BOE Attorney Fees

[Guest concern parent]

Here is what really matters. The actions or lack of action by the board will cost the taxpayer big money.

If they broke the law. They will cost the taxpayer big money.

And when it cost you money, You will see that they will not care.

Read the Observer and see the money that is being spent.

[Guest Guest]

Checking the law is one thing, applying it to a case is another. A reading of the McGovern decision reveals that boards of education are obligated to place confidential matters on the public agenda but may defer discussion of confidential matters to closed session. However, mere violation of the law does not necessarily void the Board's actions. The Court mentions four factors, including whether the law affords a remedy, whether the Board took an action that could be voided, whether there was a pattern of non-compliance with the law, and whether the violation appeared to be intentional (see p. 25 of the opinion). Again, I'm not saying who is right or wrong but you've made a statement, for which I would like to know the basis: which Board members have conflicts pertaining to the Ferraro matter, and on what basis? I would also like to know whether anyone brought this alleged violation to the Board's attention before they went into closed session.

This is from a March 2014 boe meeting. The miuntes of every meeting is on the Kearny schools website.

WHEREAS, the State Department of Education promulgated the New Jersey School Ethics Commission decisions, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.2, which places additional standards and restrictions upon the ability of a board member to vote on a particular issue; and

WHEREAS, the Board needs to vote on issues related to the employment of the Acting Superintendent;

WHEREAS, the Board Attorney has reviewed the State regulations and the advisory opinions of the Commission and determined board member conflicts prohibit five members of the Board from participating; and

WHEREAS, the five board member conflicts are as follows:

James Doran, Jr.’s mother is a nurse for the school district;

John Leadbeater’s sister is a secretary for the school district;

John Plaugic’s son is a teacher for the school district;

Barbara Cifelli-Sherry’s daughter is a teacher for the school district; and

Sebastian Viscuso’s wife is a teacher’s aide for the school district:

WHEREAS, the inability of the aforementioned board members to participate in the closed session discussions will result in a lack of a quorum necessary to decide pending issues; and

WHEREAS, the Board desires to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity, in accordance with the procedures established by the Commission

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of the Town of Kearny, County of Hudson, State of New Jersey, as follows:

1. That the Board therefore invokes the Doctrine of Necessity in order to allow the full body of the Board to vote on issues relating to the employment of the Acting Superintendent;

2. That this resolution shall be read at a regularly-scheduled meeting of the Board and be posted on the Board’s website for no less than 30 days;

3. That a copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to the School Ethics Commission.

On roll call, the following vote was recorded: Mr. Doran, “aye”, Mr. Esteves, “no”, Mr. Leadbeater, “no”, Mrs. Paris, “aye”, Mr. Plaugic, “no”, Mrs. Sherry, “aye”, Mr. Viscuso, “aye”, Ms. Lindenfelser, “aye”, President Mc Donald, “aye”.

There being six votes in the affirmative and three votes in the negative, the motion was carried.

Isn't it interesting that 2 of the 3 members voting NO to "invoke the doctrine of necessity" have CLEAR conflicts because they have family members employed by the boe. But I'm sure they have a very, very good reason not to do what's legally required of them.