Eighty-Eight Percent: How The Berkeley Heights School District’s Legal Bills Nearly Doubled in a Year

It’s not entirely possible to pinpoint a single moment in time when things shifted in our school district, but it’s impossible to deny the mistrust and division that has been growing for the past three years. What is a little easier to pinpoint is what has led to a staggering increase in legal bills. Let’s look at how we went from $85,000 a year in legal fees, to $160,000.

Melissa Varley, despite concerns voiced by parents and residents, insists it’s okay to hire her daughter and her daughter’s friends, on the advice of our Board attorney, and rather than look into it for themselves, BOE members give their approval. Somehow town residents are aware of the policy this violates, even though Superintendent Varley, Esq. Giacobbe, and BOE members are apparently not, and an ethics violation charge is filed. We spend over a year with the Board attorney defending this decision, only to have a settlement offered, along with an admission of wrong-doing. (An admission that is in direct conflict with earlier statements.)

Next, in an ongoing feud over the budget process, Mike D’Aquila and Angela Penna submit a Letter to the Editor of TapInto, which they published under their names, followed by “President and Vice President (respectively) of the Berkeley Heights Board of Education”. A resident rightly notices the BOE designations, rather than a statement that the letter is the opinion of the two, and questions the permissibility of publishing in that context. D’Aquila and Penna then double-down, adding “Disclaimer: The below was written by Mr. D’Aquila and Mrs. Penna and shared with each Board of Education member before public dissemination.” Who knows where the lawyer was on this one. An ethics complaint is filed. The School Ethics Commission (SEC) reviews the claim, finds probable cause, and forwards it to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) where it will be tried before a judge.

Again, rather than have an open dialogue which answers questions fully and honestly, incumbent board members choose to take the following action: after a nod from Varley, they make a motion and vote to have the Board attorney draft ethics charges against Sai Akiri. Rather than advise against this, the Board attorney allows the motion and vote to proceed. Again, parents who seem to know more than the Superintendent, the BOE, or the attorney, recognize the issues this presents and file an ethics complaint. As with the two cases above, the SEC determines the complaint has merit and submits it to the OAL.

A month later, perhaps realizing belatedly that their actions were not permissible, the Board then revises their attempt, and authorizes Pamela Stanley to file the complaint against Ms. Akiri “on behalf of the board”. Again, not stopped by the Board attorney. If anything, it seems they may have a hand in this. Not fooled by the rewording, parents submit a complaint. The SEC found the claim had merit, and it was forwarded.

Additionally, a complaint is filed against Mrs. Stanley for using her position as a board member and her access to the attorney to pay for her complaint against Ms. Akiri. Seeing a pattern? Yes, the SEC found merit and forwarded the complaint. On this one, the attorney attempted to have a fine levied against the parent for filing a “frivolous” charge. Denied.

There are two things that need to happen here. One, we need to ditch this attorney. Oh, wait! Ms. Akiri suggested that very thing, but some of our BOE members know better. Now we’re stuck with this firm for another entire year. The other thing – the MAIN thing – is that the BOE needs to start paying attention to what parents and residents are trying to tell them. NOT what the Board attorney says, or what our Administrators tell them should happen.

We have proven we know what we’re talking about, and if the only path we’re given is to fight, then guess what?