BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ – The Board of Education passed a resolution last Thursday approving the hiring of a superintendent search firm from among three firms that presented to the board on April 10. The board voted 6 to 2 in favor of the firm McPherson and Jacobson in an amount not to exceed $18,000. Board members Jordan Hyman and Pam Stanley voted ‘no’.

Hyman had expressed doubts before the vote.  “I won't be voting in favor of this firm. -- My preference would have been to see the district go with a firm or a partner that has lots of experience with future-placing New Jersey CSAs (Chief School Administrators). And I don't believe that the firm that's been put forward tonight as experienced, in fact, per their own materials, places more Idaho superintendents than New Jersey.”

A short while after the board publicly approved the firm, Stanley requested that the board reconsider their approval of McPherson and Jacobson. It was also requested by board member Dr. Thomas Foregger. This resulted in some push-back as to why, and procedural confusion as to if this can be done, how, and what the next steps would be. Stanley said that after a discussion during a brief recess, some board members had realized that there are concerns with the approved firm, and there was thought to reconsider the previous approval.

This created quite a bit of contention and confusion. Board member Dipti Khanna expressed this most clearly. “We had a resolution, had a conversation. It was a resolution. You all voted. I'm not sure what's going on anymore. We seem to have gone back on the agenda items.”

Board member Sai Akiri had legal concerns about reconsidering an already approved resolution. “We have already voted on it. Now we're publicly challenging it, which might open us  -- up for more legal issues, because we just had a thorough process, we arrived at a conclusion, and then voted.”

Board member Natasha Joly asked, “Is there some new information that has come to light that we should be aware of? Or are we reconsidering just based on the information we have already? Is there something new that popped up?”

Pam Stanley said that some members had concerns on expense and experience of McPherson and Jacobson, and they felt that the board needed to at least vote on this again and see if the majority can come to a conclusion.

Following additional debate and discussion, the board ultimately voted to approve changes to the superintendent search, first rescinding McPherson and Jacobson’s approval in the amount not to exceed $18,500, and then adding to the superintendent search New Jersey School Boards Association, in the amount not to exceed $15,000. The revision passed 5-3, with ‘no’ votes cast by Akiri, Foregger, and Khanna.

Busing and Traffic

One of the resolutions being addressed was Resolution A, which was DISTRICT BYLAWS/POLICIES/REGULATIONS – STUDY AND FIRST READING. Within that resolution were two policies, P8600 and R8600 (collectively known as 8600), pertaining to Student Transportation (busing). This has been a hot button topic for some time, with regard to providing transportation, at no cost to those receiving it, who live on roads designated as “hazardous.” The analysis provided by hired consultants to the board recently was questioned by some board members for a lack of sufficient data to support their recommendations and the revisions being voted on.

Khanna said that in the budget committee report there “was a detailed conversation on the transportation expenses that are in the budget right now. And understanding what's driving some of them.” Khanna pointed out that the district’s dismissal times don’t work for the redesign of the bus routes.

Stanley, who is on the board’s Finance Committee, discussed policy 8600 at length. “This policy supports student’s safety with proposed traffic safety.” Stanley said that the policy is supported by the Transportation Department, the school district, and the Berkeley Heights Police Department, who looked at the recommended hazardous roads. “This policy is the financially smart use of our transportation budget while giving us the most seats available for subscription busing, which brings revenue to the district. And this policy addresses the inequitable courtesy busing that we currently have by removing homes that have safe student routes to school.” Stanley reminded the board that if the revision doesn't pass, the district will still need to use the existing regulation to guide the current policy.

Joly discussed why the policy, based on the study by the consultants, is flawed. “I cannot be in favor of this policy. -- The consulting firm was to review our transportation landscape. -- After the presentation, they had sent us a rubric. -- We don't have evidence of -- how that rubric was being used because we can't see our roads on it with a score. I think it's important to understand why a road is hazardous -- and I think it's just as important to understand why a particular road was deemed not hazardous. -- We have a list of roads without a documented rationale -- essentially the same bus routes.”

The policy itself says that the district may provide transportation to and from school. But the policy does not specifically require that the district provides busing for hazardous roads. “If we truly feel that safety is important, which it is, then the policy language should be adjusted to say ‘shall.’ The regulation states that the board will approve a list of hazardous routes in the district, requiring the courtesy busing of students and the criteria used in designating hazardous routes. Our policy does not include the criteria,” said Joly.

The policy also doesn't state that the busing for these hazardous routes is free. The law does not require free busing for hazardous routes. If there are budget constraints, the board may pull non-mandated busing. “The policy doesn't prevent it.  -- The way it's worded does not guarantee busing for these hazardous routes. -- Why wasn't there a community survey? -- Important information to have if the consultants are doing a holistic review of our transportation landscape,” Joly pointed out.

Ultimately, the “8600” policy revisions in the resolution did not pass by a 4-4 tie. Joly, Akiri, Foregger, and Khanna all voted against it.

To see the entire meeting video, visit here.

To read about the recognition of the GL hockey, fencing, and swimming teams at the start of the meeting, read here.

To read about the board approving a new calendar, see this related article.

The upcoming Berkeley Heights Board of Education budget meeting, set for Wednesday, April 24, 2024, at Governor Livingston High School. Scheduled to commence with a public opening at 6:30 p.m. in the Governor Livingston High School Cafeteria at 175 Watchung Boulevard, Berkeley Heights, the Board will delve into a variety of topics, including the budget presentation and public discussion, settlement agreement, and new business. 

Author : Doug Brogowski

Source Url : https://www.tapinto.net/towns/berkeley-heights/sections/education/articles/board-of-ed-initially-approves-superintendent-search-firm-then-reverses-decision-revised-busing-policy-sparks-debate-remains-unapproved

News Source : https://www.tapinto.net/towns/berkeley-heights/sections/education/articles/board-of-ed-initially-approves-superintendent-search-firm-then-reverses-decision-revised-busing-policy-sparks-debate-remains-unapproved