Following up on the recent article, which shows emails obtained via OPRA from the Berkeley Heights Board of Education that are related to the incident involving Pamela Stanley and resident Tom Maciejewski, it is concerning that Mrs. Stanley doesn’t grasp the concept of what is ethical and what is not.  While taking the picture isn’t an ethical issue, posting it on social media – with a claim that the resident did something wrong by being near her – does pose an ethical problem.  In the email chain, Mrs. Stanley claims that she posted the picture to protect the Board.  How she arrived at that conclusion is anyone’s guess.  We see that other board members express concern over Mrs. Stanley’s post, and question how her actions could be construed as protective.  Mrs. Stanley replies by stating (wrongly) that it is inappropriate for Mr. Maciejewski to be near her in public because he has an active case against her.  The case has been taken over by the Deputy Attorney General’s office on behalf of the School Ethics Commission.  It is no longer Mr. Maciejewski’s case, but even if it were, it’s a legal case, not a restraining order. 

 

Mrs. Stanley then goes on to try and turn the tables, insisting that she is the one who has been unfairly treated.  In one sentence, she implies that Mrs. Khanna has been acting unethically.  She then writes, “… I just don’t call my lawyers to file an ethics complaint”, which is absolutely astounding given the legal case she is referencing.  The case was started by her use of “my lawyers to file an ethics complaint” against another member.  Has Mrs. Stanley forgotten that Mr. Maciejewski’s complaint against her was initiated because, in using the Board attorneys to file the case and represent her, she is receiving legal representation paid for by Berkeley Heights residents?  It is unfathomable how this makes sense to her. Mrs. Stanley then tells a board member “he will use anything he can to go after me including your email and it will cost the district money.”  If Mr. Maciejewski were to “go after” her, he would be well-justified given her actions toward him.  Perhaps it would be best for Mrs. Stanley to sit down with someone who can explain to her that what she has done – in both instances – is at the root of all this.

 

Business Administrator Anthony Juskiewicz is included in this article because of the redactions seen in the email chain.  Several residents have taken the district to court due to overly-redacted materials.  As can be seen in court documents where the resident’s complaint prevailed (the case was won; others were settled prior to judgement) the Government Council of Records determined that the method of redaction was not allowed because it was not a “visually obvious method” showing “the specific location of any redacted material in the record”.  What this means, in layman’s terms, is basically that you can’t redact so much that the document becomes unusable.  When entire sentences are redacted, that’s a big red flag. For example, in one email we see the word “Perhaps” at the beginning of the sentence, then the rest of the sentence is completely hidden.  This is usually an unacceptable practice.  In the hypothetical sentence “We met with John Doe to determine when he would be available to attend the court hearing on his assault charges”, you would expect to see [“We met with”…. ” to determine when he would be available”….]  So you can see that the board met with someone to determine availability, but he name and the nature of what the meeting was about can be hidden.  Mr. Juskiewicz has twenty-six years of experience as a business administrator.  He attended a court hearing about over-redactions.  He should know better.  Again, if someone were to challenge certain actions, and they were found to be unethical, not allowable, or otherwise wrong, the person who brought it to light isn’t where the problem lies. 

 

We have now appointed a legal firm that doesn’t appear to favor some board members over others and who – so far – appears to have a better grasp of legal matters related to schools, so this part isn’t about the attorneys themselves.  This is about the use of attorneys by the Board.  Pamela Stanley should not be asking Berkeley Heights administrators to involve legal counsel in the fallout from her personal actions.  If she is claiming that she was acting on behalf of the Board in posting Mr. Maciejewski’s picture and alleged wrongdoing to social media, then – as a board member – she is potentially quite guilty of school ethics violations.  Is this really the road she wants to go down?  It’s also worth noting that our new law firm charges more than the previous firm.  This is money well-spent as long as the Board is wise and limits use of the attorneys.  Not only should they not be involved in this personal issue, the Board would do well to revisit the issue of when the attorneys are truly necessary, and that is not during awards ceremonies, teacher appreciation events, etcetera.