TapInto is at it Again….

I am truly and personally honored that so many people think I or anyone associated with BHCW have control over “the four” Board members.  But, for arguments sake – let’s roll with that rumor…” Berkeley Heights Community Watch is dictating votes” – a remark from a vocal member of Berkeley Heights Community.

CMS Prism Club

I am in full support of any club or social group that aims to support students’ social, emotional, or educational needs.  However, I do believe strongly that questions surrounding stipends for adults proctoring and/or administering these sorts of clubs is fair as it relates to the role of all of our elected officials and their fiduciary responsibility to our district.  So, had I held any special magical powers over even one Board member, they would have, according to delusional conspiracy theories, voted in favor of this club.

What’s concerning is that BOE members stated very clearly that their objections to the club had connected to the process, and Mr. Nixon himself indicated that the process outlined in the BHEA contract has not been followed.  This is money going to a staff person to help the club grow, and the BOE has an obligation to vette it, even if other BOEs simply rubber-stamped it.  However, this is missing from the pages of local corporate media and the narrative of politically connected speakers who attend BOE meetings to score points.

CMS Field Land Lease Agreement

It was quite clear that the Board, as a whole, has not had an opportunity to deliberate this issue.  The argument that “we’ve been talking about this for years” is irrelevant.  The current elected representatives who are tasked with ensuring this is the best decision for our District and greater community should absolutely have the time to have discussion and feel confident in their decision to support the lease agreement.

Mr. Hyman (at 52 minutes) commented “We have not had a substantial recent conversation” in regard to the lease agreement and agreed that if the Board was in support of moving forward that this conversation was definitely something that should happen.

During that meeting, a BOE Candidate voiced her support for the lease agreement she, herself, has not seen and continued her criticism of anyone who disagreed with her. This candidates willingness to support locking School property into the hands of the township without ever knowing the details of the agreement has the potential to be problematic in regard to basic governing principles expected from representatives of the entire community.

OPRA

The Business Administrator claimed that the “process” for OPRA’s is keeping all requests in a folder with a date.  Upon being questioned by Ms. Akiri, he responded that he does not maintain any sort of digital log for requests detailing the date received, the date remitted, and the documents provided.  The business Administrator also said that any document needing redaction is immediately sent to the attorneys (fees!!!) Because [he] “is not familiar with the laws of redaction.” (Timestamp 1:04). Ironically he was present in court and was employed by BHPS in at least one OPRA settlement whereupon the details of the OPRA process were clearly detailed and outlined.

Funding of the largely dismissed District Funded Ethics Complaint against Ms. Akiri, that TapInto selectively reports On, Without Mentioning Any of the MULTIPLE Ethics complaints Against the Politically Connected BOE Members that Fund their Publication through Campaign Ads

To address the inaccurate reporting in a recent online article by a corporate news source, the ethics complaint against Mrs. Akiri has nothing to do with “a board members close public relationships and political connections” – that is simply what a former Board member said in her public comments about the case.

Mrs. Stanley’s case, on behalf of the BH BOE, against Ms. Akiri has mostly been dismissed with only a few complaints being sent to OAL.  There are, however 3 cases (2 of which have been combined) still open and pending litigation against Mrs. Stanley and the Board, one of which was taken over by the Deputy Attorney Generals Office against Mrs. Stanley’s actions.

Fact-checking is a crucial and integral part of public news reporting – happy BHCW does the fact-checking and sorry (not sorry) that the truth is sometimes hard to take!

Two former BOE members, and proudly self admitted lawyers, both insinuated, by means of their line of questioning, the potential threat [of more] ethical violations against the entire Board or any single member if anyone voted in favor of ceasing funds for Mrs. Stanley’s ethical case against Mrs. Akiri.

So, if anyone is “controlling” the votes of Board members, perhaps it’s “the lawyers” making veiled threats that they or their group will file additional charges if the current (mostly voided) case is defunded.

This agenda item was ultimately tabled for a future meeting.

Read All Articles on BOE Agendas and Meetings

Reach Out to the Berkeley Heights Board of Education

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free