Superintendent’s Evaluation – BOE 1 OPMA 0

Let the Public be Damned

With something as important as the Superintendent’s Evaluation and the board of education fails to act within the intent of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, and then tries to explain it away with questionable interpretations of the law, it’s more than enough to make one wonder.

When a board of education is taking this action at a time when the governing bodies of three different towns are trying so hard to get things together so the electorate can make a decision on a very important educational matter for its children, it smacks of attempts of secrecy and concealment.

When  this all happens while, in addition to that big education decision, the three school boards are also wrestling with whether they really want to renew the contract of the superintendent, it certainly looks like a great big game.

It smacks of “let the public be damned.  They don’t need to know everything. We’re doing things our way.”

This week, the Highlands Board of Education fell far short of the high standards they have exhibited in the past by apparently holding a special meeting illegally, taking action contrary to what was advertised, and apparently trying to cover it all up with very loose interpretations of the Sunshine Law.

It’s the little, technical things that are sometimes overlooked, or hidden under the carpet that cause people to file lawsuits. Public bodies are then forced to pay out more taxpayer money to defend themselves. All because they simply did not do things correctly in the first place.

Superintendent’s Evaluation

Let’s take that special Highlands Board of Education meeting Monday, May 22, at 8 p.m.

Its purpose was advertised  for  then purpose of “the superintendent’s evaluation.” It also said,  “Action may be taken by the Board of Education at the Special Meeting.”

If the board REALLY wanted the people to know what was going on, If the board actually want people to get involved and attend meetings, is it fair to assume that, with nothing else advertised as taking place at that special meeting, the action taken would have something to do with the superintendent’s evaluation?

That isn’t the way it worked.

School Administrator Chris Mullins was quick in responding to queries about that this week. When asked about it, his response was to quote the ad posted on the borough website:

Action may be taken by the Board of Education at the Special Meeting.

He further explained, “It did not say action may be taken on the Superintendent’s evaluation at the Special Meeting.

After indicating the night of the meeting that the board would not be discussing the Superintendent’s evaluation, He subsequently confirmed that yes indeed, they did discuss the Superintendent’s evaluation at the special meeting. That was all that was advertised to take place at the meeting, making that proper action if the board did discuss the superintendent’s evaluation.

The Open Public Meetings Act

But hiring or approving a contract for an assistant, therefore, does not appear to follow the law that says they must publish the agenda as known as the time of the notice, namely they were going to take action on the assistant to the business administrator.

Or does it mean  this board really approves a contract  so important that it has to be heard at a special meeting without knowing they were even going to be talking about it 48 hours beforehand? “

Then Mr. Mullens told explained  as per the Sunshine Law, public bodies are required to provide the public with “adequate notice” of all their meetings.  Adequate notice MAY be provided at least 48 hours prior to each meeting.

The board posted in the school, filed with the municipal clerk and sent to the two newspapers. he said…

Well, that isn’t exactly right either.  The notice isn’t something that “MAY” be posted, according to the law, it’s something that “MUST” be posted.

Delivering to at least two previously designated newspapers appears to be a stretch as well.

Doesn’t the public have the right to presume that by “delivering it to two newspapers” means the newspapers have PRINT it so the public will know about it at least 48 hours before the meeting as well?  None of that happened either.

The notice of the May 22 meeting was delivered via e-mail to both the Asbury Park Press and the Two River Times  on May 17, at 12:30 p.m.. The Press printed the legal advertisement on May 22, far less that 24 hours, let alone 48 hours of the meeting. It cost taxpayers $42.92.

The meeting for the Superintendent’s Evaluation never got printed in the Two River Times. That’s because that is a weekly newspaper, with a weekly newspaper deadline. IF the law means that the public should have 48 hours NOTICE of a meeting, that means the ad, to be legal, would have had to appear in the May 11 issue of the Two River Times. It did not.

Not did it appear in the May 18-24 issue of the Two River Times. It could not have been possible considering the paper did not receive the ad and request for publication until after the May 18-24 issue was in print and in some cases already delivered. The deadline for legals in this weekly newspaper is the Friday before the publication date, in this case, May 11.  That’s a fact the board would have known about when  they named the paper for legal advertising at its reorganization meeting.

The Board

Board members present for the meeting in which the board took action on a matter they did not advertise would be occurring were Board President Rebecca Wells, Board Vice President Robyn Sanfratello, Paul Cefalo, Diane Know who exited during the executive session, Melissa Reeves and Melissa Zachok-Fierro