There are three points in time Berkeley Heights and Mountainside families can look at during the last meeting to understand why many in our community have very strong concerns about Ms. Penna becoming BOE President – aside from an apparent conflict of interest involving largely defunct ethics claims against another BOE Member (Ms. Akiri) and several SEC validated claims against herself.

1. This is what happens when a BOE Member asks for Data.

First, we can look at Ms. Akiri’s request for information on courtesy bussing.  Given the lost revenue, unclear criteria, and lack of hard data, this issue has created much concern in our community. Ms. Penna first started by answering questions directed to the business administrator. Then, she admonished Ms. Akiri for responding to her comments even though Ms. Penna began the discussion with comments directed to Ms. Akiri.  

Ms. Penna and the business administrator then obfuscate Ms. Akiri’s request for data as a request to delay the presentation when one has nothing to do with the other. Ms. Stanley then interjects with inaccurate information about state data, after which Dr. Foregger corrects her.  

As is typical, Ms. Penna talks about misinformation regarding this issue but does not specify what she means nor does she appear to want the information that would clarify whatever  this misinformation is to become available.

This whole back and forth for a request for simple information the public has been asking for (for over a year) resulted in an unnecessary 10-minute back and forth.

This portion of the meeting starts here. 

2. This is what Happens When a BOE Member Attempts to Gain Clarity on the Superintendent’s Resignation Date so that a New CSA Can Be Hired

Second, let’s move on to Dr Varley’s resignation letter. A simple request for a firm resignation date turns into the lawyer going so far as calling the discussion about a public statement made by the Superintendent as improper to accusations that Ms. Akiri was attempting to change the contents of Dr. Varley’s resignation letter only to discover that the BOE never received the formal resignation letter with a precise date.  We later found out that a letter did exist, and it was shown to one BOE member for the first time during the meeting.  

This Portion of the Meeting Starts here.

3. This is what Happens When a BOE Member makes a Motion to Properly Re-Adopt Policies

We can then move to policy re-adoption.  Four BOE Members intended to reverse three highly controversial policies passed last year many in our community feel were intended to blunt the ability of  four BOE Members who broke the majority this year.

 In this portion of the meeting, Ms. Stanley attempts a tactic she successfully used during the last BOE Meeting (with help from the BOE Attorney and Business Administrator) to rob a BOE member of bringing a proper motion to the BOE for a vote.  

Ms. Bradford and the BOE Attorney then argue that this must occur during policy committee – which is not true – every BOE has a right to re-adopt policies at the start of each new term.  Why else have it as an agenda item?

This should have happened during the reorganization meeting – and four BOE Members advised the Business Administrator before the re-org meeting of this issue; however, he deliberately left it out.  

 As indicated, these policies were deliberately changed last year to blunt the authority of the newly elected BOE Members. These policies speak to the ability of the BOE to influence policy- three simple policies that BOE Members and Administration disingenuously argued would shut down our schools.  

Ms. Stanley then improperly invokes “orders of the day” to further block four duly elected members from introducing and voting on a motion as she and Ms. Penna inappropriately plead with Mr. Hyman to shut down the motion after some strange unrelated discussion about a grant to “save the children”.

Ms. Stanley and the Board Attorney then argue that the agenda item Dr. Forreger is seeking to amend is not on the agenda –despite it being on the agenda. 

Mr. Hyman thankfully allowed the vote to occur as it should have, despite disagreeing with Ms. Akiri.  This was a key moment for Mr. Hyman and he came through.

Remember, the whole purpose of the Re-Adoption vote EVERY BOE has EVERY YEAR. Incredibly, the acrobatics’ spun the action to not re-adopt a policy translates into the policy being in place anyway.

Lastly, and most incredibly, the Board Attorney misinformed the Board of Education, informing them that an abstention is a “no vote,” which would have prevented the motion that Ms. Penna et al. disagreed with.  

The meeting had to stop so Ms. Akiri could educate the Attorney on a Supreme Court decision.

After the vote, one could see the Attorney feverishly and almost apologetically explaining what happened to Ms. Penna – pointing in the direction of Ms. Stanley.

This discussion took another hour, maybe, I think?

This Portion of the Meeting Starts Here

What should start becoming clear is that Ms. Penna, Ms. Bradford, Ms. Stanley, the BOE Attorney, and the Business Administrator all see the role of the BOE President as being empowered to single-handedly stop duly elected BOE Members from making motions they disagree with. 

This is precisely the reason why Ms. Penna should not be Board President.

There are many other examples in this meeting (including warrants and poorly explained reimbursement requests), but I encourage you to dive into it when you have four free hours.

Ill end with this.

Suppose Ms. Penna had been BOE President during this meeting.  In that case, the discussion on transportation would have been quashed, we would be stuck with an ambiguous resignation letter from the Superintendent that may have blocked our ability to search for a new one, and three policies that improperly hindered representatives from representing their constituents would still be in place.

Consider this with the other issues we all saw play out  in the last meeting.

Read All Articles on BOE Agendas and Meetings