Please pay attention to what the new majority on the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education is doing.
Disrespect and micromanagement will drive out our talented Superintendent. That is not good for students, strong schools, or property values. Surprising the Superintendent and fellow Board Members with walk-in motions is the reverse of transparency. Ignoring the Superintendent’s recommendations (as if they know how to run a school system) is dangerous. Hold your Board of Education members accountable to their oath of office. Tell them NOT TO DRIVE OUT our Superintendent.
-----------------------
Below I am sharing a letter that I sent to the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional Board of Education last week.
Dear Members of the RIH Board of Education,
I just finished watching the 4 hour and 45 minute live-stream archive of the January 5th meeting. Wow. Where to begin?
(1) I’ll start with the nomination for election of the President. Ms. Emmolo’s nomination describes that Ms. Sullivan demonstrates transparency, integrity, reputation, mutual respect, is a model citizen, always ethical and regarded by our community. She does not mention the School Ethics Commission Complaints filed against Ms. Sullivan. Nor does she mention that Ms. Sullivan reportedly failed to pay on two separate million dollar plus mortgages on multiple properties for many years and is embroiled in legal battles with her tenant, lenders and has filed multiple bankruptcies. (This is public information about an elected official). Nor does Ms. Emmolo mention that Ms. Sullivan blocks community members who disagree with her from her FB page, putting Ms. Sullivan’s purported support of free speech into question as well. The Board voted not to have a discussion on the merits of the candidates for Board President. I can speculate as to why you might have been afraid to have that public discussion.
(2) During the Reorganization meeting, newly sworn in member Kim Ansh walked in a motion to do a first reading on changes to Policy 0174. The proposed changes essentially allow no one except the Board President to engage legal counsel on any matter. The Board President IS NOT ALLOWED to run the schools. The Superintendent is the CEO of the district, and he needs the ability to run the district. The Board President should not be inserted into a determination of whether the district has a legal issue or needs counsel on any matters including student matters, personnel issues, or other pending litigation before the CEO has explored the issues and determined if counsel is needed. The CEO of the district must decide when counsel is needed and have the freedom to speak with such counsel on a confidential basis. To not allow the CEO to seek counsel puts our district and taxpayers at risk and in my opinion this policy violates sections c, d and i of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members:
(c) I will confine my board action to policy making, planning, and appraisal, and I will help to frame policies and plans only after the board has consulted those who will be affected by them.
(d) I will carry out my responsibility, not to administer the schools, but, together with my fellow board members, to see that they are well run.
(i) I will support and protect school personnel in proper performance of their duties.
When Board members attempted to raise questions regarding the surprise walk in motion during the ReOrg meeting, Ms. Sullivan did not allow Ms. King to speak and did not allow Mr. Fogarty (present at the time) to answer a question. When the conversation continues and Ms. Sullivan does not like the criticism she receives, she threatens to eject Ms. King because Ms. Sullivan does not like Ms. King’s (free speech) comments. When Ms. Ansh was asked by Dr. Lorenz for a rationale for the motion, Ms. Sullivan would not allow Ms. Ansh to respond and instead answered for her. Ms Sullivan ‘speculates' that it is due to a high legal bill and that she wants to be fiscally conservative. When asked if this will present a liability to the district, Ms. Sullivan says "no".
Where is the TRANSPARENCY? PLEASE TELL YOUR CONSTITUENTS WHY YOU VOTED FOR A POLICY THAT VIOLATES YOUR OATH OF OFFICE AND DOES NOT ALLOW THE SUPERINTENDENT TO DO HIS JOB.
(3) Ms. Emmolo motions to remove Board Member Ethics training from the agenda. A representative from NJSBA has been booked for the evening and has incurred time and expense to be there. The new majority of the Board votes to not do Ethics Training tonight and the NJSBA rep is sent home. No rationale is given when 5 members of the Board vote to not do Ethics Training. WHY NOT? Do you not want to know how to properly perform this important responsibility?
Where is the TRANSPARENCY? PLEASE TELL YOUR CONSTITUENTS WHY YOU VOTED AGAINST DOING ETHICS TRAINING?
(4) When the Board comes back after Executive Session, new member Doreen Mariani makes another walk-in motion to change a policy - on a single reading! This is a surprise to the administration and to many Board members at the table. This is another breach of the Code of Ethics, which as a reminder states in item c:
(c) I will confine my board action to policy making, planning, and appraisal, and I will help to frame policies and plans only after the board has consulted those who will be affected by them.
Ms. Mariani says that Board agendas must come out 5 days in advance of meetings. Dr. Dionisio says this will cause operational issues. Ms. King motions to table the motion. Ms. Sullivan shuts down Ms. King, and a majority on the Board override the concerns of the administration and vote in support of Ms. Mariani’s motion.
Where is the TRANSPARENCY? Why did you choose to use walk in motions to surprise the Superintendent, administration, and fellow Board members, in violation of the Code of Ethics? It is difficult to reconcile the many statements made along the lines of "I look forward to working with the administration” when your actions repeatedly blindside them and disregard and override their concerns.
(5) New member Tom Bogdansky walks in a motion to pause work on ESIP (Energy Savings Improvement Program) because there are 4 new Board members. Mr. DeLaite asks if we have contractual obligations and Mr. Lambe says yes. Mr. Lambe says there is no action the Board can take at this time as the district is contractually obligated. A majority of the Board overrides the concerns of the administration and votes yes on Mr. Bogdansky’s motion to pause the work anyway. A review of Robert’s Rules seems to indicate that a new Board cannot rescind a motion of a previous Board once a contractual obligation has been established. This action appears to be a violation of Robert's Rules as well as a breach of a district contract (unfortunately due to the action in point 6 below, the district has no legal counsel to ask this question to).
Where is the TRANSPARENCY? Please explain why a majority of you voted yes to a motion that violates Robert’s Rules and appears to breach an existing district contract, and then please explain why you don’t want the district to save money on energy costs? Why did you vote to pause the work, thus pausing the energy savings which will result in additional costs to the district? This does not seem to be fiscally responsible.
(6) New member Kim Ansh motions to amend agenda item 18 and to not renew the contract of long time legal counsel Fogarty and Hara. Ms. Ansh motions to only renew Fogarty for 30 days, and only to close out files and not take on any new business.
Where is the TRANSPARENCY? Where is the due diligence? The fact that 3 new members voted on this within minutes of being sworn in, shows a complete reckless disregard of duty. What information did you use to support your vote when you made this decision? Because Judy Sullivan asked you to? Do you have any information or idea how many current legal cases are in process and the costs that will be incurred to change attorneys mid case, due to your reckless actions? Did you consult the Superintendent, who you claim to look forward to working with, for his opinion of the legal counsel that supports him and the district? Did you know Judy Sullivan was told she was conflicted on voting on matters relating to Fogarty and Hara?
The Board has voted to leave our district WITHOUT LEGAL COUNSEL for the next 30 days while you “look for someone new". Stephen Fogarty is an extremely highly regarded school board attorney in the state of New Jersey. He has an impeccable reputation and has SAVED the district tremendous amounts of money with his wise counsel in the areas of personnel issues, contract negotiations, student matters. This is probably THE most short sighted and costly decision this Board could have made. Taxpayers will pay through the nose to change attorneys mid stream on current cases, and the loss of Mr. Fogarty’s deep district knowledge is a tremendous disadvantage to our new Superintendent and our district tax payers.
(7) New member Kim Ansh motions to not pay for police officers at meetings. During this section of the meeting the Board President continuously gavels Ms. King, a duly elected member of the Board. In doing this Ms. Sullivan denies all of Ms. King’s constituents their representation at the table. An embarrassing scene ensues after which the Superintendent apologizes to the student reps who are still sitting at the table and invites them to leave. I wonder how the students will describe this scene to their fellow classmates. Do you feel proud of your behavior Ms. Sullivan? Does the Board feel proud of the new President’s conduct?
(8) Ms. Emmolo makes a walk in motion to amend the calendar and meeting dates and locations. Once again, a walk in motion is made without consultation with the Administration. Ms. Emmolo states that she thinks that smaller meeting rooms would be ‘more personal’. Ms. Emmolo’s premeditated revision of the calendar and meeting rooms again seemed designed to surprise the Administration. One might argue that the amendment and the way in which it was proposed (premeditated with the intent to surprise the Administration and fellow Board members) might also violate the sections c and i of the School Board Member Code of Ethics:
(c) I will confine my board action to policy making, planning, and appraisal, and I will help to frame policies and plans only after the board has consulted those who will be affected by them.
(i) I will support and protect school personnel in proper performance of their duties.
The changes in dates and locations were proposed without consultation with administration to determine if dates or rooms are available, or if livestream facilities are available in the proposed room. When asked, the Superintendent says in order to stream effectively they will need to purchase new equipment and set up, and he will need to consult with IT. Why do we need to insert this chaos? Why do we need to spend time and money fixing something that is not broken, on the rationale that one board member thinks it will be ‘more personal’?
I don’t come to Board meetings. I watch the Livestream, sometimes live and sometimes via Archives after the meeting is over. The Livestream INCREASES TRANSPARENCY.
Where is the TRANSPARENCY? Where is the cooperation with the Administration running our schools? Where is the fiscal responsibility? The Superintendent’s time is money, his time is valuable and you are wasting it.
(9) A majority of the Board votes to table P11, a contract stipend for district administrators working on the district’s strategic plan. Once again the Board surprises the Superintendent. When asked questions, Ms. Sullivan ducks behind the “it’s a Personnel issue” excuse, creating an impression that there are issues with these Administrators and their performance that could not be discussed in public. How did five Board members have information about this Personnel issue to all vote the same way? If the Board was working together with the Superintendent, they had the opportunity to discuss this agenda item in Executive Session and ask the Superintendent to remove the motion from the agenda. Again, there appeared to be a coordinated effort amongst a majority of the Board to surprise and undermine the administration and their efforts to work on the strategic plan.
(10) A majority of the Board voted no to item P13, Treasurer of Monies. No explanation was given by any Board members for their No vote. It appears to me that certain functions previously performed by the Treasurer of Monies, who was not renewed, will not be performed by anyone since the Board did not approve the replacement and also did not renew the Treasurer. So, who will be reconciling the bank accounts and doing the functions of the Treasurer? It appears the majority has put the district at risk by dismissing the Superintendent’s recommendation. Did you even understand what you were doing? Why did no one explain their vote? Where is the TRANSPARENCY you promised your constituents?
(11) After the voting, made even more confusing by the numerous walk in motions and amendments that were made, several of the new Board members raised their hands to change their votes. My understanding is that Robert’s Rules does allow a vote to be changed if no other Board members object. However, vote changing further evidenced the chaos of the changes in motions and left the impression that perhaps members changed their votes after they saw how their cohorts voted.
(12) The day after the meeting I saw a Facebook post written by Mr. Bogdansky’s wife, Mae Yazdi Bogdansky, on the Wyckoff Moms page: “Hi Moms, as Tom’s wife and our discussion last night I know both he and Doreen were not happy or supportive of the direction the meeting went last night, especially after they campaigned on transparency and communication. They do want to make a statement to clarify some points. They do believe in the importance of consultation with board members, especially during public meetings. This post is the perfect example of one of the problems of not being transparent. Since it was their first meeting they weren’t sure of the protocols during a meeting but know this is not the way they want to move forward. Again, I’m only speaking on Tom’s behalf, as his wife….”
Mr. Bogdansky, no one was twisting your arm when you walked in a motion to pause the ESIP work. You appeared to know exactly how the protocol worked and it seems you made a premeditated decision to surprise everyone, including the Superintendent, fellow board members, and the public, with your motion. Perhaps you just regret your decision to do it? Ditto to Ms. Mariani, you also seemed at ease making a non-transparent walk in motion to surprise the administration and your fellow board members. Ignorance of protocol is no excuse for what you did at the meeting, and using someone else to make your apologies on Facebook is pathetic. You are the elected representatives, please take responsibility for your actions.
Overall I found the behavior of the new majority of this board highly concerning, reckless and in complete disregard of the School Board Code of Ethics. You made several decisions to purposefully disrespect the Superintendent and Administrators. You made several decisions that will actually cost the district unbudgeted monies.
I am extremely concerned that the actions of this Board on January 5th showed a contempt for the role and expertise of the Superintendent and seemed designed to push him out.
I can only hope that your actions will have the opposite effect, and spur the administration, staff, parents and students to come out in support of the Superintendent and administration and hold you all accountable to your oath of office.
Kathie Schwartz Franklin Lakes Former member of the Franklin Lakes Board of Education
-----------------------
Link to the meeting on the RIH BOE Livestream Archive: https://www.rih.org/board_of_ed/board_livestream_archives