All The Videos: Meetings connected to Berkeley Heights Reconfiguration Controversy (updated 06/11/2021)

This is a record of BOE meetings and Town Halls surrounding the BOE’s controversial decision to tie Reconfiguration and Redistricting with FDK after a secretive 9 week planning process.

On March 18th, 2021 residents asked about the plans connected to FDK and were told they would need to wait until the April 8th meeting to find out more detail (timestamp approx 2:10:27)

On April 8, 2021 the BOE presented the process and the majority of parents and residents present expressed strong objections to the lack of involvement, rushed timeline and options developed by Dr. Melissa Varley. It was during this meeting that Dr. Varley reaffirmed her decision to not involve parents because they could not be objective. Later parents and residents discovered Dr. Varley had a $5800 bonus tied to the approval of this plan. During this meeting Michael D’Aquila agreed to delaying components of this plan if parental feedback overwhelmingly opposed the plan, a commitment he failed to keep when voting to approve this plan on May 13th.

On April 14th, 2021 the BOE held the first of two Town Halls; during this meeting the overwhelming majority of residents expressed firm opposition to this plan. Also, parents and residents discovered that the Board President would speak for all BOE members. During this meeting serious questions regarding the due diligence with which Dr. Varley approached this massive overhaul of our schools began to arise. During this meeting Councilwoman Jeanne Kingsley encouraged parents and residents to “trust the administration”.

On April 20th concerned parents went to the Town Council to inquire about Dr. Varley’s collaboration with the municipality. Parents and residents also confronted Councilwoman Kingsley on her statements to “trust the administration” after making remarks in this meeting that Town Council and the BOE are separate entities.

On April 22. 2021 the second Town Hall was held. During this meeting Dr. Varley was confronted on her statements assuring the community that she consulted with Municipal Government on matters of traffic and safety. Prior to this meeting the Mayor and Chief of Police refuted this claim. The BOE would later hire an outside firm to complete the traffic study AFTER voting to approve Dr. Varely’s plan. This meeting demonstrated further opposition to Dr. Varley’s plan from parents and residents.

On April 29, 2021 Doug Reinstein, Christine Reilly, Michael D’Aquila and Angela Penna voted to approve Dr. Varely’s plan despite being driven by a flawed survey design and with nearly 50% of parents not participating. Joy Young and Robert Cianciulli voted no on the plan. Prior to the vote, the vast majority of parents and residents voiced opposition to Dr. Varley’s plan.

On May 13, 2021 the BOE informed the community that 50 teachers would be moved to different schools and classes as a result of the reconfiguration. During this meeting the BHEA president voiced a stern condemnation of Dr. Varley’s stewardship of the district; stating that in the two years since Dr. Varley assumed her role, the district became “broken”.

(Added 06/11/2021) Much has happened since the last BOE meeting and it appears the plan developed by Melissa Varley and voted through by Mr. Reinstein, Mr. D’Aquila, Ms. Penna and Ms. Reilly has taken a few hits. This meeting confirmed several facts about the plan:

-No state approval
-No Department of Education approval
-No permits-No traffic study
-Apparently a NEW plan that is different than the one they voted on April 29 based on the SAME argument parents who were pushing for option 5 were explaining to her. In other words kids from Woodruff DID NOT NEED TO MOVE, 50 teachers DID NOT need to be reassigned, changes to busing did NOT need to occur and additional costs of busing DID NOT need to be hammered onto parents AND we didn’t need to lose Ms. Gasparini.
-The Long Range Facility Plan amendment submitted to the State does not list Woodruff as a K-2 school.-The bidding process also appears to be in violation of NJ State Statute (NJAC 6A:26-4.8(a) Bids were requested before final approval of plans and specifications by the state.)
– The company hired for the bathroom construction believed the District had the necessary authorization from the State (which he attested to in his permit application) – who gave him that false information?