BOE Representative Natasha Joly Responds to Inaccurate TapInto Article

Sep 7, 20242 Comments

Statement from BOE Representative Natasha Joly

The recent article in TapInto regarding unpaid bills by the Berkeley Heights Board of Education has a number of inaccuracies.

In the subtext of the title, it states that, “Board of Education Faces Over $80,000 in Unpaid Bills”. Further in the article it states, “At the Board’s August 15 meeting, it was reported that several bills remain unpaid due to disagreements over their approval. The outstanding bills are as follows:”

Correction: The actual amount of disputed checks $48,521.98, not “over $80,000”. The reason for the difference is that there are three checks included in the “over $80,000” that were never disputed (never voted down):

SLEO Security Work (June 2024): Township of Berkeley Heights – $25,850.88. This was never on a bills list for the Board to approve. However, I am curious as to why the June amount is exactly the same as the May amount given that June was a shorter school month.
Graduation Security: Township of Berkeley Heights – $1,440. This check was on the August 15th agenda for the FIRST time as part of the bills list (August 15th attachments, page 130, check #210440). On August 15th, all the bills were approved. The reason this remains unpaid is because the Business Administrator cancelled the check (August 15th attachments page 151)
Attorney Fees: Cleary, Giacobbe – $5,787. This check was on the August 15th agenda for the FIRST time as part of the bills list (August 15th attachments, page 131, check #210449). On August 15th, all the bills were approved. The reason this remains unpaid is because the Business Administrator cancelled the check (August 15th attachments page 151).

The article goes on to say, “During the August 15 meeting, Board members Natasha Joly, Dipti Khanna, Dr. Thomas Foregger, and Sai Akiri voted against paying these bills, while Gale Bradford, Kelly Hufnagel, Jordan Hyman, and Pamela Stanley voted in favor. With a tied vote, the motion to approve payment did not pass.”

Correction: The disputed bills were NOT on the agenda at the August 15th meeting. However, all of the bills that were on the bills list for the August 15th meeting were approved. My individual vote was a “Yes” to all the bills.

I have confirmed that the information regarding the checks was provided to TapInto by Mrs. Bradford, the Board President. I have requested to review what was provided but as of yet, have not seen the exchange.

What I have stated above is fact. What follows is my opinion.

Some members of the Board, including myself, have been vilified and labeled simply for doing proper due diligence. One community member made a comment at a Board meeting that we should just pay something given the disputed amount is very small compared to the size of our budget. Isn’t this how public entity budgets become bloated? As individuals, if you found a questionable charge on your credit card, would you pay it?

I was moved to make a statement because the TapInto article had a number of inaccuracies and because it was the catalyst for a heated debate in the community. I hope that community members understand that I am holding true to my fiduciary responsibility to provide oversight to the budget and the District’s use of funds. I will not simply vote “Yes” to everything because it’s easier.

Please note these are my thoughts and opinions as an individual and do not represent the opinion of the Berkeley Heights Board of Education.