More Conflicts of Interest, More Hypocrisy and More Cash for Giacobbe

Sep 25, 20232 Comments

At the last BOE meeting during New Business, Dr. Foregger began to make a motion, saying, “I move to continue indemnification of Sai Akiri for her legal expenses…”, at which point both Angela Penna and
BOE attorney Frances Febres erupt in a frenzy of effort to keep Dr. Foregger from continuing to speak.

Frances tells him, “Dr. Foregger, you are discussing a closed-session item”. He replies, “No, I’m not. I’m bringing up something for the Board to consider, and I have the floor, Frances”. This next bit of speech by the attorney is rather ironic. “I’m just warning you, Dr. Foregger, that… be very mindful as to what you’re going to discuss in public session as it concerns closed-session items. I’m warning you, is all, and now your actions are your own.” It’s a real shame that the board attorney did not issue a similar warning as the BOE Majority, in May of 2022, voted quite publicly to have the attorney draft ethics charges against Ms. Akiri. The law firm’s sage advice was also missing at a subsequent meeting when the Board voted to have Pamela Stanley file an ethics complaint. Those two actions led to at least three ethics charges against the Board and Pamela Stanley. (It is worth noting, yet again, that the vast majority of charges against the Board Majority and Ms. Stanley were forwarded to the court, while those against Ms. Akiri were greatly reduced and found to have no merit.)

Indemnification is to compensate for damage or loss sustained. It appears, from Dr. Foregger’s statement, that the Board and/or the attorney has suggested that Ms. Akiri’s legal bills in defending herself against ethics charges brought by the Board not be paid. This is an ENORMOUS problem. First, the attorneys are supposed to represent the Board in its entirety, not five members, or two, or any number other than eight. In fact, the issue of having the Board attorneys represent of only a portion of the Board arose during that fateful May meeting, and it was said that Ms. Akiri could seek outside counsel. That is problem number one: the attorney has created a conflict of interest. This issue of partial representation and the ability of a BOE to file charges, as a whole, is currently being heard by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (on the taxpayer’s dime, of course).

Next is the issue of payment. Not only is the attorney representing select members, we have been paying their legal bills for the past 16 months for those same members. It is rather shocking to hear that they would even begin to consider denying Ms. Akiri indemnification of legal fees. This potentially opens the door to yet another lawsuit against the district. The law firm representing the BOE has charged our district an untold amount of money in both assisting with the original charges and later in representing the Board Majority, and Ms. Stanley, in defending against their own ethics charges. Those cases will likely still be ongoing when two current members, Robert Cianciulli and Joy Young, are no longer serving on the board. Will they also be denied? Something tells me the answer is ‘no’.

We can’t know whether this is merely mean-spirited spitefulness, whether it is the BOE law firm’s attempt to generate ever more business for themselves, or whether this is an effort to persuade Ms. Akiri to drop her campaign for BOE. This may be exactly what the Board is hoping, for if Ms. Akiri were to file a lawsuit to recover legal fees, it would make her ineligible to run. Whatever the reason, this is an unacceptable move. This BOE Majority needs to stop the madness. They should also start looking for a new law firm.