All You Do is Complain

Over the course of the last two weeks this statement has reared its head yet again, along with the similar sentiment of ‘you never bring up the good things we do’. Admittedly, there has been a lot of anger on display over the past year, particularly as relates to the BOE, but it wasn’t always that way. In an effort to do something that isn’t “always complaining”, let’s take a look back at where we were with the BOE a few years ago. Let’s summarize what has happened in that time frame, and attempt to find a solution.  Or even part of one.

Turn back to the March, 2020 BOE meeting when Covid meant the District needed to move to remote learning, and when Dr. Varley had just started her time here. Beginning at 52:30, a Mountainside resident stands up to ask questions. His questions are asked and answered one at a time, with a healthy back-and-forth conversation. There is no timer or stern admonishment to speak only to the Board President. The next person to speak is Ms. Dipti Khanna. She thanks the Board for expediting remote learning and for their work. She also asks her questions, and each is answered upon being asked: one answered by Scott McKinney (who did not need to receive permission from Doug Reinstein before speaking), one answered by Mr. Geiger from the back of the room, and one by a teacher seated in the audience. Upon finishing her questions, the Mountainside resident stands up again and asks an additional question, then Dipti asks an additional question. Both residents receive immediate answers. After additional questions from the public, at 1:12:50 Doug Reinstein thanks the public for coming and asking questions.

At a later remote BOE meeting (and apologies that I didn’t note the date of the meeting) at 1:18:17, Michael LeBlond thanks the District for moving to Plan A. He states that he thinks the administration and teachers have done a great job. The only “complaining” during this public session was from Mrs. Gale Bradford, who felt the lack of mask-wearing by BOE members set a poor example for our students. At the end of this meeting, Doug Reinstein announces that Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) will be implemented.

Fast forward to April, 2021. The District has thrown together a mad-scramble of a plan for FDK that includes redistricting. They push out a flawed survey with limited options. To their credit, they did hold a Town Hall, via Zoom, on the 14th, but it became apparent that there was no longer any give-and-take. Questions were responded to with subtle undertones of anger. At 26:45 Dipti asks for data that shows how moving to a K-2 and 3-5 model is best practice, how it affects grades, productivity, or other benchmarks. She references questions she had sent the Board earlier via email. In response, Doug tells her, on the emailed question about cost breakdowns, he isn’t going to provide that: it doesn’t exist. In answer to the request for data, Dr. Varley states that Sparta and Florham Park (incidentally both are districts where she previously worked) are both K-2 and 3-5. She says “only” 20% of kids will be affected by the move, and she gives no data to support the claim of “best practice”. Dipti asks again for any data saying, “You can hear the concerns in everyone’s voices.”  Dr. Varley responds by telling her that ‘ we have nowhere to go but up with equity’. Whatever that means.

Next to speak is Michael LeBlond, at 33:30. He says he is troubled by the rushed planning and lack of presentation to the public. He notes that at the end of the previous meeting Dr. Varley had stated that ‘planning doesn’t require public input, and that the community lacks the expertise needed to assist with redistricting plans’. He asks her what she is basing that claim on, noting that our town has many people who could be qualified, and he asks what expertise Board members have that makes them more qualified. He asks about walkability and busing (both have become an issue, and not only because of bus drivers) and the bidding process (which was violated). These concerns, and hours of other comments from MANY town residents, were shunted aside. The District is making a show of answering, but not with an effort to understand or include, but rather to justify their chosen outcome. Another change that started to happen around the time of redistricting; a blanket approval of the Superintendent’s recommendations.

Move forward another year, and we see some new faces.  We also see that votes on agenda items are beginning to be split.    On March 17, 2022 we see Dr. Foregger tell the Board that he audited ten years’ worth of legal bills, and that only one year exceeded $100,000 – by $3,000.  He requests that we keep the budget for legal bills at $100,000 instead of raising to $125,000, noting that the limit can be increased later.  Aside from himself and Sai Akiri, only BOE member Joy Young joins them in their ‘no’ vote to increase legal spending.  What has changed that would require increased legal spending?  Perhaps a bidding violation.  Perhaps a legal challenge to the redactions being done by the District on legal bills after the reconfiguration happened. Also at this meeting, Ms. Margaret Illis notes the length of time meetings are taking now that they have been cut to one a month (8:08:00).  Mr. Jared Prupis tells the Board that OPRA is an important tool and questions the claims by new Business Administrator Julie Kot and Superintendent Varley that OPRA requests hurt our children (8:14:00).  In response, Ms. Kot shows outward and obvious hostility toward his statement, asking him how he can ‘judge the validity’ of the requests.  She also claims she has invited ‘this particular group’ into her office and was rebuffed.  What has changed?  The District has jumped to defensiveness and justification instead of conversation.

At the April 28, 2022 BOE meeting, Steve Greguske asks why we are hiring more administrators than teachers (2:40:00).  He is told that is because the ‘business office has been severely without help for a while now’, a claim that has been extended an entire year at this point, even with new hires to the office and even though the previous Boards and administrations didn’t need extra employees.  What changed since then?  The attitude of Dr. Varley that she knows best, despite lack of data, and that the public isn’t entitled or qualified to be included in planning (despite – as we recently saw with abolished policy 9100 – the fact that Board policy said the public IS to have input.)  Questions are no longer being answered in a give-and-take, and there are no conversations.  Mrs. Pamela Stanley responds (2:44:20) that her “big thing” is that she wants to support our teachers, and hiring business office staff does that.  Still, there are some attempts at positivity, even in the face of the changes to the French program that were sprung on parents.  Natasha Joly (4:03:55) tells the Board she appreciates the great news (that the District will hire a new French teacher).  Virginie Delwart notes that there is a large expat community of native French speakers and suggests the District may look to them for support (4:08:00).  Board President Mike D’Aqila reads an email from John Leo which offers assistance to help develop and review DEI initiatives.  Despite changes that have led to more “complaining”, residents are still expressing thanks, offering help, and making constructive suggestions.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t last long, as the ‘new faces’ come to understand that their help is unwelcome and they are not going to be included in any meaningful way.

The last nail in the coffin, for many, was when we began to witness the breakdown of the Board itself. 

This is all Sai’s fault, lol. 

Okay, NO IT ISN’T. 

What we see is Ms. Akiri asking the questions the public no longer bothers with.  Residents, for the most part, have realized the futility of sitting through hours of meetings only to have questions go unanswered at the end of their timed 3:00 limit on participation.  What the Board majority didn’t understand then, and most still don’t, is that if Ms. Akiri is asking a question it’s because 1) a resident has had a conversation with her and expressed a concern, which she is then bringing to the Board, or 2) she has done research and has legitimate concerns over Board actions. At the Board meeting on May 9, 2022 Ms. Akiri questions the need to change the social media policy (4:57:00), particularly as it relates to the public’s ability to ask questions via Zoom.  Varley’s initial response is that the decision to eliminate that option was ‘on advice of legal counsel’, then she changes her answer to ‘because it’s not fair to those who come to a meeting to ask a question’.  The issue of no longer reading correspondence to the Board also arises.  Joy Young confirms that correspondence is still contained in the agenda packet available at the meetings and says she wants to make sure we have a forum for communication.  This is no longer being done.  Yet another avenue of inclusion is removed.

So…  if all you see is “complaining”, you might be right, but you’re missing a full half of the picture.  The examples above show us a clear path to undoing some of the damage.  The Board must allow true conversations.  Allow input.  Stop making momentous decisions that have major consequences at the drop of a hat.  Stop fighting your fellow Board members who are doing their best to get us back on track. 

Don’t accept whatever information is given to you as absolute fact, but do your own research.

There’s more that will need to happen, but this article is long enough.  This is where we start.

About Us