The Administration’s Madness Continues
There was a reasonable request from a BOE member at the May 11th BOE meeting for the Superintendent to do her job and present to the BOE possible reasons for the decline in rankings and proficiencies as well as a plan to address the declines. The timeline below details the saga that ensued.
May 11th: At the BOE, meeting – Dr. Foregger requests that “In light of the declining ranking of Berkeley Heights schools, I move that at the next board meeting, Dr. Varley personally give us a presentation laying out possible explanations for the decline and by August, give the board specific actions to be taken to address the problem.” The BOE majority blocks the request (what rankings? what proficiencies? what methodology? etc…) and takes it into the curriculum committee.
June 5th: At the BOE meeting, Ms. Khanna asked Ms. Stanley about the analysis (she used the word “report”) and when it will be ready. Ms. Stanley replies that it will be ready “tomorrow” (June 6th).
June 8th (8:21 PM)– Mr. Migues sends the following OPRA request: “Please provide me the report/work product of the curriculum committee surrounding the declines in proficiency referenced by Ms. Stanley during the last BOE meeting.”
June 21st: Mr. Hopkins responds: “OPRA request is overly broad as it fails to identify with reasonable clarity any particular records.”
June 22nd – I emailed the BOE and Mr. Hopkins the time stamp of the discussion regarding this analysis to be presented at the June 6th curriculum committee meeting. I also asked Ms. Stanley that, to avoid further OPRA requests, she confirm “that this report exists (i.e. the work product of the work done in committee) and that you or the SI or someone will present it to the public at the next board meeting.”
June 23rd: I received the following response from Mr. Hopkins: “I do believe that when a subcommittee of the board delivers information to the whole board, standard usage is that it “makes a report” or “reports back.” In that usage a report is verbal and not written.”
June 27th: Ms. Khanna replies to my June 22nd email: “The Curriculum committee has published the minutes of the curriculum meeting from June 6th ’23. I suggest reaching out to the chair (Pamela) and Dr. Varley, if that committee has not already responded to your request. Based on what I have seen in the report that was included in the minutes, I have many questions and have reached out to Dr. Varley for more information. I would recommend reaching out directly to Dr. Varley as the single source of information.”
The response was caveated with a disclaimer that Ms. Khanna is not authorized to speak on the Board’s behalf, and it was her opinion.
June 27th: I emailed Ms. Stanley asking for the curriculum minutes and the attached report.
June 28th: Ms. Stanley replies that I need to OPRA the minutes as they have seen an increase in legal issues and do not want “to accidentally leak personnel information.”
The irony here is that while they have not leaked personnel information, student information has been leaked 5 times now.
June 28th: I reply that I’m not really interested in the minutes but rather the report on proficiencies. I also said I don’t want to add to the # of OPRA requests and that the report would not contain any personnel information.
Here is where the lying begins in earnest…
June 29th: Ms. Stanley replies via email:
As Mr. Hopkins stated in his email to you (which I believe you forwarded to the board), the board has not discussed a "report" document. I have heard there is a social media group talking about a "report" document. But that is a fabrication. Committees report back to the Board through committee minutes, conversation, and during board committee and liaison reports (reporting back to the full Board in verbal communication in public)." ------ The only "document" will be the Curriculum Committee Minutes. That is what you should OPRA. Since your previous OPRA stated something different, yes, you should resubmit your OPRA request for Curriculum Committee Minutes.
At this point, I had not yet submitted an OPRA request. The original OPRA Ms. Stanley refers to was submitted by Mr. Migues on June 8th, asking for a “report/work product of the curriculum committee.”
June 29th: I submitted my own OPRA request for this information.
June 29th: At the BOE meeting, Ms. Stanley states, “This report document does not exist. There’s nothing hidden that is available to us and not the public.”
July 13th: My OPRA request is filled. I receive the minutes and the analysis (PowerPoint document). Here is the “report” Ms. Stanley said does not exist.
Whether or not you follow the timeline, the bottom line is that:
- BOE member requested on May 11th to have Dr. Varley present the reason behind the decline in proficiencies and rankings to the Board. The
Board denies the request and brings it to the curriculum committee. - Through June, there had been continued denial by BOE members, specifically, Pam Stanley that this analysis document exists even though it was discussed at the June 6th curriculum meeting.
- The request for this analysis generated at least two OPRA requests, many emails as to why there needs to be an OPRA request, Pam Stanley publicly calling me out at the June 29th meeting for my many emails looking for this report, Pam Stanley publicly denying the existence of this report.
- The report was provided via OPRA request on July 13th.
A couple of questions come to mind:
- Will Dr. Varley present anything at the next BOE meeting? Probably not, as Ms. Stanley said, “we will discuss these things in the fall when everyone is paying attention.” I guess there is no plan to address the decline in rankings and proficiencies in the new school year, as Dr. Foregger had initially requested.
- Did Dr. Varley respond to Ms. Khanna’s questions about the report?
- Is Ms. Stanley authorized to speak on behalf of the Board? I didn’t see any disclaimers on her numerous emails to me. Ms. Khanna included
a disclaimer in her response to me. Is Ms. Stanley not worried about repercussions for not having a disclaimer? Is that because she and the
BOE president are part of the majority? - Will the board president, Ms. Penna, reprimand Ms. Stanley in any way for lying to the public via email and at the June 29th BOE meeting? Does anyone doubt, based on her own words, that Pam Stanley lied about there being no report even though it clearly exists?
- Is Mr. Hopkins qualified to be the OPRA custodian when he keeps making mistakes in not redacting children’s names? There are five such errors recently. Another bit I learned is that the district is closed on Fridays in the summer. Fridays are not considered business days for the OPRA response timeline during the summer.
This BOE majority is generating the OPRA volume by refusing to publish materials under the cover of legal issues. The very same legal issues they create by not having the right person handle OPRA requests, paying him extra to do a poor job while some of his original responsibilities are passed on to others.
This insanity needs to stop. Please consider carefully who you vote for in the next election. We don’t need another BOE member who reads speeches at meetings or tells us how everything is so complex – how could we possibly understand?
We understand, and we can do better.
This Article Made Possible by OPRA…Learn How To Protect This Important Law!
One thought on “The Saga to Attain the Proficiency Analysis Report that “Doesn’t Exist””