In what has to be the most brilliant irony of the year, Berkeley Heights BOE Member Angela Penna penned a candidate statement which included the following:
- “Board members are engaging in their own forms of political posturing and grandstanding; particularly when they disagree with their fellow board members.”
- “We see statements in social media suffixed with “This is my personal opinion and not the opinion of the Board.” That is simply a red flag when used out of election season. It says, “I am not succeeding in the democratic process within the board, so I am going to go rogue for my own personal gain.””
- “There has been a rise in attacks against the board that are not grounded in fact. People are simply engaging in reputation and character destruction to discredit people whom they see as a threat to them. This is pure dirty politics.”
- “I am convinced that if these “select” activists are successful in distorting the truth and selling that to enough people, we will see bad outcomes for the school system.”
Let’s take a look at the reality of the situation. Grandstanding of epic proportions (and the onset of multiple “lawsuits”) occurred at the May 25th, 2022 BOE meeting when Robert Cianciulli, cued by Dr. Varley, introduced a motion to have the board attorney draft charges of ethics violations against Sai Akiri. The New Jersey School Ethics Commission state the following:
“Q: Who can file a complaint with the School Ethics Commission?
A: Any person may file a complaint with the School Ethics Commission when he or she believes that a school official has violated the School Ethics Act. A Board of Education, as an entity may not file a complaint, although individual members of the Board may file.”
Q: Are complaints filed with the School Ethics Commission kept confidential?
A: The Commission shall hold all information confidential regarding any pending matter until it first takes action at a public meeting to determine probable cause, or violation, or until the matter is settled, withdrawn or dismissed, provided that: (1) Information which indicates the possible violation of any criminal law shall be provided to the Attorney General in compliance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-28(d); (2) Information about complaints may be shared as necessary for the Commission to meet its statutory obligation to place matters in abeyance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-32; (3) The full caption of a complaint may be included in a subpoena issued pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.1; (4) Information about complaints may be shared as necessary where complaints are consolidated; and (5) Information regarding the status of a pending complaint may be provided to the executive county superintendents.
- The underlined portion has not been added by me; it appears on the NJ website. The two answers above show that by using a public board meeting (literally taking the stage in this case), having the entire board, save Dr. Foregger and Ms. Akiri, vote to authorize the attorney to draft charges, then subsequently choosing to ignore standard procedure and the state’s own practices and publish all the “lawsuits” on the district’s website, there can be NO QUESTION about who is doing the grandstanding here. Irregardless of Ms. Penna’s avoidance of using individual names, it’s not the board member she thinks it is who is guilty of her charge.
- Irony number two is that Ms. Penna and Mr. D’Aquila wrote a letter, published in TapInto, claiming to have been written on behalf of the BOE, which spurred another “lawsuit”. In this case, these two board members certainly should have used the statement that this “is my personal opinion and not the opinion of the board”, since the School Ethics Commission found probable cause that the NJ School Ethics Code was violated by the writing of this letter WITHOUT getting the consent of the board. Red flag, indeed.
- A rise in unfounded attacks is next. The “lawsuits” that arose from board actions must certainly feel like attacks, and a valiant attempt to paint these “lawsuits” as unfounded has been circulating among various social media sites. However, the School Ethics Commission continues to review complaints arising from recent board members’ actions and find them to have enough validity, you know – FACTS, that the complaints were forwarded for judicial review. To have six board members very publicly attempt to discredit a fellow board member…. yes, it’s ironic.
- As to the last statement, who do we suppose has more influence into outcomes for the school system? “Select” activists, or the BOE members who sit on committees, review programs, vote to implement curriculum and policy, approve budgets, etc?
Onward now to the Unnecessary “Lawsuits”. The claim made by Ms. Penna recently that the board HAD to file the complaint against Ms. Akiri in order to protect the district is, perhaps, the greatest irony of all. That action, taken so publicly, has now led to two (possibly three?) Unnecessary “Lawsuits”. Had the BOE followed state guidance – had Robert Cianciulli or Pamela Stanley, on their own and confidentially, filed a complaint, the public would not have been aware of the proceedings. The action wouldn’t have been unethical. They would have avoided these “lawsuits” that they insist are frivolous.
As to the ethics claims against Ms. Akiri, we have residents speaking about details of the complaint that either they have gotten from someone who has seen the complaint, or they are guessing at. Not cool, in either situation. But let’s go a bit further. I HAVE seen the complaint against Ms. Akiri, as it was provided to me in its entirety by the board attorney. I won’t pretend to know what the outcome will be, and admit to having a bias here, but let’s just say that there are indicators this MUST FILE complaint was perhaps not so necessary as we are being told.
Enough of The Blame Game. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the attempts to shift the blame from the BOE to parents – oh, wait! “select” activists – isn’t holding up to scrutiny.
Let’s give a little shout-out to Dr. Varley now, for her claims that residents’ emails remind her of segregationists in the Deep South (not substantiated upon review of the emails), and that district troubles are arising due to a “small group of angry parents”. Surely none of the issues that have arisen could possibly be traced back to the Superintendent’s rushed implementation of changes, lack of communication, and disregard for parent opinion and input.
I doubt any article written here will stop The Blame Game, but just perhaps it will reach those who can look at the facts of the matter and see that it is the actions taken by those in power which have created the lion’s share of recent “lawsuits”, and that sadly that share is very necessary.
Related Articles:
BOE CANDIDATE RUNNING AS THE PARENT’S VOICE ATTEMPTS TO TAKE DOWN PARENT’S LETTER…AGAIN
ANGELA PENNA’S CANDIDATE STATEMENT V. REALITY
UPDATE ON SEC MATTER INVOLVING SUPERINTENDENT
DR. VARLEY, HIGH PRICED ATTORNEYS AND THE ANGRY SIX VS. SAI AKIRI
CONCERNS OVER GROWING LEGAL BILLS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
DR. VARLEY’S LEGAL TEAM TRIES TO PREVENT RESIDENT FROM ATTENDING HEARING ON NEPOTISM ALLEGATION
DR. VARLEY’S NEPOTISM INVESTIGATION
THE BERKELEY HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT’S 12-MONTH PATH TO LESS INPUT AND ENGAGEMENT
UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BOE: ALL THE LETTERS
5 thoughts on “Unnecessary “Lawsuits” and The Blame Game”