Last night’s BOE meeting made it abundantly clear that the board remains deeply divided into two factions: one that seeks to advance change through evidence-based reasoning and thoughtful debate, and another that seems more intent on politicizing every. single. issue.

The evening featured the Business Administrator’s perplexing defense of sending documents—already publicly released—for yet another attorney review to determine if they could be shared. Except for cases involving student information or certain sensitive employee records, this approach is entirely unnecessary. The role of the Business Administrator inherently requires competence in handling OPRA requests; this process shouldn’t be so convoluted, costly, or controversial. The Business Administrator is not obligated to send every OPRA request for legal review. The position assumes a baseline expertise that should make such reviews the exception, not the rule.

Ms. Joly’s comments further highlighted this inefficiency, revealing that the Business Administrator even submitted an OPRA request for an email Ms. Bradford had already sent to a news outlet for attorney review. Why would a legal review be necessary for information that was already publicly shared with a news outlet?

Fortunately, Mrs. Khanna requested that the new Superintendent, Dr. Feltre, evaluate the process to identify opportunities for cost reduction and improved efficiency.

Equally concerning was the Business Administrator’s dismissal of legitimate concerns about OPRA as mere “accusations.” This rhetoric seeks to conflate valid accountability efforts with baseless criticism, ignoring years of well-documented issues, including last-minute agenda changes and inconsistent OPRA policies.

The other interesting highlight was when the Business Administrator yelled at Ms. Akiri about “accusations” insisting that the District never published responses to OPRA requests.

Here is a screenshot of what the Business Administrator claims never happened:

Here is the link to the page that they took off the site.  If it is not there by the time you click on the link, it’s probably because it “disappeared” like so many meeting minutes and videos over the past three years.

For clarity, here’s the evidence supporting the critical role OPRA has played in informing the public about our District:

• OPRA requests were instrumental in exposing the incompetence and disinformation surrounding the district’s reconfiguration plans. These requests revealed discrepancies in claims about consultations with law enforcement and exposed bidding violations.

• OPRA revealed that Ms. Stanley denied the existence of a proficiency report that was later confirmed. This report was key to understanding the district’s white-wash of proficiency declines.

• OPRA was a critical tool in pushing the BOE majority to re-evaluate a transportation policy that saw some families paying $1,000 a year with 11th-hour cuts while others received the service free of charge with absolutely no criteria.

• For two years, OPRA was the only way the public could access the district’s unredacted budget. Shockingly, in one instance, even some BOE members were denied access to the full budget by the prior administration and board majority.

• The attorneys that the Business Administrator historically relies on have been implicated in multiple OPRA-related lawsuits that resulted in settlements against the district. This pattern suggests that legal advice in this context is less about protecting the district and more about obstructing access to public information, creating delays and discouraging requests.

This pattern spans just the past three years. Let’s now examine the claim of 125 OPRA requests this year:

• A significant portion of NJ21st’s OPRA requests involved obtaining information requested by other community members and former BOE Members. The latter largely affiliated and allied with Stanley, Terrero and Bradford. We got a ton of helpful information and insight on critical issues that we shared with the public last year by simply asking for information other community members asked for.

• It was particularly shocking that current BOE members themselves had to file OPRA requests because prior administrations and some current BOE members refused to share essential information. This included transportation data and even basic public correspondence. One notable instance involved a local media outlet publishing inaccurate information on bill lists based solely on statements from Gale Bradford. To access Gale’s email exchange with the outlet, Natasha had to file an OPRA request.

• Some of these request that are counted more than once involves multiple requests for the same set of documents as the Business Office appears to enjoy playing “guess the correct dead language to use in getting half the information you are asking for”

Instead of politicizing transparency, the board should direct its energy toward resolving the systemic issues that OPRA requests continue to uncover. Effective governance hinges on practical solutions, genuine collaboration, and—above all—a steadfast commitment to public accountability.

Related Articles

Read All Articles on BOE Agendas and Meetings

All the Articles Made Possible Because of OPRA Requests

Reach Out to the Berkeley Heights Board of Education

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free