Nothing occurs in a vacuum. The chaos that happened at the most recent Berkeley Heights BOE Meeting was set in place well before any BOE member stepped through the Governor Livingston cafeteria door and, as mentioned in the intro I wrote about Melissa Varley’s letter to staff, it started in the District’s Central Office. There is no longer any question as to where our new Business Administrator, Anthony Juskiewicz, stands when it comes to the operation of the District, and it’s NOT with residents nor is it even with standard practice. It is clear his allegiances are to Melissa Varley and what was – until recently – the BOE Majority.
It’s beneficial to understand a little bit about operational background and history, because what can be viewed as petty bickering over semantics and what can seem trivial, can also be crucially important. Here it’s the latter. One important thing that is standard practice to see at a reorganization meeting, after electing President and Vice President, is that the by-laws and policies that govern the Board of Education are renewed by having new and standing BOE members vote on them. In a major departure from standard procedure, Mr. Juskiewicz removed the policies from the agenda. Despite his cries of concern about having “never seen anything like this in my 26 years…” he had no problem bucking what is generally accepted practice across the state and is documented by the New Jersey School Board Association (NJSBA).
From the FAQ posted by the NJSBA, which our BOE has continually referenced over the last two years:
“Along with the swearing in of new members and the appointment of officers, there are several duties that, while not specifically required to take place at this meeting, a board generally carries out at organization. Some of these duties may include:
• Adopting its policy manual;
• Designating the official bank depository;
• Determining the official newspapers in which future meeting announcements will appear, if not already part of the policy manual;
• Appointing the board’s NJSBA delegate from among its members; and/or
• Appointing members to various committees of the board (if not a board of the whole). Page 15 of 19
• Appointing various personnel including an auditor, attorney, and school physician. “
While it is clear the policies and appointments are not REQUIRED to be approved at this time, it leads to the question of why this would be removed from the agenda when it is common practice and is the way our District has operated for decades. When BOE members brought this up, they weren’t trying to be cute or get into a debate over semantics. They were asking for the rationale behind a change that had no basis for being made. Except… in the world of Melissa Varley and those on the BOE who continually support her, it made perfect sense. With the help of former BOE member Robert Cianciulli, the policies of the Berkeley Heights BOE have been weaponized. Keeping the policies off the agenda meant there would be no chance they could be rejected now that there isn’t a clear majority who are okay with twisting policy to protect individual interests. If there were a tie vote on renewing any of the policies, those policies would not be approved and accepted. It is also a slap in the face to have Mr. Juskiewicz refer to some policies as ceremonial, while at the same time maintaining adherence to the policy about the 48-hour rule. Ms. Akiri and Ms. Joly repeatedly reached out to Melissa Varley and Mr. Juskiewicz with concerns about the agenda, with far more than 48 hours’ notice. ‘Good faith interpretations and ‘ceremonial’ policies is either a valid argument, or it is not. Mr. Juskiewicz shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose which policies need to be honored.
On the subject of giving 48 hours’ notice, it’s worth pointing out that the changes to the agenda removing the policies and by-laws from a vote happened less than 48 hours before the meeting. If Mr. Juskiewicz was truly concerned about giving enough advance notice for all board members to be prepared, that rule should also apply to him and his actions. And to reiterate what has been written elsewhere, it was NOT the intention of select board members to vote down paying staff or to vote down the Code of Ethics. This goes straight to Mr. Juskiewicz again. For all his experience, he did a terrible job of following procedure and did not seem to have a firm grasp on how to run the meeting. If one is inclined to blame members for not knowing the details of how the meeting should progress, at a minimum that same criticism needs to apply to the Business Administrator.
On to appointments – specifically attorneys. Several BOE members mentioned the difference between having a contract with a firm and appointing that firm. We have a contract with the firm of Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri and Jacobs. We also have a contract with Porzio, Bromberg and Newman, and other firms that focus on special education and bonds. The contracts for both Giacobbe and Porzio are valid and current. At the reorganization meeting last year, Giacobbe was appointed to be our main firm and Porzio the alternate. As you see above, as per NJSBA, there is nothing improper in appointing an attorney at a reorganization meeting in January. In fact, despite Mr. Juskiewicz’ claims to the contrary, it is rather standard. So why the big stink and all the argument? Mr. Giacobbe and his associates are the firm that was responsible for the debacle that was launched when the Board majority voted to have the attorney prepare an ethics complaint against a sitting Board member. They are making bank on the backs of the taxpayers. This is the firm that came on board (no pun intended) when Melissa Varley took the reins. This is the firm that has been in place as our legal fees have more than doubled in the span of a few short years. Hopefully, everyone reading this can see why this was a big deal and why it was worth some continued argument. Had Mr. Juskiewicz and the board attorney been truthful, the reason for removing the appointments from the agenda was so that this law firm could continue. It has NOTHING to do with when they can be appointed or when the term of their contract runs. They are Melissa Varley’s choice, and now that they are defending Pamela Stanley, Angela Penna and Jordan Hyman in combined legal cases, of course these sitting Board members don’t want to lose them.
This is a very long-winded way of saying we need to stay vigilant, and we need to question the narrative that is being put forth by those who are now in the position of having to actually defend their decisions and make choices that won’t be automatically approved by a complicit board majority. Have some patience with what may seem like pointless arguing due to facts being obscured by this administration. Mrs. Bradford reference the “big decisions” that need to be made this year. The biggest is arguably finding a new Superintendent. Ask yourselves if it’s important to fight for our right to be involved in these “big decisions” or whether it’s okay to let the current administration make backdoor changes that make it appear that the “others” are being unreasonable. Or perhaps, as Melissa Varley told staff today, “Buckle up”.
Related Articles:
One thought on “The Real Story on How the January Berkeley Heights BOE Meeting Fell Apart”