How Public Records Requests Led to False Accusations of Leaked Information
I would like to address allegations made, at a recent RIH BOE meeting and on Facebook, that someone on the Board had leaked confidential information to me. In order to stop the false narrative, below is a letter I sent to the BOE this week outlining my sources of information and the publicly available nature of this information.
Here is my letter:
Good afternoon Members of the Board of Education,
At the March 13 Board of Education meeting, Cynthia Phillips of Wyckoff referenced statements I made at the February 13th Board meeting, implying that there had been a leak from the Board which should be investigated. *
A few weeks ago, the FLOW PDE Facebook page, posted a similar sentiment on their page "Confidential information privy to Board members is leaked to Kathie Schwartz who uses info to continue a false narrative and spread misinformation about new Board.” The post included a link to Cynthia Phillips and Filomena LaForgia’s podcast, Board Buzz, in which they also promote the false narrative that I knew information I should not have known.
I would like to clarify some facts.
1. Ms. Phillips statement on March 13 indicated surprise that “a community member” (referencing me) knew that the Board had only held one round of interviews with the legal firms. Firstly, the process by which a Board does its hiring is not confidential. The content of the interviews and discussion surrounding the candidates and selection process should of course be confidential, but the process itself should not be. One might even argue that it is a violation of OPMA to push the discussion of the process behind closed doors, which in fact was raised by several Board members. At the January 30 Board meeting, members of the Board sat at the table and publicly discussed a "rushed process” that lacked transparency. Several Board members raised questions regarding a second round of interviews, however between January 30 Board meeting and the February 7th Ad Hoc Committee meeting, a second round of interviews did not happen.
How did I know this? I obtained emails between board members via an OPRA request.
2. Ms. Phillips statement on March 13 misquoted me, saying I said "I notice that the contract has no limit in the upper spending”, implying that I had seen contract details that were not public. The actual statement I made at the February 13th meeting was "I noticed that the resolution for the contract does not have any upper limit on spending even though five board members voted to get new counsel due to their fiscal concerns. I find that concerning and hypocritical.”
How did I know this? I read the resolutions on the agendas which the Board voted on, the resolution to approve Fogarty & Hara had an annual cap on spending, the resolution to approve Busch Law Group did not.
The information I had came from public information. There is no “leak" to investigate with regards to me having received confidential information. That is a false narrative that needs to stop.
There IS, however, another leak you might consider investigating.
I was informed that at a Petition for an Emergent Complaint phone conference on February 6 at 1:30pm, and again at a hearing on February 7 at 2:30pm, a lawyer representing five Board members (Sullivan, Ansh, Emmolo, Bogdansky and Mariani) told the judge, on the record, that the Board would be hiring an attorney at the next Board meeting (referencing the February 13 meeting). The lawyer was immediately asked how she knew that information, and she did not respond. As the public learned at the February 13th Board meeting, the AdHoc Committee of four Board members hadn’t even met yet, and the Board of nine certainly had not taken action. Why would the attorney represent to a judge that the Board had made a decision when the committee hadn’t even met yet?
IF there is a ‘leak' to investigate, I suggest you could start there.
Regards, Kathie Schwartz Franklin Lakes
Here is a side by side comparison of the resolutions that was provided to the Board:
