Collaboration or Dictatorship?

With Policy 0155 clearly stating—confirmed by the Board Attorney—that Standing Board Committees remain intact, it’s difficult to justify Mrs. Bradford’s decision to appoint six ad hoc committees at the 1/27 Board Meeting as her first order of business.

The BH Board of Education operates as a Board of Committees, where the real work happens within committees before being presented to the full Board and the public for discussion and, when applicable, a vote. There was nothing preventing Mrs. Bradford from filling open committee positions during the 1/27 meeting, allowing both new and returning members to volunteer for the committees they wished to serve on. So why didn’t this happen? And why does she appear to believe all prior committees have been dissolved?

Policy 0155: A Clear Process Ignored

Amended in December, Policy 0155 reverted to its original language, requiring a full Board vote on committee appointments. This mirrors the process followed in Mountainside, where their reorganization meeting handled committee assignments efficiently, collaboratively, and transparently—in under 10 minutes.

Critically, a committee can only be discharged with full Board consent. While appointments are annual, the actual Committees are still active and could have been reappointed seamlessly—so why the sudden shift?

The Misuse of Ad Hoc Committees

Policy 0155 explicitly defines ad hoc committees as temporary groups created to study specific, unusual, or non-recurring problems. They are task-based, meaning they must have a clear purpose and be dismissed once their task is complete.

Yet, Mrs. Bradford has created ad hoc committees for the following:

• Math Sequencing
• Infrastructure
• Referendum
• Custodian Contract Negotiations
• Budget
• Mountainside

The issue? Each of these areas already falls under an existing standing committee.

Breaking It Down

• Math Sequencing falls under the Curriculum Committee (Foregger, Joly, and Bradford). Discussions on Math 8 have already been in progress with Dr. Curtiss, and there is no indication that an emergency ad hoc committee is needed.
• Infrastructure is the domain of Facilities and Finance (Khanna, Stanley, and Bradford). This was the #2 priority for families in the 2024 budget, and addressing infrastructure concerns is neither new nor short-term.
• Referendum: While an ad hoc committee could be justified, the 1/27 BOE meeting was the first time a referendum was even mentioned. If we’re supposedly “behind,” what exactly has the Board been hiding or suddenly pulling from thin air? We must also address the nearly $4 million sitting in reserve.
• Custodian Contract Negotiations belong to the Negotiations Committee (Foregger, Akiri, and Bradford), which has been working on this since the fall. Creating an ad hoc committee for an ongoing issue makes no sense.
• Budget is not an ad hoc issue; it falls under Finance (Khanna, Stanley, and Bradford) and is already being prepared by AJ and the business office.
• Mountainside has Akiri and Bradford as appointed representatives, plus Mr. Dillon as the liaison.

What’s the Endgame?

For anyone following the Board’s work, this “ad hoc” nonsense doesn’t hold water. It raises serious questions about transparency, process, and intent.

I have formally written to Mrs. Bradford requesting clarification on:

1. The rationale behind these ad hoc committees.
2. The specific tasks, goals, and expected outcomes for each.

At the very least, the Board owes the public an explanation.

NJ21st does not profit from its content, does not accept money for campaign or business advertisements and is not run by a corporation. We welcome content from ALL residents, regardless of political affiliation as long as they work or reside in the 21st District and abide by our terms.

Read More on the BHPSNJ BOE

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free