OAL writes scathing finding against Robert Cianciulli, Pamela Stanley, Michael D’Aquila, Angela Penna, Joy Young and Jordan Hyman

After a timeframe spanning over two years, the BOE ethics violations that occurred in May, June and September of 2022 have reached the first round of findings; a decision against the Berkeley Heights Board of Education Members in place at that time. Board Members Robert Cianciulli, Pamela Stanley, Michael D’Aquila, Angela Penna, Joy Young and Jordan Hyman, were led by former Superintendent Melissa Whitfield Varley and former Business Administrator Julie Kot, who actively encouraged division and engaged in practices that limited parent engagement in District decisions. 

The School Ethics Act recognizes that school board members must “hold the respect and confidence of the people,” and is thus designed to prevent school officials from engaging in “conduct which is in violation of their public trust, or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.”

Three separate charges of ethics violations were brought by Berkeley Heights residents after the Board’s actions. These actions were voting to have their attorneys draft an ethics complaint against a fellow board member, to have Pamela Stanley file the complaint on behalf of the Board, and to have the attorneys provide legal representation for the Board in the matter. All of the charges brought by residents were submitted to the School Ethics Commission (SEC). After their review, the SEC found probable cause with the first two complaints in their entirety and in part with the third complaint. All three were then sent to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) to be heard by a judge. As the cases progressed, they were combined into a single case, with the third portion of the combined case being litigated by the State Attorney General.

The lawyers representing the residents requested a Summary Decision; a pre-trial motion for a judge to make a decision based on evidence received from the involved parties. The OAL Judge has issued a Summary Decision, finding the above Berkeley Heights BOE Members DID violate several components of the New Jersey Code of Ethics for school boards.  

The violations were to sections N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.1(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).

The findings are as follows:

I FIND that the evidence presented supports that Stanley violated the Act when she voted in favor of the Board’s attorney to draft the charges for the ethics complaint against another Board member, and against a resolution to hire her own counsel to do so.”

I FURTHER FIND that the evidence presented supports that Respondents’ actions were not related to policy making, planning, and appraisal.” 

“I FURTHER FIND that Complainants have provided sufficient factual evidence that Respondents’ took action beyond their duties such that it compromised the Board.”

I FUTHER FIND that Complainants have provided sufficient factual evidence that Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).”  “Here, Respondents shifted all the burdens of preparing, filing and litigating the ethics complaint onto the Berkeley Heights taxpayers.  The Commission contends that Respondent Stanley used her position to benefit from free legal counsel from the Board in order to file and prosecute the ethics complaint against Akiri, a benefit not generally available to the public. By voting on matters which secured the benefit of free legal counsel, Respondent Stanley had a direct financial interest and violated the Act’s conflict of interest prohibition as well as the Code of Ethics for Board Members N.J.S.A. (c), (e) and (f). Respondent Stanley cannot hide behind the fact that the action was sanctioned by a majority vote of the Board to receive the benefit of the Board’s counsel representing her interest in the ethics complaint. The Commission has already addressed the fact that N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.1(a) only permits individual actions and prohibits any complaints on behalf of a board of education. It reiterates that when it accepted it, it was considered a personal complaint from Respondent Stanley. As an individual action, she should not have used the school resources to process and litigate it.”

At the heart of all of this is the former Board’s insistence that Ms. Akiri was, herself, violating the code of ethics because of her questions, statements and opinions that went against what the majority thought.  IMPORTANT: The Judge notes,

The Commission clearly indicated in previous decisions and reiterated its position in Sch. Ethics Comm’n Dkt. No. C67-22 that a board member “is free to, among other things, ask questions, make requests, offer a statement or opinion, make inquiries about Board issues/matters, and to raise issues regarding the business of the Board. This kind of behavior and conduct is inherent in the duties and responsibilities of a Board member and helps to ensure sound decision-making.” Complaining that a board member disagrees with the majority of the board is not related to the development of general rules and principles that guide the management of the school district.

At this point, the OAL Judge is recommending a reprimand be issued.  The matter now moves back to the SEC where they will determine whether a violation occurred and will recommend an appropriate penalty to the Commissioner of Education.

One last, and very important point.  The Board recently addressed this initial case that had been brought against Ms. Akiri, and a vote was held as to whether to withdraw it, ending the waste of taxpayer dollars and possibly helping to heal the divide on our Board.  Gale Bradford and Jordan Hyman voted “NO”.  (Sai Akiri and Pamela Stanley abstained.)

The timing of this decision could not possibly be any worse, coming just two days after the Board of Education elections, and this is not the first example of “unfortunate” timing. Sadly, many people in Berkeley Heights have been swayed by the loud voices on large forums and local news outlets who continue to disparage a small group of concerned neighbors.  With these practices, information that could have been critical in informing election decisions has not been made available.  Despite our successes in moving the district toward more transparency, removing a toxic Superintendent and inept attorneys, and bringing academics back to the forefront of the conversation, it is still an uphill battle to remove the practice of shutting down discourse.  There are those who attempt to have us removed from volunteer positions and to poison public opinion toward us, making others fearful of taking a stand.

Will TapInto cover this decision, or will they ignore it while benefiting from the income of the special interests who back these BOE Members? 

It is my hope that with this finding we can reach an understanding that having opposing opinions doesn’t mean one group is “angry”, “clowns”, or any other derogatory insult that has been used. 

Our kids don’t succeed when you demonize those with whom you disagree. 

As you can see above, you’re not always right.  

Link to Full Decision

Read Other Articles on BHPSNJ Ethics Issues

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free