With elections over, and a new Board of Education to be sworn in at the beginning of the year, we should take a look at what happened last year at this time.  It would be nice to think we could avoid some of the same mistakes, but based on the November 14th meeting it appears we’re in for another rough start.

After the election of 2023, on November 16th, the Berkeley Heights BOE brought forth changes to our policy regarding appointments of committee members.  This policy is number 0155, and it was the subject of disagreement last year when it was amended.  The policy was brought up again this year.  Prior to November 2023, the policy read (in part) as follows:

The last part of that sentence was struck, so that the policy ended with “appointed by the President” – meaning consent of the majority would no longer be required.  There was a lop-sided discussion in November 2023 about making this policy change, with Dipti Khanna expressing concern, while Robert Cianciulli, Pamela Stanley, and Angela Penna argued for the change.

Robert Cianciulli began by stating that the policy came from Strauss-Esmay and that “we were out of alignment” on that.  He then stated, “…and I wouldn’t necessarily change it just because of that, but then it occurred to me that we’re an eight-member board.”  He went on to argue that “if it’s 4-4 we [would] just have no committees that year”.

So dramatic.

As of that 2023 meeting, Angela Penna had enjoyed a clear majority who nearly always voted with her recommendations in either a unanimous vote, or (in the case of disagreement) a 6-2 vote.  Robert Cianciulli was very clearly looking toward the incoming elected members when he made reference to a “4-4 board”, and he was very obviously troubled at the idea of the board losing their majority status. Implementing changes to 0155, and giving the Board President sole authority to appoint committee members, was only done once the majority saw the results of the election, and this was an underhanded way to limit incoming members’ ability to participate.

Ms. Khanna rightly argued that a “board is meant to be a consensus-driven body, and I can’t understand why we are trying to fix something that isn’t broken”.  She said she didn’t understand “the reason why we would put something in policy that would essentially have ONE person have a final say on the committee structure”.  She noted that the policy wasn’t mandated.

Angela Penna then chimed in to present the argument that the time period between when new board members start and committees meet is short, so the committees need to be formed very quickly.  She implies, as Mr. Cianciulli did, that allowing new board members a say would be too problematic.  In a last attempt to justify this policy change, Mr. Cianciulli mentions that “Gwen” our New Jersey School Board Association representative, said we didn’t have to allow board members to vote on committee assignments.  This is rather unbelievable, that someone from NJSBA would tell a board member that they don’t have to follow their own policy; or at least it should be unbelievable.  Sadly, we see that rules don’t really matter all that much depending on who is doing the implementation.

This year, at the November 14th meeting, a belated attempt was made to revert 0155 to its previous version.  This effort was ultimately unsuccessful.

It’s unfortunate that it was.

As was pointed out in the meeting, Gale Bradford, put in place by Union County Superintendent Daryl Palmieri, placed herself and her allies on every key committee this past year.  Ms. Khanna’s concern that 0155 gave too much authority to a single person was quite valid.  Given that this policy is still in place, it will be interesting to see how choosing the new board president plays out in January, and whether Mrs. Bradford and her supporters end up being sorry they refused to go back to a more equitable, consensus-driven board.

Board members, it appears, will again find themselves frequently being split 4-4.  Because of this, we may very well be in the exact spot we found ourselves in last year when it came time to choose a president.  Should the choice again end up with the Union County Superintendent, let’s take a look at the candidates for the position.  Mrs. Bradford could be chosen to preside again this year.   This is a genuine possibility, but perhaps Mr. Palmieri will make a fair decision based on the idea that, as most school kids understand, we take turns.

Ms. Khanna was put forth as a candidate for president last year.  Her moderate stances and ability to compromise makes her a great choice.  Many residents sent letters to Mr. Palmieri last year in support of giving her the position, so this is also a genuine possibility.  Dr. Foregger has the experience necessary, as does Ms. Akiri.  Ms. Joly has gained experience and also brings a willingness to consider all opinions.  Ms. Terrero lacks board experience as of now.  Mrs. Stanley should not be given the opportunity, as her poor decision-making has cost the district tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees that should have been paid from her own pocket.  The same applies to Mr. Hyman, though he is ineligible anyway as the Mountainside representative for GL only.

Should Ms. Khanna (or anyone that is not Cianciulli/Penna/Bradford approved) become our next board president, I expect that they will appoint committee members in a more unbiased manner, but there is a rather large part of me that would love to see ‘the other side’ get a taste of their own medicine and have to live by the rules and policies they created.

Related Article:

Designed To Fail: Last Year’s BOE Majority Created Conditions For Chaos

NJ21st does not profit from its content, does not accept money for campaign or business advertisements and is not run by a corporation. We welcome content from ALL residents, regardless of political affiliation to contribute content as long as they work or reside in the 21st District and abide by our terms.

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free