Questions about the District’s Legal Representation Remain Unanswered
While we may be growing tired of hearing about Dr. Varley’s nepotism issue, we are still with no answers a year later.
In this clip, Ms. Akiri again asks questions on the cost of Dr. Varley’s case and whether she will be expected to reimburse the District for her legal fees, given that she ultimately admitted to violating the policy. She also asks pointed questions about whose interests the District’s firm represents.
When we consider the firm’s costly defense of an allegation the Superintendent ultimately admitted to and their facilitation of an ethics procedure against Ms. Akiri that backfired and has the majority of the BOE facing multiple additional violations, the question of conflicted interests is very reasonable.
This is the same firm that attempted to argue that Ms. Akiri would not be able to vote on the issue of BOE Attorneys.
Could you imagine someone you hired telling you, “You can’t fire me – you having an opinion about my work that I disagree with shows that your biased! ” ?
But that’s kind of what appears to have happened, and the usual suspects piled on.
The animus toward BOE Members who want change was evident from day one and questions the public has on how we got to this point remain unanswered.
There is yet another question the BOE will need to answer – when will the District move forward with a different firm that approaches their work in a more objective and less self interested manner? That question ought to be answered by next year’s Board of Education.
Read More About the BHPSNJ Ethics Issues
Visit Our 2023 Berkeley Heights Candidates Page to Read More From the Candidates