal fees. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of legal fees, I think that we can all agree that the District could better use the money elsewhere.
