Sai Akiri
I sent this email to the BOE expressing my concerns and position on the discussion that transpired during the January 19, 2023 BOE Meeting:
I am writing to you to request you reconsider the custodian of records position and revision to district policy 8310.
First and foremost, responding to OPRA requests is one of the core functions of the business administrator. The district administration has not fully demonstrated and substantiated the need for additional capacity to address OPRA requests. The Berkeley Heights Township clerk maintains an OPRA log in the spirit of transparency. It would serve the district well to make an OPRA log available to the public to substantiate the ask for the Custodian of Records position.
Based on the latest information on the district website, we don’t seem to have an onslaught of OPRA requests. Here is a compilation of the latest OPRA requests by a parent.
As most of you are aware, the Board created a full-time assistant position to the business administrator last year. So again, what’s the rationale for creating this additional position this year?
How many hours of work is this, and what’s the current staffing in our board business office? One must make an informed decision with a clear picture. The district needs to produce the OPRA log of:
- Total requests received
- Remitted responses
- Requests denied
- OPRA Extensions requested and ultimately denied.
Unless a monthly OPRA log is produced and compared with the total business office staff workload, the public cannot evaluate the need for the position in the first place.
It was sad to see the board attorney Ms. Frances Fabres yet again provide bad legal advice at the January 19, 2023 board meeting. I hope she doesn’t bill the district for providing bad legal advice.
If it was not for Dr. Foregger’s intervention, the district’s highly paid board attorney would have continued with her bad legal advice! After Ms. Fabres initially responded to Mr. Cianciulli’s question and stated the board can amend the resolution and create a title of “Assistant to the records custodian” and move it to vote. And Mr. Robert Cianciulli moved to amend the resolution per the attorney’s advice, only for Dr. Foregger to let everyone know that the board had to create this “new position” that the board attorney suggested. The Board would be well served to have attorneys who provide sound legal advice without trying to do an end run around the policies of the district.
Another key point to note from the whole interaction is our superintendent Dr. Varley recommended a vote on the new custodian of records position to the board BUT was UNAWARE of our district policies, this is NOT the first time Dr.Varley had to ask for clarification, read the policy at the meeting and text Ms. Sarah Latzke to confirm the basic understanding of the policy. This is in spite of Dr. Foregger’s clear explanation that the board would be in violation of the district policy if you all had voted to appoint someone other than the board secretary Ms. Kot as custodian of records.
Now coming to the recommendation of Mr. Hopkins (whom Dr. Varley said was the most qualified for this job) at the last board meeting. Has the district considered that it is opening itself to a huge potential conflict of interest? How can someone from the Berkeley Heights administrators union have access to emails of the superintendent, asst superintendents, board members, and the entire district staff? In addition to emails, the custodian of records has access to all records including legal advice.
Has this been thought through by the superintendent when she said he is the “most qualified” for this job?
Mr. Hopkins is currently the supervisor of world languages K-12, supervisor of social studies 6-12, and director of special projects and leads districts’ DEI initiatives. I am unsure how he will have the time to be the records custodian in addition to his full-time job. Also, it was not long ago when the district got inaccurate information regarding student enrollment numbers for French last year and a recommendation to drop French from our world languages program. There have also been parent concerns with the Italian program in our district, so I am not sure how someone with two crucial supervisor positions has the capacity to take on additional job responsibilities.
I request the district leadership to reevaluate the thought process of simply outsourcing activities, that are one of the core functions of the business office to high priced attorneys in the spirit of carrying on their fiduciary duties to tax payers.
I would really appreciate it if you can provide answers to my questions above and reconsider revising policy 8310 as OPRA requests fall under the core responsibility of the business administrator. This responsibility cannot be deferred to a “designee” as it is too broad and opens the district up to potential conflict of interest.
Discussion During BOE Meeting:
Related Articles:
PEELING THE SPIN: A CONDENSED LOOK AT OPRA REQUESTS
TOM FOREGGER SAVES THE DAY AGAIN
01/19/2023 BOE MEETING- WHAT PARENTS SHOULD BE AWARE OF GOING IN TO THIS MEETING
OPMA & OPRA: WE SHOULD FEARLESSLY DEMAND TRANSPARENCY
THE DISTRICT PUBLISHES OPRA REQUESTS ON WEBSITE
7 thoughts on “Policy 8310: Concerns On Top Level Decision Making, Use of District Dollars and Legal Advice Continue To Mount”