In response to criticism about paying another over-the-top salary to an administrator (CTSD Pays Another Jackpot Raise to an Administrator: 40% and a letter to the editor), the Clinton Township school board has issued a statement. But the statement is not from the the board president, Jim Dincuff, or the chair of the communications committee, Maria Grant, or even from the board itself. It’s from new superintendent Dr. Drucilla Clark.
The hope was that the new superintendent would make the board more transparent. Instead, the trend of deflection and misdirection continues. The new super is covering up for the school board’s super-spending on an adminsitrator salary.
A letter from the superintendent, defending the school board?
Superintendent Clark didn’t vote on the hire of a new business administrator (BA). She’s not an elected official. Her letter “explaining” the board’s action to pay a 40% raise to hire a new BA doesn’t explain what the board members themselves have to say about the matter.
Why is the board hiding?
The board has said nothing about the matter. It discussed the matter in executive session on June 4 during interviews. Then it voted on June 11 with no discussion whatsoever in public. Slam, bam, vote to make the hire with no justification. Once again, the BOE engages in duck-and-cover spending. Let a “spokesperson” explain the board’s actions. More of the same.
Same CTSD Story: Pay administrators more, pay teachers less
When you can’t justify spending too much money, explain that everyone is doing it. That’s Dr. Clark’s story in her letter.
But Dr. Clark’s explanation of a 40% salary increase holds no water because she claims the board paid based on the market. Let’s look at the market.
According to the NJ State Report Card, median salary for teachers in NJ in the last reported year was $59,575. The Clinton Township school district (CTSD) pays its teachers 10% less than the median — $53,118. But the board just offered a salary of 8% more than the state median for a new administrator.
Why do we pay teachers less, and administrators more?
BA’s don’t teach kids. And we can’t afford to keep paying taxes to support 40% salary increases for administrators.
Dr. Clark, show us the teacher who was hired in the past year for a 40% salary increase. We’ll show you 4 schools full of teachers who are paid under the state median.
Clark’s apologia is a shameful public relations cover-up by a new administrator who has been deployed by a school board that refuses to explain its own indefensible spending decisions. To add insult to tax injury, Clark tells us the County Superintendent blessed the 40% increase. One highly-paid, un-elected official citing another to cover up an elected board’s super-spending.
Did County Superintendent Jeff Scott interview Spitzer? Has he certified that she’s worth $120,000?
Why didn’t the school board just explain itself before it voted to spend the money and make the hire? There was not one word of discussion by the board at its meeting.
Another jackpot salary raise
The school board has done it again and again — hired adminsitrators earning dramatically less in tiny school districts, giving them jackpot salary increases without explanation or justification.
Dr. Clark does not explain how BA Spitzer’s experience and skills add up to a $120,000 salary when she was making just $85,384 in Franklin.
Show us the experience and expertise
Clark does not explain how and why Spitzer qualifies to manage business for a district that has 5X the budget of Spitzer’s former employer, 4X as many schools, and over 5X more students. Clark explains that the district had a budgeted amount for the position, and that it spent every dime available.
Spitzer may be worth the money, but the board’s action is indefensible because it never explained itself before it made the hire. Once again, deflection and misdirection by a board that demonstrates disregard for the public, and poor stewardship of $30 million in tax dollars.
This isn’t about how much money we can spend, it’s about spending only what we need to. If the board was bent on spending the maximum, why didn’t it find a BA with skills and experience commensurate with the size of our district? The freeholders recently filled a top management position at half what they’d been paying before — they didn’t try to spend all the funds available.
The bottom line
In routine fashion, the board hid its decision process from the public before offering a huge salary increase without saying one word in public to justify the action.
The story is that the chair of the board’s communications committee, Maria Grant, has thrown another PR message to the public after the board — as the Prosecutor has reported — once again withheld information from the public. Grant has repeatedly engaged in duck-and-cover PR while she’s been in charge of communications — her contrived “polls” are legendary.
The bottom line is that spend-and-cover behavior by the school board continues. When the board wants to spend over the top, it does it without saying a word in public. When it gets busted, it sends out “a spokesperson” to “explain” without explaining anything.
Time to stop driving the district into the wall
If the board is to take the Prosecutor’s warnings to heart, it will start disclosing information to the public in public meetings before it takes action — and not offer half-baked second-hand rationalizations after the fact in a letter. Taxpayers, parents, and students deserve better.
Spitzer may be a wonderful BA. But the board has done her and the public a disservice by completely cloaking its decision process and then deploying a spokesperson to defend itself after the fact — without answering the questions that matter.
Rather than justify the hire by telling us what makes Spitzer worth $120,000, Clark explains that the board spent every dime in the budget on the position because it had the cash, and because the County Superintendent said it was okay.
It would have been easy enough for the board to pay Spitzer a small increase, and raise her salary after Spitzer proved herself capable of handling a district 5X bigger than her last one. Just like they do with teachers.
Don’t blame Clark, or Spitzer yet. They’re newcomers. The board has a communications committee that drives information around the district. And once again, the facts — and people — are getting run over. Communications committee chair Maria Grant seems to have no compunction about hanging two new players out on the front hood to take the impacts, while the board’s leadership continues to drive the school district into one wall after another.
If Clark wants to do this district a favor, she needs to take the wheel and demonstrate that there’s new leadership in town. The authorities have already issued one warning to the school board for running the public off the information highway.
In a detailed July 11, 2012 letter, Hunterdon County Prosecutor Anthony Kearns, III found that the Clinton Township school board violated several sections of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) on multiple occasions, failing to properly disclose its executive sessions, and producing inaccurate meeting minutes.
Since then, the school board has made several statements through its attorney, Vito Gagliardi, claiming the violations were “technical violations that have been remedied.” According to a Courier News report, this has been communicated to Prosecutor Kearns, who said, “My office was informed that the school board will use its attorney for guidance in these matters and corrective action will be implemented.”
But public records reveal the school board continued to violate the OPMA at its May 14 meeting — with Gagliardi present — and again on June 4.
The systemic nature of violations that deprive the public of information about the board’s business is further revealed in the board’s failure to “keep reasonably comprehensible minutes of all its meetings.” Inspection of available public documents has revealed that the board conducts executive sessions of one to seven hours — and keeps minutes no longer than one sentence. Failure to record details of closed session meetings suggests tampering with public information records, a violation of a different statute.
School board continues to violate the law
The school board has continued to violate the laws cited by Prosecutor Kearns:
After the board became aware a complaint had been filed with the prosecutor.
In Gagliardi’s presence in public, on May 14, without correction from Gagliardi.
After the board learned from Gagliardi that the actions were illegal.
After the board passed a resolution detailing the violations and implementing procedures to prevent further violations.
The board knew what it was doing was wrong, but kept doing it anyway, thereby subjecting all participants to personal liability.
The Cover-up: Busted again
Evidence gathered from the school board’s own website clearly shows that statements made to the press by attorney Vito Gagliardi on behalf of the school board on July 16 and 17 are inaccurate. These public relations quotes seem intended to cover up additional violations and to deflect attention from the board’s deliberate, willful, and knowing actions to withhold information from the public.
Actions of the board’s officers reveal that:
The board either doesn’t understand the law, even after voting to implement procedures to ensure it follows the OPMA, or,
The board doesn’t care about following the law, as witnessed by board president Jim Dincuff’s lackadasical behavior at meetings.
The board has inadequate legal counsel, reflected in its attorney’s failure to correct an insufficient OPMA resolution in his presence.
The board’s officers directed the repeated commission of the violations after all were advised the actions were illegal.
The Cover-up: Busted again
Gagliardi was quoted in the press saying the board put new procedures in place back in May, only days after the complaint was filed:
“We’ve had no issues with regard to the May or June meetings. I don’t think that anything like this (will be) repeated… I’m happy it’s come to a successful conclusion.” Hunterdon Democrat, July 27, 2012
This is untrue. Public records show the board committed more violations in May and in June, even in the attorney’s presence.
Gagliardi said it’s all taken care of:
“The Morristown-based attorney called the matter ‘technical violations that have been remedied,’ adding that new guidelines under which the board has been operating recently are even more transparent than what’s required under the law.’
But what the board needs to do is understand and actually follow the law.
The Hunterdon Democrat asked Gagliardi to “describe” the new procedures that would prevent further violations:
“Gagliardi said, ‘There is a form of resolution that the board secretary will read for an executive session with a very specific itemized list of the basis for going into executive session, that if that process is followed, I think quite frankly the board will be presenting even more detailed information than the statute requires in terms of the basis for going into executive session and informing the public appropriately. The process, I think is what will insure us that we will not have to confront this issue again,’ the board attorney said.” Courier News, July 17, 2012
But the “form of resolution” implemented after the May 14 “remedy” does not even disclose the information the statute requires — even though it was formulated by the board’s own attorney and its officers, Jim Dincuff, Michelle Cresti, and Anthony Del Sordi.
New violations at same meeting as new resolution
Gagliardi’s references are to the May 14, 2012 school board meeting (click here for meeting minutes), at which the board passed a lengthy resolution detailing the procedures it would follow to ensure compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act.
Attorney Gagliardi was present at that meeting and listened while board president Jim Dincuff violated the OPMA to initiate an executive session in which the board would discuss candidates for a vacant board seat:
N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 states:
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any matter described in [N.J.S.A. 10:4-12b] until the public body shall first adopt a resolution, at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted:
a. Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed; and
b. Stating as precisely as possible, the time when and the circumstances under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body can be disclosed to the public.
With Gagliardi sitting beside him, once again Dincuff broke the law. It is evident in the official recording that Gagliardi did not intervene as his clients voted to adopt Dincuff’s resolution for executive session that violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-13(b.). Dincuff did not state when the board would disclose the discussion it was about to conduct in closed session. And the attorney didn’t say a word.
Dincuff had just put a lengthy resolution on the same meeting’s agenda, to ensure the board properly disclosed information required in both parts (a.) and (b.) of the law. How could the board fail to follow that very law?
Oh, this is so technical — Do we really have to bother?
Are a bunch of town residents serving on the school board supposed to know the law and follow the tedious process of public meetings?
The Clinton Township school board’s officers are:
School board president Frank “Jim” Dincuff, a career school administrator with decades of experience as principal in the South Plainfield school district.
School board vice president Michelle Cresti, a New Jersey attorney.
State-certified school district business administrator and board secretary, Anthony Del Sordi.
All are experts of one kind or another in school board meetings and the law. They know the importance of technical requirements in the law. With three officers who should know better leading them — and with their attorney standing by — the rest of the school board members went into executive session illegally on May 14.
Everything is just fine
Here’s Gagliardi, the board’s attorney of 17 years, speaking this week on behalf of the board to the press about Prosecutor Kearns’ findings:
“Gagliardi said the school board is ‘very pleased that the prosecutor’s office saw fit not to take any further action beyond that letter.’ He added that the Board of Education implemented a new procedure at the beginning of May, which he expects will ensure that ‘technical violations are not likely to be replecated [sic].'” [Emphasis added.] Hunterdon Review, July 17, 2012
Oops.
Any other public body would have bent over backwards to show the prosecutor that it was worthy of just an initial slap on the wrist — without penalties. This board, through its attorney, repeatedly dismisses the violations as “technical,” misleads the press, the public, and the prosecutor about compliance at subsequent meetings — and keeps violating the law. All the records documenting these violations are on the board’s website.
Three weeks later: Another violation on advice of the business administrator
At the June 4 board meeting, three weeks after the resolution which attorney Gagliardi says “remedied” the board’s bad behavior, board president Dincuff wants to take the board into executive session to interview candidates for the school board business administrator position.
Listen to the audio below.
Dincuff forgets about the law he voted on May 14 to defend, and asks for a motion to go into executive session without the OPMA resolution. Board member Kevin Maloy, who also forgot, makes the motion. (Maybe Maloy figured if the lawyer didn’t say anything last time, there’s no reason to worry this time.)
Anthony Del Sordi, the board’s state-certified business administrator, has to remind the board president that Dincuff must read the required resolution before anyone can make a motion to go to executive session. Dincuff pauses and jokes:
“That’s why I’m glad Michelle showed up!”
There is laughter at the mistake. Michelle Cresti is the vice president of the board to whom Dincuff has assigned the task of reciting the required legal notifications, per N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 (a. and b.). Cresti has probably read so many laws, this one must be a slam-dunk now that she voted special measures to ensure she and the board will follow it.
But Cresti asks whether she has to read the whole thing. Del Sordi, to whom the board pays an annualized $152,000, advises her:
“You can just read the purpose for which we’re going into exec. The last paragraph. The last whereas.”
Uh, yeah. (Who’s the lawyer…?) One school board officer — Del Sordi — has just advised another — Cresti — to ignore half the law. And she does:
Cresti makes no reference to part (b.) of N.J.S.A. 10:4-13. Dincuff takes over, asks for a motion and a second, and takes the board into executive session — again illegally.
Lawyers, a career principal, a certified business administrator — if they can drag the school board into trouble they’ve already promised to avoid, then it’s time to investigate how they’re running the rest of this “Oops — did we do that?” operation. They control education and spend over $30 million each year.
More falsified minutes
Prosecutor Kearns found the board in violation of another section of the OPMA: N.J.S.A. 10:4-14, which, he explains:
“Requires in part that a public body shall keep reasonably comprehensive minutes showing the subjects considered and the action taken.”
The minutes of the June 4 meeting report statements pertaining to the OMPA that were never made. This is notable because, while the board secretary often omits from the minutes details of what was actually said in meetings, the minutes never report more than what was said. Except in instances involving the OPMA, when the minutes — as Prosecutor Kearns notes — include entire paragraphs that were never spoken at the public meeting.
Again, as the prosecutor notes, it seems the board secretary just copies and pastes boilerplate verbiage into the minutes — different meetings include “nearly identical entries.”
However, the June 4 minutes do confirm that N.J.S.A. 10:4-13(b.) was omitted from the required disclosure.
It’s time for Plan B: The board’s officers knew they were violating the law
As detailed here, evidence from the school board’s own records demonstrates the school board’s officers willfully, deliberately, and with full knowledge of the law violated the Open Public Meetings Act again and again at their May and June meetings — after voting a resolution promising they’d stop, and after their attorney tells the prosecutor they didn’t do it again.
Prosecutor Kearns should now bring actions for the imposition of penalties for violations of the Sunshine Law and other statutes against the board officers who led the entire board to join them in unauthorized actions.
Prosecutor Kearns let the school board off easily, and it’s understandable why. Armed with evidence from just three board meetings, his first objective is compliance with the OPMA — not prosecutions. He writes in his July 11 letter to the board:
“Since this matter represents the first time that we have been advised of a potential OPMA violation, our purpose at this point is simply to bring this matter to your attention so that you may properly advise your client of its obligations under the OPMA, its obligation to make truthful minutes of meetings under OPMA and other statutes, and that this Office takes such matters seriously.”
Kearns grants them the benefit of the doubt, and wants to believe the board did not “knowingly” violate the law — because, he tells them, that would constitute yet another violation.
But Kearns also puts them on notice that “this office takes such matters seriously” and that “the County Prosecutor or the Attorney General may choose to bring an action for imposition of penalties for violations of the Sunshine Law against board members who participate in the unauthorized action.”
It is now well-documented that board president Jim Dincuff, vice president Michelle Cresti, and state-certified board secretary Anthony Del Sordi all knew the law when they continued to violate it — because:
They had just adopted a resolution that acknowledged their offenses under the OPMA;
They’d been given legal advice about the OPMA by their lawyer Gagliardi; and,
They agreed with a public vote to use the legally-required disclosure notices before going into executive session.
Yet at the very meeting where they adopted the “remedy” and discussed the violations — in the presence of their attorney — the officers of the board take the board illegally into executive session.
And again at a meeting just three weeks later:
Dincuff ignores the law when he asks for a motion to go to executive session without disclosing the required information to the public,
Del Sordi advises Cresti to act in a manner that violates the law,
And Cresti — an attorney who should know better — delivers a truncated, inadequate OPMA disclosure statement.
On June 4, the school board’s officers once again led the board into executive session illegally — but with full knowledge of that law at that point. Worse, at the May 14 meeting, they did it under the nose of their attorney Vito Gagliardi — whose inaction reveals the board lacks adequate legal counsel.
The school board officers have created their own public record of willful, knowing, and deliberate violations. The prosecutor should now prosecute the board officers for violating the public’s right to know — and for flaunting the the law after they promised to obey it.
Personal liability
Holders of elected office are citizen volunteers who are assumed to be naive about the law. When they make mistakes, they are protected from liability — or no one would ever serve in public office. If government gets sued and officials are named, government’s attorneys defend them, and the government’s insurance carrier covers litigation costs and the costs of judgments against them. Except when the officials have the benefit of legal counsel that advises them an act is illegal.
If they commit the act anyway, legal principle holds that the governing body they serve on — and its insurance carrier — are no longer liable. They were advised the act was wrong but did it anyway. They become personally liable.
It is clear, based on the actions the board took with respect to the OPMA on May 14, that the board’s officers and the board members had the benefit of legal counsel and that they acted affirmatively to defend the OPMA. They knew the law. When they then violated it, they subjected themselves to personal liability. Or perhaps their laywer didn’t explain that to them. The question now is, who will turn evidence, and who will continue the public relations charade to defend Dincuff’s administration at potentially significant personal cost?
Dincuff has stated that he doesn’t need a lawyer at his board meetings. He’d rather spend the money “on the kids.” (According to an Express Times news report, “Board Attorney Vito A. Gagliardi Jr. said he attended two meetings over the past year. He comes to the meetings only when he is invited, he said.”) Perhaps it’s time for the Hunterdon County Prosecutor to come to the aid of the Clinton Township school board — and to take it over until a full investigation reveals why the board operates as if it is above the law.
Editorial calls for penalties
The Easton Express-Times has called for penalties in the matter:
Complete audio recordings, from which excerpts are provided here, are available on the Clinton Township school district website. So are minutes of public meetings. Minutes of executive sessions are kept under lock and key until you file an OPRA request. (Learn how to do it — get involved in keeping your school board honest.) ExMayor.com will continue to publish as many executive session minutes as we can get our hands on. What you do with them is up to you.
Next
Coming next: Violations of N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 and N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7. Since at least 2007 the board routinely tampered with public records by failing to adequately record its executive sessions.
Hunterdon County Prosecutor Anthony P. Kearns, III has found that the Clinton Township school board violated two sections of the Sunshine Law “on three separate occasions” in February and March of 2012. On July 11, Kearns delivered a letter detailing his findings to the board’s attorney, Vito Gagliardi.
The prosecutor found that the board improperly went into “executive” or “closed” session, withheld information from the public about topics it was discussing, and then published meeting minutes that pretend the board passed resolutions disclosing the information when no such resolutions were made or passed.
A separate, independent investigation of school board records reveals that the board of education committed the same violations in routine fashion at meeting after meeting, year after year since at least 2009, under the eyes of certified business adminstrators who then reported — in official board minutes — resolutions that were never made.
Minutes hide violations in faked resolutions
The prosector concludes that:
“The Board violated OPMA [the Open Public Meetings Act] by
(1) going into closed/executive session without stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and stating when the information discussed in the closed session can be expected to be disclosed to the public; and
(2) failing to keep reasonably comprehensible minutes of actions taken because the minutes with respect to each of these meetings say that a resolution was passed at the meeting going into closed session and that the reasons for going into closed session were set forth, when in fact they were not.”
But the prosecutor warns the board of education that his findings suggest there may be bigger problems:
“Three instances have been brought to our attention. This Office is concerned that the minutes [of public meetings] demonstrate a pattern as to how the Board regularly conducts itself.”
Tampering with public records
The prosecutor also warns the board that “there is potential exposure” of another nature:
“And if the Board knowingly included false information in the minutes, that could constitute a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7 [a charge of “Tampering with public records of information.”]
Dincuff violates public’s right to know
The violations pertain to the public’s right to know what the board is saying and doing during its meetings, and especially during “closed sessions” or “executive sessions,” when the board discusses matters outside the view of the public.
Kearns specifically cites the failure of school board president Jim Dincuff to disclose information as required by law:
“In all three meetings, the chair [Dincuff] announces that the board will be going into executive session, and makes a motion, gets a first and second, and then the motion is approved. No mention is made of the general nature of the subject to be discussed. Nor is there any mention of the time when and the circumstances under which the discussion conducted in closed session can be disclosed to the public. The failure to state these items violates N.J.S.A. 10:4-13.”
Fictitious minutes misrepresent meetings
The prosecutor says he compared official recordings of board meetings to the board’s written minutes from February 27, March 26, and March 29, 2012 — and found they did not match.
The second violation, of N.J.S.A. 10:4-14, was that the board published official meeting minutes that misrepresent what actually was said at the meeting. Anyone reading the minutes would conclude that the the law was followed when it was not. The prosecutor writes:
“It is particularly troubling that this pattern of non-disclosure at the public meetings is followed by minutes that wrongly state that the disclosures were made.”
“The drafter knew” required disclosures were not made
At the time the meetings reviewed by the prosecutor took place and the official minutes were produced, the board secretary responsible for keeping minutes was the school district’s business administrator, Anthony Del Sordi. Did Del Sordi know he was writing up minutes that “included false information?”
The prosecutor concludes Del Sordi knew:
“The language used in the minutes suggests that the drafter knew of the disclosure requirements of Section 13 [N.J.S.A. 10:4-13] and felt it was important to include them in the minutes. The problem is that these entries do not reflect what actually happened at the February 27, March 26, and March 29 meetings… These entries create the impression that all items… were discussed during the public portion of the meeting. A review of the audio recordings for each of these meetings proves that they were not.”
But Del Sordi did not act alone. Board president Dincuff failed to disclose information to the public as required by the Sunshine Law, and then he voted to officially approve minutes (written by Del Sordi) that report Dincuff disclosed the information:
“…the chair [Dincuff] announced a motion to go into executive session, and mentioned only the expected length of the meeting and that no action would be taken upon return. But at all three meetings neither the subject matter or the expected date that the topics would no longer be confidential are mentioned [as required by N.J.S.A. 10:4-13].”
“N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 requires in part that a public body shall keep reasonably comprehensible minutes showing the subjects considered and the actions taken. The minutes violate this section because they reflect that public disclosures were made… when in fact these disclosures were not made.”
School board website reveals false records: 2009, 2010, 2011
An ongoing investigation of the Clinton Township school board’s meetings conducted by ExMayor.com reveals the prosecutor’s concern is well-founded. It wasn’t just Del Sordi that “knew of the disclosure requirements” and recorded resolutions that were never made. The prior business administrator and board secretary, Patricia Leonhardt, had already been doing the same thing.
Official meeting minutes published on the school district’s website have long been harboring fabricated records of what was said and done by the board about its executive sessions. Official recordings of board meetings conducted in 2009, 2010, and 2011 — throughout the term of board president Jim Dincuff — reveal that coresponding meeting minutes produced by board secretaries Patricia Leonhardt and Anthony Del Sordi are false.
Throughout those years, the board repeatedly withheld information from the public that it was legally required to disclose about its “closed session” meetings.
Records show that in meeting after meeting, year after year, the board violated the same sections of the OPMA that the prosecutor cited in his findings for three meetings in 2012.
Official records of resolutions that were never made
Then listen to the actual recording of that part of the meeting. Can you find the resolution that’s reported “word for word” in the minutes?
2010
Read the minutes from the August 30, 2010 school board meeting, then listen to the recording of the motion to go to executive session — in which the written resolution was never made. (The errant Dincuff almost fails entirely to make even his insufficient resolution — until he is reminded):
2011
Read the minutes from the July 25, 2011 school board meeting, then listen to the recording of the motion to go to executive session. In the audio, board secretary Leonhardt adds a statement that action will not be taken upon return — but omits the required resolution language that she will later report in the official minutes. Leonhardt was being paid over $125,000 for her expertise:
Penalties against board members possible
The prosecutor emphasizes that his office may not be done with the Clinton Township school board:
“The County Prosecutor or the Attorney General may choose to bring an action for imposition of penalties for violations of the Sunshine Law against board members who participated in the unauthorized action.”
While board president Jim Dincuff was making wild accusations against two of his own board members for “ethics violations” that he was never able to prove, it turns out the county prosecutor was investigating Dincuff and the rest of his board.
On May 1, ExMayor.com filed the complaint that resulted in the prosecutor’s findings of violations. Also at that time, open public meetings advocate John Paff handed the school board a draft lawsuit alleging OMPA violations. Paff threatened to file his suit if the board did not mend its ways.
What lingers in the air now is a foul smell — suggestions of further violations that have not yet been exposed.
The board routinely violated laws intended to protect the public’s right to know. The prosecutor found that the drafter of the faked minutes knew the law and broke it anyway. Has Dincuff been diverting public attention away from illegal activities in executive session, by keeping the legal focus on his “ethics” witch hunt?
This all suggests that anything might be going on in executive session — legally, or illegally.
What does the public really know when the school board president skirts around disclosure laws when he makes motions over a period of several years, and when his business administrators routinely produce fictitious minutes that pretend the law is being followed — when it’s not?
What really happened in executive session when the recent budget was rejected by citizens who attended the public hearings? And how did that “error” about the due date of the budget actually happen?
What is really going on in those executive sessions? Why did Dincuff and his administrators break the law and violate your right to know? How did they get away with it for so many years?
Why don’t you show up and ask — or demand to know?
Stay tuned. ExMayor.com isn’t done investigating the public records.
According to the Franklin Township school board website, Spitzer served as the business administrator, board secretary, and chief financial officer of the district for that salary.
Here’s the most recent Franklin Township resolution confirming her 2010-2011 salary:
Gulp. Why is she worth 40% more today?
No explanations
Board member Kevin Maloy made the motion, and the board voted to make the hire for $120,000 without any discussion in public. Interviews were conducted in private.
The board offered no public explanation or justification for the $120,000 salary and there was no discussion about why Spitzer — coming from a tiny school with a budget less than 20% of Clinton Township’s — was worth 40% more than the salary she was earning in Franklin.
To illustrate how warped the board’s priorities are, it gave a raise that’s almost as much as the starting salary for a full-time teaching position.
In this economy, you’d expect that if the board can find a new hire in the $85,000 range, it would offer a small raise and proudly pass the $30,000 in savings to taxpayers. But this school board has a long history of handing out lavish administrator salaries.
It’s always been about free money
In a recent Hunterdon Review article, Clinton Township superintendent Kevin Carroll referred to state funding delivered to Clinton Township for property tax relief as “free money” — which the board has again and again doled out as massive raises to hire new administrators from tiny schools.
When citizens busted board president Dincuff for hiding the money from the town council and the public, Dincuff and Carroll said they’d use it to reduce the tax levy. In the end, they kept it — and spent it.
In the end, Dincuff and his board gave more in one raise to one administrator than it gave in tax cuts to 14,500 residents of Clinton Township.
Paying a premium for… expertise at a tiny school?
In May 2009, under board president Jim Dincuff, the school board hired another board administrator — Patricia Leonhardt — for $125,000, a 37% salary increase. This was another windfall career move for a lucky administrator who had been earning just $91,000 at South Bound Brook:
and a budget of only $8.7 million — about a third of Clinton Township’s.
Leonhardt’s performance in Clinton Township’s 4-school, 1,800-student, $25 million school district came under severe public criticism when the board misled township officials and the public about $247,310 of tax relief funds sent to Clinton Township by Governor Christie in 2011. Through clever administrative shuffling, the tax relief was never passed on to taxpayers.
This is why Dincuff stuck taxpayers for a 37% salary increase for Leonhardt in 2009?
Paying top dollar for… mistakes?
Board president Jim Dincuff also oversaw the hiring of Anthony Del Sordi, who followed Leonhardt. Del Sordi was hired as interim business administrator in December 2011 for $75/hour, or an equivalent annual salary higher than $152,000.
How does a state-certified, $152,000 business administrator not know when the annual budget is due?
This resulted in an embarrassing rush to finalize the budget without enough time to make planned reductions to the tax levy. The result was more taxes than residents should be paying.
This is why Dincuff stuck taxpayers with a $152,000 compensation deal for Del Sordi?
Where is respect for taxpayers?
Dincuff’s board continues to broadcast over-the-top salaries for administrators in a time when the state is severely curtailing pay for top-level school administrators — and at a time when taxpayers would love to see some control over spending.
Adding insult to injury, taxpayers keep footing the bill for school hires whose performance seems seriously wanting.
Why the repeated hiring of top administrators from tiny schools with tiny budgets?
Why does Clinton Township keep giving jackpot raises to administrators who earn only a fraction at those tiny schools?
Good questions. It’s time for board president Jim Dincuff to deliver answers.
Free money: Keep paying!
For two years, Dincuff led the school board in its war against the Clinton Township teachers, refusing to negotiate a contract. Dincuff repeatedly stated the district didn’t have enough money.
But the story changed each time Dincuff hired an administrator: There’s always more than enough money to hand out enormous raises to “attract” administrators from tiny school districts who have no experience managing a $25 million operating budget, multiple schools, and 1,800 students.
Last February a majority of the board voted to eliminate taxpayers’ right to vote on school budgets. In May, with student population shrinking steadily, they increased the budget by over $1.5 million, spending the state aid that was intended by Governor Christie for property tax relief.
What happened to School Choice revenues that were supposed to reduce taxpayers’ costs? Already spent.
You’d love a 40% raise. Instead, you get to pay a 40% raise to the new school business administrator — while you and 14,500 other taxpayers in Clinton Township try to keep your heads above water. The board has again demonstrated its total lack of accountability to the taxpayer. They complain they don’t have enough money, then hand out 40% raises.
Once again, put your hand out — and make sure it’s full of cash. A 37% raise here, a 40% raise there — pretty soon we’re talking serious handouts.
When Harmen Vos ran for mayor of Clinton Township, and later for town council, Vos and his supporters attacked Clinton Township construction code official Mike Wright, accusing him of improper actions in his professional capacity.
Complaints filed with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) alleged harrassment, selective enforcement, over enforcement, misconduct, and failure to perform or issue timely inspections or certificates of occupancy.
Vos and his supporters claimed Wright’s actions reflected bad management on the part of Mayor Kevin Cimei, Administrator Marvin Joss, and the town council. The attacks included vicious letters to the editor by Vos and others.
Now it’s been revealed that the complaints were politically motivated — and unfounded. And an investigation has revealed conflict of interest in the Hunterdon County agency that oversees construction inspections.
In a May 1, 2012 report from the DCA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs, John H. Maher and Terrence Luckie found that “the allegations cannot be substantiated.”
Wright not guilty, County Construction Board of Appeals slammed
2. The DCA’s own Code Assistance Unit caused Wright to incorrectly enforce the code. When Wright requested guidance, the CAU gave Wright wrong instructions about how to handle the issuance of a permit, resulting in Wright incorrectly enforcing the code. This is one of two errors the DCA found in this case. (p. 2 of report)
3. The DCA reveals that the Hunterdon County Construction Board of Appeals (HCCBA) has been misbehaving. The DCA sternly reprimanded the HCCBA and revealed shocking details of conflict of interest, and improper use of a “written appeal decision” to harrass and intimidate Wright. (p. 4)
4. The DCA revealed Edward O’Brien, head of the Hunterdon County Construction Board of Appeals, had a conflict of interest when he asked Wright to “abate or reduce the violations that were levied against Mr. Wade’s property.” O’Brien was also Michael Wade’s architect, and when Wright filed a conflict of interest complaint against O’Brien with the county prosecutor, O’Brien in his official capacity reprimanded Wright for it in the HCCBA’s written appeal decision. (p. 4)
5. The DCA noted that as a result of the O’Brien reprimand against Wright, “the board [HCCBA] has potentially opened itself to being viewed as possibly bias [sic] towards Mr. Wright…” (p. 4)
6. The DCA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs ordered HCCBA chief O’Brien to recuse himself. Louis Mraw of the ORA “confirmed O’Brien’s comments to Wright [asking for special treatment for O’Brien’s client Wade] and instructed Mr. O’Brien to recuse himself from the HCCBA hearings or to have the venue moved to another county to be heard.” In other words, the DCA apparently took O’Brien off the Wright case because O’Brien apparently tried to use his position on the HCCBA to get favors from Wright on behalf of his (O’Brien’s) client. (p. 3)
7. The DCA further reprimanded the HCCBA.
The DCA investigators emphasized that “All other unrelated issues [Wright’s complaint to the prosecutor] should not have been entertained by the board, and especially not being addressed in their written appeal decision.” (p. 4)
9. Complaints from Alex Patullo were found to have no substance.
The DCA found that work Patullo did on “the 3 new units started without the proper Construction permits” and that “the upper units were framed out, again with no permits,” in addition to other construction code violations. A Patullo Powerwash was a contributor to Harmen Vos’s election campaign. (p. 27)
10. Complaints from Chuck Urban relating to his bank construction project revealed work done without permits. One of the complaints investigated by the DCA was about Wright’s inspections of “a newly constructed bank” at 178 Center Street, a project owned by local developer Chuck Urban. The DCA instructed Wright about how to do “a partial release” permit, but revealed that “The Partial Release sections of the application were not filled in by the applicant,” and that’s why Wright hadn’t released the permit. But Urban’s complaint triggered further revelations about other violations at the bank project. The DCA reports: “After the permits were issued, the complainant conducted additional… work without the required permits.” Not content with that, the DCA added further remonstrations: “It appears that this complainant has a problem following the procedures for obtaining building permits before starting the work.” An employee of Chuck Urban’s company was a $1,000 contributor to Harmen Vos’s election. (p. 21)
11. One error found due to Wright.
The only error by Wright that DCA found among all the complaints filed was that Wright “was unaware that he was able to released the code compliant plans…” but that the problem was “complicated by e-mails between the applicant and Mr. Wright…” It turns out that even in this one error, “The applicant did not clearly request that he only wanted the plans released and not the permit.” (p. 2)
Building inspector’s decisions upheld
While the DCA noted that fines issued by Mike Wright were always the highest permitted under the code, the DCA also pointed out that — contrary to complaints — Wright’s enforcement was not “selective.” The DCA reports that “No violations of the Uniform Construction Code could be substantiated.”
Patullo: “Harsh treatments… under shared services”
Campaigning for Harmen Vos for mayor, builder Alex Patullo wrote letters to the editor trashing Wright. In one, titled “Contractor urges residents to vote for Vos and end the ‘tyranny’ in Clinton Twp.,” Patullo wrote:
“Talk to the people of Lebanon Borough and they’ll tell you of the harsh treatments they’ve endured under a shared-services agreement at the hands of the Clinton Township building inspector, Mike Wright…
“Taxpayers collectively need to hold Mayor Cimei accountable for the malaise created by over-the-top regulations and harassment from Mr. Wright under the guise of ‘he’s just doing his job.’
“A vote for Cimei is a vote for Mike Wright and the tyranny that comes with them. Don’t make the same mistake twice. Vote Vos for mayor in Clinton Township.” Democract, May 10, 2011
A resident of Bethlehem Township, Patullo contributed $1,000 to Vos’s campaign in Clinton Township in an effort to eliminate Patullo’s problems in Lebanon. It seems Patullo expected Vos would get rid of Wright and the shared services deal with Lebanon Borough, because Patullo didn’t like be cited for violations on his problematic construction. Now the DCA has gotten rid of Patullo’s complaints.
Not only were the complaints of Vos’s supporter about Wright found to be baseless — the DCA took the opportunity to point out that the real problem was the violations on the construction project. Wright was right.
Vos destroys $130,000 shared-services deal with Lebanon
Vos’s coordinated attacks on Mike Wright had one clear outcome: The false controversies generated by Vos’s supporters cost Clinton Township its long-time shared services contract with Lebanon Borough for building inspection services. Patullo got what he wanted — but not because Vos got elected. Patullo won because the smear campaign against Wright succeeded.
Patullo dragged then-mayor of Lebanon Mark Paradis into the fray. Paradis swallowed Patullo’s and Vos’s allegations hook, line, and sinker. The Hunterdon Democrat reported that:
“Lebanon Mayor Mark Paradis, who admits helping Patullo, complained that because of Wright, ‘developers are leery to build in our community’ and that he no longer supports sharing construction services with the township.” December 8, 2011
Shortly thereafter, the shared services agreement — worth over $130,000 to Clinton Township taxpayers — was terminated by Lebanon. No comment has been issued by Lebanon Borough officials. A good relationship between the towns was destroyed by a political campaign of misinformation funded by Vos’s builder friends. The DCA has now confirmed that the allegations against Wright were bogus. But the smear campaign got Vos elected to the Clinton Township council.
Vos now complains that Clinton Township doesn’t have enough shared services deals.
Clinton Township residents pay
The costs to taxpayers don’t end there. Mike Wright also served as the township’s zoning officer, a position he held at a fraction of the cost for even a part-time professional. Although it was not a full-time role, Wright was available to handle zoning matters any time during the week. The baseless allegations against Clinton Township’s buildings inspector created an untenable political environment in the township. Responding to the resulting pressure, the Township replaced Wright as the zoning officer., This has resulted in additional costs to the township, and creates an inconvenience for citizens who now rely on the services of a part-time zoning officer.
Dirty politics
This is how dirty politics are played in Clinton Township. Baseless accusations repeated ad nauseum, covered by the press week after week without critical investigation of the facts. Clinton Township lost an important source of revenue and Vos tarnished the town’s reputation — and got elected. And taxpayers got fleeced. The accusers got off scot free.
The freeholders are on the hook
Ironically — and perhaps poetically — who is on the hook now are the Hunterdon County Freeholders. The big revelations in the DCA report are about the Hunterdon County Construction Board of Appeals.
Under the noses of the Hunterdon freeholders, the DCA report tore into HCCBA Chairman Edward O’Brien, who was removed from the Wright case due to a “clear case of conflict of interest.” While acting as a builder’s architect O’Brien contacted Mike Wright — the code official who issued violations against O’Brien’s client Michael Wade — and asked Wright “to abate or reduce the violations.” The conflict was that O’Brien was also serving in his official capacity as Chairman of the body that overseas construction appeals.
The DCA reports that this event occurred in 2008! The freeholders have never launched an investigation, and O’Brien continues to run the HCCBA.
Not bad enough? When Wright did the right thing and complained to the county prosecutor’s office, O’Brien used the HCCBA’s “written appeal decision” to “admonish him [Wright] for doing so.” The DCA further implicated the entire HCCBA, noting that such “unrelated issues should not have been entertained by the board” and determined that the matter of Wright’s contacting the prosecutor should not have been “addressed in their written appeal decision.”
It seems the freeholders have an investigation of their own to conduct, into official misconduct and abuse of power by O’Brien and the HCCBA — something that affects all constituents throughout Hunterdon County.
Dirty politics come home to roost
In mounting a dirty campaign to discredit a local official through misinformation and innuendo, Harmen Vos and his supporters triggered a DCA investigation that exposed corruption in Hunterdon County government. Complaints about Mike Wright attracted scrutiny of the DCA — and revealed the extent of code violations committed by the complainants. Meanwhile, the target of their complaints was found to be clean and his inspection decisions justified.
The Clinton Township officials and boards tasked with creating, interpreting, and enforcing land use policy deserve a county appeals board that is beyond reproach. It’s now up to the Hunterdon County freeholders to investigate corruption in their own construction board. Will they do it, or brush it under the rug?
This is Hunterdon County — where anything goes until someone dares to take the lid off of it.
The Hunterdon County Republican Committee has been out of business a long time. But influence is on sale — for private political gain — and Hunterdon County Republicans have once again been manipulated by a handful of party bosses who like to keep things this way.
According to disclosures at last night’s HCRC meeting, the HCRC is not only broke, it’s in debt to the tune of $26,000. According to the HCRC’s own website, its offices have been closed for over a year.
Say what?
Hunterdon County is the 4th wealthiest county in the United States, and although the majority of residents are unaffiliated to any party, Republicans in Hunterdon are loaded. So how can the Republican organization in the 4th wealthiest county in the U.S. be broke?
It’s easy: The party has lacked leadership for decades. HCRC chairman Henry Kuhl hasn’t been able to raise a dime. The Republican party is worse than broke. The party has no bench strength — the same old players have been running it for years. Candidates are not developed. The committee holds no meetings to discuss or debate issues — and when Kuhl throws a party, nobody goes.
The HCRC is closed and long defunct
The HCRC can’t afford any staff, much less to keep the doors open.
The HCRC hasn’t conducted a voter registration event since anyone can remember.
The HCRC hasn’t a clue which Republicans in Hunterdon County regularly donate big bucks to national campaigns — nor does the HCRC approach them for help.
While the Hunterdon Democrats had a booth at the county fair, the HCRC was nowhere to be seen.
Republican candidates in Hunterdon campaign and get elected entirely on their own. If it won’t pay off personally for Henry Kuhl, it’s not worth the chairman’s attention.
Who owns the HCRC?
How does Kuhl keep getting re-elected? It’s easy, when you own the HCRC.
According to financial disclosures, the committee is in debt to Kuhl and his family for $42,000. According to ELEC filings, the HCRC has only $15,500 in its account. Henry Kuhl holds the paper on the Republican committee.
No wonder he doesn’t worry about raising funds. Is it any wonder he runs the HCRC like it’s his private club? It is.
Kuhl gets re-elected
Last night, the HCRC re-elected Henry Kuhl as its chair after he was nominated by Tom Borkowski. No surprise — the majority of members do just one thing on the HCRC: they show up to vote for Henry every two years.
For years, Kuhl gave the “party slogan” for use on the ballot to candidates he hand-picked. Henry Kuhl privately owned the party slogan — it was not owned by the HCRC or granted by the HCRC — and Kuhl decided entirely on his own whom to give it to. No surprise: Candidates got it only if they agreed to back Kuhl as chair in the next committee election.
The HCRC is closed and broke, but Henry Kuhl sacrificed Hunterdon’s legislative seats in exchange for support to keep his chairmanship — from Warren County-based state senator Mike Doherty and the Somerset Republican leadership. Somerset and Warren County Republicans love Henry Kuhl’s leadership. He’s turned the political power of one of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. over to out-of-town political bosses right under the noses of Hunterdon Republicans.
“The HCRC is one of THE BEST peforming Republican counties in the State”
Republicans get elected in Hunterdon County because of the county’s demographics — we’ve already seen that Kuhl does nothing because the HCRC virtually doesn’t exist.
Political blather
The rest of the endorsement letter goes on to give credit to Kuhl for smaller government, lower taxes, and a bright future.
Who supported Kuhl?
Henry Kuhl won the election for chair by a vote of 99-87. Most HCRC members show up for one meeting every two years — to vote for chair. In the interim, Kuhl makes sure those members who support him get the party slogan and preferential ballot treatment in every way possible. This year, the vote was close, but Kuhl squeaked out because the leading Republican officeholders of Hunterdon County stepped up to endorse Kuhl with the above laudatory — but phony — words:
What’s the deal?
Four years ago Kuhl promised that in exchange for re-election one last time, he would not run again — he would cultivate and endorse a replacement.
Two years later, Kuhl blocked competition and broke his word — he stood for re-election unopposed and once again promised it would be his last term, after it was disclosed the HCRC was essentially broke. Last night, Kuhl got re-elected in a squeaker, thanks to the endorsements of the men who signed his letter to the committee.
The deal those men made has been leaked widely: In two years Kuhl will step aside and Republican operative Dick Torpey will succeed him. In the meantime, the Republican party in Hunterdon County will remain closed while Kuhl continues to direct the loyal to avoid raising money, holding meetings, talking about issues, or sticking their noses in party business.
In two years — assuming Kuhl isn’t lying this time — someone who has had virtually no involvement in Hunterdon County affairs will be crowned. What nobody knows is, what did it cost Republicans?
The HCRC remains closed, but open for business — It all depends on who you know, and what they’re buying.
Who needs an election?
Not Hunterdon County — this is where political business is done behind the locked doors of the “out of business” County Committee. The question is, why don’t the elected officials who endorsed Henry Kuhl not care about Republicans in Hunterdon County enough to speak truth and do what’s right for their Republican constituents?
When Republicans look at “the party line” on the ballot in November, they need to ask themselves, Who sold us out again?
At last night’s Clinton Township school board meeting, board attorney Vito Gagliardi stunned the audience when he revealed that he did not advise board president Jim Dincuff to make public allegations of ethics violations against board members Michelle Sullivan and Marc Freda. Dincuff made the false accusations on his own.
At the March 29, 2012 board meeting, Dincuff said:
“I’ve spoken with the board attorney earlier today. He has advised me to make a statement in public tonight.” Jim Dincuff, March 29 board meeting
Gagliardi said he never saw the statement that Dincuff claims the attorney told him to read aloud.
In fact, Gagliardi stated that he warned Dincuff against making specific accusations in public. It was better to discuss privately any question of ethics problems with only the board members in question. But Dincuff wanted to grandstand against the two board members that he preceived to be “against him” on the budget, so he went rogue and claimed the attorney “advised” him.
Illegal meeting
Immediately after Dincuff read his rambling, accusatory speech at the March 29 meeting, Dincuff took the board into “executive session” to discuss the matter further.
But Gagliardi made it clear that, in his discussion with Dincuff earlier that day, Gagliardi told Dincuff that a discussion about the matter in executive session was not permissible.
Gagliardi was not present at the March 29 public meeting, or at the executive session. The Open Public Meetings Act permits discussion of nine unique topics in executive session — but, according to Gagliardi, this is not one of them.
Dincuff lied when he invoked the “advice” of the board attorney — he was acting on his own and, in fact, against legal advice.
Then Dincuff violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 by illegally adjourning his public witch hunt to a secret, backroom meeting. Records reveal that Dincuff has been going into “executive session” illegally at virtually every school board meeting since he’s been president.
Board of Education: Teaching kids that bullies who stick together WIN
On March 29 Jim Dincuff misrepresented the instructions of the board attorney, and went rogue on two board members in public, with the assent and support of the rest of the board.
After Dincuff’s misrepresentations were disclosed during the first three hours of last night’s meeting, the board refused repeated public demands to issue a resolution of apology to Sullivan and Freda.
Instead, board member Kevin Maloy disingenuously chided Marc Freda with suggestions that “a full investigation” could be conducted. Freda and members of the audience challenged Maloy to produce evidence or man up and apologize. Dincuff suggested that Freda make a motion and provide a resolution — to which the audience loudly moaned its disapproval.
One member of the audience went to the mic and read a brief resolution she had written, and recommended the board use it to disavow the unfounded accusations — to no avail.
Maloy and the rest of the board demonstrated that they are the bullies they warn students not to turn into, and that when bullies stick together and pretend there’ve done nothing wrong, they win.
Former mayor Tom Borkowski spoke and suggested that the two board members who were falsely accused should just take a deep breath and forget about it all so the board could “move on.”
At the beginning of the meeting, the board gave an award to a student for designing the best anti-bullying poster.
The Hunterdon Review reports on “New allegations made against Clinton Township school board” relating to New Jersey’s “Sunshine Law.” More details of the formal complaint made to the Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s office by ExMayor.com and in a threatend lawsuit from open government advocate John Paff are available here.
According to the Review:
Legal Double-Talk 101
But the allegations are published online and include official audio recordings and meeting minutes obtained directly from the school board. The recordings reveal clearly that the board of education failed to comply with very specific requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 and N.J.S.A. 10:4-7, and that the official audio and the written minutes do not match.
The audio and the minutes reveal that, when it comes to the Sunshine Law, the school board isn’t as smart as a fifth grader.
Has school board attorney Vito Gagliardi reviewed the materials, and does he “think” the allegations “are not accurate,” or does he know they are not accurate?
Because his next quote in the Review article suggests Gagliardi has indeed reviewed the evidence that’s been made public, and has already prepared the board to follow the law retroactively:
“Just a little bit pregnant”
But Gagliardi shows mastery of a more advanced public relations tactic: He just mis-states the facts.
That’s not true.
The complaint brought to the prosecutor’s office clearly alleges that the school board may have taken official action in private, which would be a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act that requires further investigation.
But any violations of New Jersey law are serious.
The board can’t be “just a little bit pregnant,” though Gagliardi’s characterization may suggest the school administration is not really violating the law all the time, just some of the time to a lesser degree.
It’s how lawyers like to do their summations — by salting the facts to make them more palatable to the judge, and to the public.
This story is playing out like all stories about the Clinton Township school board’s bad behavior: It’s another cover-up. But the ante has been raised, and now board president Jim Dincuff has had to play his attorney.
Pity “the kids” — the board’s misbehavior is going to cost money that could have been spent in the classroom, if only the board had invested in legal counsel at its public meetings rather than pretend that school officials know how to follow the law on their own.
At meeting after school board meeting, board president Jim Dincuff and board member Kevin Maloy again and again cite attorney Vito Gagliardi‘s “advice” to justify Dincuff’s personal attacks against other board members, accusations of ethics violations, resolutions against citizens, and threats demanding the resignations of board members Dincuff doesn’t agree with.
But Gagliardi was not present at any of these meetings.
The attorney’s “advice” is communicated again and again to the board and invoked second-hand by Dincuff — who seems to be the only official permitted to talk directly with Gagliardi, whom Dincuff refers to as “Vito.”
“Believers” on the board spread these indirect invocations around like magic dust to justify any official school board actions deemed necessary to keep uncooperative members and citizens in line. Everything seems to be done “because Vito says so” in absentia.
This series of audio excerpts is from recent school board meetings, mostly Jim Dincuff and Mark Maloy rationalizing about the attorney’s “instructions”:
Vito Gagliardi never actually appeared at public meetings to advise the board about any of these matters, and was not available at these meetings to provide legal counsel to the board members that he “advised” Dincuff to accuse.
When board member Marc Freda complained that Gagliardi was not present to explain his advice — and to answer questions from the board and from the public — Freda was ignored.
Who is Gagliardi’s client?
It seems that lately the school board attorney’s only client is Dincuff, and Dincuff is Gagliardi’s sole channel of communication to the board. Either that, or Dincuff is misrepresenting Gagliardi’s advice and abusing his power as board president.
In either case, it has become clear — during some of the most contentious and legally controversial meetings of the board — that the board of education itself has no legal counsel available when members need it most.
It has also become clear that the legal “advice” Dincuff has cited in his attacks against board members is woefully inadequate or downright wrong (“Clinton Township Board of Education president confronted about allegations he made”). When board members Michelle Sullivan and Marc Freda — whom Dincuff accused of ethical violations, misconduct, and from whom he threatened to demand resignations on Gagliardi’s advice — confronted Dincuff and demanded evidence for his accuations against them, Dincuff said:
“I think in order to file an official complaint, one needs to have irrefutable evidence that either confidentiality has been breached or that there’s a clear violation of the code of ethics, and at this point in time, I don’t see that.”
So the attacks Dincuff launched on Gagliardi’s “advice” were baseless and — by Dincuff’s own admission — legally insupportable. In a prepared statement at the March 29 board meeting, Freda questioned Dincuff’s dependence on Gagliardi:
“Just because our board attorney says ‘jump’, it doesn’t mean you automatically say ‘how high’.”
Where is the attorney?
One thing is clear: The majority of the school board justifies its actions by citing second-hand, disembodied “advice” from attorney Gagliardi. The refrain has begun to sound like an excuse for official actions of the board president and the board — as if to say, “Gagliardi made us do it.” More and more, it sounds like anything goes if someone just invokes Gagliardi as the reason.
According to Dincuff and other members, Gagliardi delivered his advice about these matters privately to board president Jim Dincuff alone — even though the advice led to accusations against other board members who did not have the benefit of advice from the board’s legal counsel. Dincuff never permitted the board to talk to its own attorney through all these controversies.
The Clinton Township school board very rarely has an attorney present at its meetings. The board has again and again said it would rather spend the money “on the kids” than on necessary legal advice.
The Clinton Township council, however, has a budget less than half the school board’s. Yet the council’s attorney is present at every meeting, to ensure the meetings are compliant with the law, to advise on legal matters that arise, and to ensure the mayor and council follow the law.
The school board’s failure to have its attorney present at its meetings has now proved to be an irresponsible and disingenuous policy, because the school board has been accused of violating the law at its meetings again and again — while “citing” its attorney’s advice, in spite of the fact that he’s not present.
Worse, the absence of an attorney at meetings has led Dincuff to believe he’s free to run amuck, empowered by his back-room conversations with the board attorney — as long as he cites “Vito’s” advice when making empty accusations against board members and citizens.
The lack of an attorney at meetings doesn’t benefit the kids — but it seems to serve the personal agenda of the school board president quite well. Until now.
The Open Public Meetings Act
The attorney at town council meetings ensures that the Open Public Meetings Act is rigorously observed, to protect the public’s right to participate in meetings and to avoid violations that could jeopardize the council. For example, if the council inadvertently violates the OPMA in the process of taking a formal action, that action may be invalidated later — especially if someone sues to overturn the action.
The school board takes no such precautions to protect the public’s rights.
And now a suit has been threatened by a open government activist who has a solid record of suing and forcing towns and school boards in New Jersey to obey the law. Another action has already been filed by ExMayor.com with the Hunterdon County Proseuctor’s office alleging documented violations of the OPMA.
It seems the school board — the entire school board — needs an attorney. Rather than budget for an attorney’s guidance at its meetings, the school board will now waste taxpayer money on legal fees to defend itself from legal action for its violations of the Open Public Meetings Act — and to correct its policies and practices so they conform with New Jersey state law.
What are taxpayers paying these salaries for?
One can only wonder how a professional superintendent missed the violations of OPMA.
One can only wonder how a professional business administrator wrote up resolutions in the official minutes — resolutions whose words were never spoken in the meetings.
One can only wonder how a former career school administrator — Jim Dincuff was a school principal for decades — doesn’t know the most fundamental rules of open government yet has no trouble accusing others of ethics violations for which he admits he has no evidence.
One can only wonder how six other board members can take questionable official actions based on “legal advice” they have never heard directly or been permitted to question — while taxpayers pay legal bills so Dincuff can confer privately with the board’s attorney.
“…according to our attorney… Is that correct, Mr. Dincuff?” — Board member Kevin Maloy
On the other hand — it’s no wonder at all. It’s business as usual for Jim Dincuff’s board of education.
Why is the board hiding?
Another jackpot salary raise
It would have been easy enough for the board to pay Spitzer a small increase, and raise her salary after Spitzer proved herself capable of handling a district 5X bigger than her last one. Just like they do with teachers.
