-John Migueis

Over the past three years, we have consistently provided a full accounting behind the issues that led to the most recent findings by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). Specifically, regarding the most recent finding, numerous community members—including contributors, family members, and even a former Board of Education (BOE) member—advised the Board Majority at the time that using District funds to support an ethics case was itself an ethics violation.

This was raised before any formal complaint had even been filed against the former BOE majority.

Despite these warnings, the former BOE Majority was given ample opportunity to reconsider their course of action, but chose not to. When community members sought clarification, their questions were met with evasive responses, such as “no comment” or “we cannot discuss active ethics cases.”

Yet, this same Board Majority had no hesitation in making a public decision—broadcast on video and all over headlines—for the world to see.

They filed a 92-page ethics complaint against Sai Akiri, a complaint that was largely dismissed and eventually withdrawn, with no clear explanation to the public for why they chose to proceed in using District dollars to fund their case.

Over the years, we repeatedly offered the Board an opportunity to respond to our coverage and provide their side of the story, inviting them to use our platform to share their perspective. Not once did any member of the former BOE Majority engage with our inquiries or submit a formal response to any of our articles. Instead of engaging with the community or considering feedback, the former BOE Majority doubled down, pushing through a second motion they believed would circumvent their ethical responsibilities.

When pressed on this, they refused to comment. The only public statements they made involved claims that Ms. Akiri had violated ethics, without presenting any coherent argument or evidence to back up these allegations publicly.

They had two years—two years—to respond, to reconsider, and to correct their course. They did neither.

While such tactics might work in the world of local politics, they do not hold up in the real world, where democratic principles and the rule of law should prevail over power, popularity and privilege.

The article Shauna published yesterday is the latest in a long series of articles that have covered our District’s challenges.

It includes a link to the full OAL decision, which lays out the arguments from the former BOE Majority’s attorney. Each of these arguments ultimately failed to stand up to scrutiny.

This is now the SECOND BODY to AFFIRM the allegations that the former BOE Majority acted UNETHICALLY in their use of public funds to pursue Ms. Akiri.

It is the Second Time an objective body has affirmed Ms. Akiri’s right to speak and share her opinions as a BOE Member.

THAT IS A FACT.

Now compare this to the explanation the former BOE Majority provided to the public in coming to their decision.

I want to take a moment to commend Shauna and other community members for their tireless work and dedication in holding our District accountable.

Their efforts ensure that the community remains informed and that our public institutions and their dollars remain focused on our students.

In order to move the District forward -united- Ms. Akiri and the Berkeley Heights Community should receive an apology from those involved who currently serve on the Board.

Here is the link to the FULL DECISION again.

Here is the Link to Shauna’s Article on the Most Recent Decision

Read Other Articles on BHPSNJ Ethics Issues

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free