Gaslighting On the RFP, More Power to the President, Still No Answers on Legal Spending and Board Correspondence Now Requires Gate Keeping
The Superintendent’s Report led immediately to the Resolution and Congratulations to the GL Girls Volleyball Team on their second sectional state championship! Recognition was also given to Joy Young and Robert Cianciulli for their service as board members, and they expressed their thoughts on their time as members.
After some self-debate on writing about Mr. Cianciulli’s ‘speech’, all I will say on the matter is that it was full of ironies, as he himself has done exactly what he spoke out against in his references to the 2017-2019 board.
Mrs. Bradford gave her Town Council Liaison report, followed by Mrs. Young’s report from the Finance and Facilities meeting. During the two committee meetings they held, they first met with the transportation consultants who gave them a presentation on preliminary findings, then they met to discuss that presentation. Moving forward with an ‘immediate action’ item recommended by the consultants, we will be getting new routing software (approved later in the meeting by the board). The committee recommends that the presentation be provided to the entire board and the public at the January 18, 2024 meeting.
The Curriculum Committee met and reviewed two new classes for Governor Livington students. The first, Create Your Playlist, will combine two previous classes – Music and Lyrics, and Roots and Rythm – and the second will be Architectural Design. It is hoped that in the future an advanced class on the subject can be offered. The committee discussed “public complaints about instructional and resource materials”. Apparently, there is a board policy that states complaints must be made in writing. “Staff” are working on a form that will be available in the principal’s office, and a committee will be formed to look at material and look at what the complaint is. No information was given as to who will be on the committee. We will look into getting more information, on this particular policy, and report back in a separate article. Additionally, the district received a grant for high-impact tutoring for the students identified as most in need.
The Business Administrator, Anthony Juskiewicz stated there was no board correspondence, however Mrs. Natasha Joly contradicted this during public comment, saying that she had emailed the board. During the BA’s report, Mr. Juskiewicz said that interviews with staff will be conducted with regard to the upcoming budget. He reported on maintenance and repairs that have been completed at our school buildings and grounds.
After the regular report, Mr. Juskiewicz gave information about RFPs based on questions from the previous meeting. The ability of the board to select firms for professional services was never in question. The statements and questions from the previous meeting were with regard to the RFP process, specifically. In order to issue the RFP, the board should have held a vote on the matter. They never did. BHCW has received, via OPRA, a copy of committee meeting minutes that show the decision being made, in committee, to issue the RFPs. As noted previously, a committee cannot take action, only the full board may do so. While it is appreciated that a response was given, since that doesn’t always happen, the response did not address the questions that were asked. At this time, it is a moot point, as the architect is being appointed outside the RFP process. Because an RFP has also been issued for legal firms, the board should vote and reissue the RFP. This district CANNOT afford to appoint our current firm, as we just did with the architect.
During public comment, both Mrs. Joly and myself spoke about Policy 0155 being revised to allow the board president power to appoint members to committees without majority consent of the board, as is currently the policy. We also spoke about the absurdity of amending the position of Stephen Hopkins, who had resigned beginning December 1st, to having him resign on December 30th. If that sentence doesn’t make sense to you, well, the entire thing in nonsensical. I asked about the dollar amount being moved from the Supplies category to Other Purchases, as well as what kind of things Other Purchases includes. Ms. Sai Bhargavi Akiri and I both mentioned a missing dollar amount for Solutions Architecture, and Ms. Akiri noted that the board had in front of them a revised agenda. She also commented on board goals being set by the outgoing board and said she would have liked to have input as an incoming board member. Mrs. Penna spoke to those concerns and stated that incoming members would have an opportunity to share their suggestions for action plans on how to achieve each of the goals.
An answer was given later in the meeting as to not needing a dollar amount provided on the agenda.
During board discussion on agenda items, of note was Mr. Hyman bringing up the amount available for ice time for the hockey team ($18,000), and that this leaves a shortfall that parents and/or the team needs to fill in. We feel your pain. Even with the increase in athletic fees, the majority of teams (maybe even all) are faced with the need to fundraise in order to cover the difference between money available and money needed. As more and more often the community is being asked to help, it is my opinion that fundraising fatigue is setting in and that the district still needs to reevaluate money being spent at the administrative level.
Public comment at the end of the meeting addressed correspondence, the transportation survey, courtesy busing, and a request for a summary of current litigation as well as questions about the costs of defending Dr. Varley’s nepotism case, which was settled and in which her sworn affidavit contradicts her earlier statements to the public. The board attorney gave a statement that the superintendent (and board members) is indemnified, meaning any legal costs are to be covered for actions taken in an official capacity. More irony here, as the board majority used the attorney in an ethics complaint against a fellow member. This created a situation where the board is now responsible for paying an outside attorney to defend the member in court, as well as creating a conflict of interest, as the attorney is supposed to represent the entire board, not select members. While I don’t have a complete answer to the question on the entirety of current legal action, I can say that I am aware of a minimum of six cases, several of which have been consolidated. While the information is extremely difficult to find, legal actions are public should anyone have the time and patience to try and find them all.
