You can tell when election season in Berkeley Heights is approaching, residents come out and make their presence known by their attendance and participation at public council and Board meetings.

Participation in local government, like voting, is a privilege we all have, and it contributes to a healthy, transparent, and effective democracy.

I have seen a pattern and can report that Election Season has officially begun in Berkeley Heights!

In the words of a former Superintendent I once knew, “Buckle Up!” 

Below is a recap of the public comments and discussion from the 5/20/24 Board meeting.

One resident and former councilwoman pleaded with the Board to figure out how to respectfully work together.  She stated that every elected representative is lucky to be in their position to help make this District an amazing place for our students. She also called out that within the first 3+ hours of the meeting, not a single member had mentioned student achievement, how to improve their education, and how to improve our proficiencies – this, she stated, should be their focus as their job is policy making, not bickering. A critical point she made was that they allowed Zoom participation for executive sessions when she was on the council.

As previously reported, multiple meetings were announced for the Board as they kick off a superintendent search. Due to the late notice and summer travel plans, several Board members expressed concern with availability.  

Two residents who followed both discussed a vote from the last meeting regarding HIB (Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying). There were multiple HIB cases that the Board did not vote to approve. While both members of the public stated they did not “know the details,” they both asserted the cases were (as they have historically been) regarding race and gender relations and were appalled the District would strip the victims of their ability to be validated.

I, like any private resident, am NOT privy to any information regarding HIB and cannot fully comment on this matter or the remarks made by two private residents in connection with these cases. HIB cases are kept highly confidential to protect student and staff privacy. Outside of a few Administrators and the Board, the general public is not apprised of any information contained within these reports, including who is involved in a case. 

Another commenter reviewed Robert’s Rules of Order and stated that members can only speak or make motions if the President recognizes them and that all members should follow this as it makes for more smoothly run meetings. This member also gave BHCW a shout-out – I think it was the first ever in a public meeting (Woot! Woot)!! The speaker asserted that the name of the group had been changed and cited it as likely due to the bussing debacle.

BHCW reported the reason for the name change. What is also confusing is the contributors have publicly stated that we all shared very different opinions on transportation outside of how the Board voted. However, many contributors to Facebook forums have theorized that contributors of BHCW control the votes on the Board of Education. While I often share my opinions on public matters with my elected representatives, I do not, at this time, have the power or control of votes, nor have I mastered the art of mind control. 

This same commenter raised BHCW site content as a measure to “set the record straight” regarding the many articles surrounding the District’s bussing and transportation and how the site had undue influence in the Board’s transportation vote. She also stated her opinion that the site is notorious for being negative towards Administrators and the District in general.

Exposing the truth and publishing facts, whether they are positive or negative, are beholden to those interpreting those facts. Shining a light on the areas those in power of local and state governing bodies don’t want the public to see is not a promotion of negativity, it’s the truth. We are not a group of community members that are against the District, we believe in democracy and transparency – sometimes it isn’t pretty.

Mrs. Bradford reported that they are working to rectify the negativity. However, no one from the District (or anywhere else) has reached out with evidence of anything negative or plans to combat the negativity.

The next resident requested the District provide a presentation and guidance on the college application and acceptance process. Concerns were raised about what is happening within the guidance department and with the practices currently going on.

Another member recommended that the Board limit the amount of time Board members are allowed to talk since residents have a time allowance.

One speaker tried to come up a second time but was denied.

A fellow member of the public appears to have acted as a proxy for the stakeholder who was blocked from getting another opportunity to speak. The question was in regard to the current amount of students signed up for subscription bussing.

This is interesting because at the last meeting, residents were allowed to come up multiple times, interject during Board discussion, and reiterate questions when the topic was transportation. Interestingly, The Board President has made an about-face and is now prohibiting this practice. Policy 0167 does not designate how many times a member of the public can get up to speak, but it does outline that a member is limited to 3 minutes time.

Mr. Nixon did not want to share early subscription numbers in an effort to give false hope or alarm families, but ultimately reported that the last time he reviewed current subscriptions, 188 students signed up. Ms. Akiri immediately interjected that the most updated number was 201.

Read All Articles on BOE Agendas and Meetings

Reach Out to the Berkeley Heights Board of Education

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free