John Sincaglia
I have been a resident of Berkeley Heights since 1988. I had the honor to serve as a Board member from 2004-2016. Both before and during my tenure, the Board functioned collaboratively , even though there were often significant differences of opinion. We always were willing to listen and respond to members of the public, whether it be a budget time or whenever someone had a concern that they wanted us to address.
Board members were never reticent about voicing their opinions on matters that came before us, including when citizens chose to address us. We also were guided, when needed, by quality legal counsel and seldom, if ever, found their advice to be inconsistent with common sense and the actual meaning of laws, regulations and our ethical responsibilities. In my opinion, the school district was being well run and had the solid support of the majority of the public.
Unfortunately that no longer seems to be the case. During the 2020-21 school year, actions by the Superintendent and Board created an environment that saw division and dissension in this town unlike any seen before.
For years there had been discussions about establishing full-day Kindergarten. In fact the Board had announced a plan to hold a referendum to pay for the physical costs needed to make this happen along with other capital projects. The Pandemic, however, got in the way, and given the economic uncertainty that many were feeling and experiencing, it was wisely decided to postpone the referendum.
Suddenly, however, without a public vote by the Board, it was announced that there would be full day K in 2021-22. And just as suddenly, without any open discussion by the Board, the Superintendent presented a plan to rearrange the elementary schools. What followed was a series of meetings, not seeking input from the public about this plan, but rather explanations how it would be implemented. All of this occurred without a vote or even a public discussion by the full Board. When citizens asked for alternatives or modifications they were told that was not possible. The message was that this was the only way to have full day K. Up to this point nothing about the Superintendent’s plan was ever openly discussed by the full Board. A survey, never approved by the Board, of effected parents, took place that only provided for what year the redistricting would take place. Parents had asked for other choices in the survey but were told there would not be any other choices. Again this was done without authorization or even discussion by the Board. Ultimately, the Board did hold a meeting and approved the Superintendent’s recommendation. The whole rushed process and the Board’s failure to exercise their due diligence, their failure to listen to the many voices that felt otherwise was a terrible mistake and created deep division and mistrust among a great many persons in the community, not limited to those families whose children were to be impacted by these changes. Do not be fooled by those who say this was the only way to have full day K.
Moving forward, in November of 2021, an election took place and three new persons were elected. Prior to that election, however, the Board opted to renew the contract of the Superintendent even though it was more than six months before such an action needed to be considered and given the fact that there would be some new people on the Board who deserved input in such a critical decision.
Now we come to the current board since the reorganization in January 2022. Since then there has been a conscious effort to not be responsive to items brought forth by members of the public. In fact, the administration has strongly articulated this point. One would think that any elected official should have the right, in fact the obligation, to let his/her constituents know where he/she stands on any issue that is brought before them. But for the controlling majority of the Board, this has not been the case.
I earlier mentioned the effective legal advice the Board enjoyed for many years. That firm is now rarely or ever consulted, but has been replaced by a firm whose legal advice on several issues of late is questionable, at best, or just downright wrong. Three most recent legal opinions have been shown to be totally without basis in law or in adherence to the Board’s own policies. The attorney advised the Board that it was permissible for the daughter of the Supt. to be hired for summer employment despite crystal clear language in the Board’s policy on Nepotism that forbids this. This year this legal firm advised the Board that it was permissible for the Board to authorize one of its members to file ethics charges against another member and have the attorney assist the charging member. The ethics commission rules state that a Board cannot file ethics charges against one of its own members. This subterfuge, which also created many billable hours for the attorney, is now itself the subject of an ethics violation. Finally the recent decision by the Supt. to deny the use of school facilities for a candidates’ forum for the Board as a partisan political activity when the Board is, by law, non-partisan, and the forum was being run by a organization that is wholly non-partisan, the League of Women Voters, and the fact that all candidates are invited. The legal explanations purporting to justify this decision were without legal or policy foundation. Keep in mind that forums such as this one have for years been held in school facilities both for Board of Education and municipal offices.
It is time for whomever is on the Board or will be on the Board to begin to take ownership of their responsibilities and hold the central administration accountable for doing their job, and that includes being willing to speak publicly at meetings , not simply to be there to ratify administrative recommendations. That includes educational items, personnel decisions, fiscal affairs and professional service contracts. The Board is not supposed to run the district, but they are supposed to see that it is being well run. My view is that is not what is taking place right now and the community is not being well served. It’s time for some changes.
Related Articles:
THE BERKELEY HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL 2022 BUDGET CONTROVERSY: SYNOPSIS
UNNECESSARY “LAWSUITS” AND THE BLAME GAME
DR. VARLEY, HIGH PRICED ATTORNEYS AND THE ANGRY SIX VS. SAI AKIRI
THE DISTRICTS WAR ON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CONTINUES: THE 2022 LWV BOE DEBATE
THE BERKELEY HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT’S 12-MONTH PATH TO LESS INPUT AND ENGAGEMENT
WHAT HAPPENED TO A “PHASED APPROACH”?
CONCERNS OVER GROWING LEGAL BILLS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL
