Congratulations, cautions, criticisms abound at Sparta School Board meeting

SPARTA - It was an evening of sharp contrasts. A special meeting of the Sparta Township Board of Education began last Thursday night with plentiful smiles, congratulatory remarks, and a rousing round of applause when Superintendent Dr. Thomas Morton and Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Development Dr. Kathleen Monks entered the room. But after the warm words and back-patting, sparks began to fly and the evening ended with many more questions than answers regarding the practices of the current board and their relationship with the administration. More than 50 residents turned out for the first of what will surely be many special meetings and work sessions as Sparta now enters the long awaited “post referendum era”. Board President Michael Schiavoni said that the board should “savor the moment” of victory for the passing of Proposal One of the referendum which will provide $71 million for the renovation and reconstruction of Sparta High School. ”But now the real work begins,” he said. Schiavoni told the group that Sparta’s will be the largest renovation project in the history of New Jersey and he cautioned that they should be ready to accept the challenge of “planning a project that is on time and within budget.” During the public participation portion of the meeting, several residents voiced congratulations and words of thanks to all who worked so hard throughout the long referendum process. Catherine Roy said she appreciated how the board and the administration got the facts out to the public and were willing to hold so many tours and project information sessions. She commented, “Education was the key to this and education will be the benefit.” Tom Nuttle thanked everyone who supported the referendum and said that in the spirit of moving forward, “We should reach out to the “no” voters because they had some valid comments.” Nuttle suggested that a community oversight group be formed because he believes that as the work now begins, what is really necessary is “strong management and oversight control”. Nuttle also challenged the board to push forward aggressively with curriculum improvements. He said, “I want Sparta to be a top tier school again.” Aurora Reis is a long-time Sparta resident who said she has never voted “no” to a school referendum since she’s been in Sparta. Reis received a standing ovation when she said, “Someone (taxpayers) paid for my children’s education. Someone paid for my grandchildren’s education. Now it’s my turn to pay for your children’s education.” Gary Lane, who is a Sparta resident and an educator in another district, thanked fellow citizens for supporting the referendum, but offered words of caution as well. Referring to the many fights and disagreements that peppered the push for a new high school facility over the last few years, he said, “It is so critical that the school board, the administration, and the public really work together from this point on.” He voiced praise for the current administration and expressed confidence in their leadership. “It comes down to a matter of trust,” he said. “I trust this administration to do the right thing with our tax money.” Tempers flared a bit, however, when Suzann Schroepfer challenged board member Michael Schill Jr. on a letter that he submitted to the editor of the New Jersey Herald, published on September 21, just five days before the referendum vote. In the letter, which was signed, Michael Schill Jr., member of the Sparta Board of Education, Schill stated that if the referendum failed, “September 26 is not the end.” He said that, “We (the board) will work full speed ahead to come up with another plan that the community will approve.” Schroepfer claimed the letter was “an eleventh hour attempt to derail the referendum by giving the impression that the entire BOE was no longer in support of it.” She claimed the letter was a violation of section five of the New Jersey School Board Member Code of Ethics, which states, “I will recognize that authority rests with the Board of Education and will make no personal promises nor take any private action which may compromise the board.” The content of the letter was not in question so much as the fact that Schill used the word “we” repeatedly. The Code of Ethics requires that board members stipulate they are speaking for themselves and not representing the board when making public comments. Schill claimed that he had not signed his letter “member of The Sparta Board of Education,” but that the Herald had chosen to include his title. Schroepfer said she checked with Herald editor Chris Frear, who confirmed that the letter was received with Schill’s title after his name. Schiavoni gaveled Schroepfer out of order and said that a personal grievance had no place in that type of meeting. He advised her to submit her comments in writing and told her to cease. She refused and demanded that Schill issue a formal apology and request a retraction from the New Jersey Herald. Schill said he would not. This issue will surely be raised again as questions remain regarding the alleged ethics code violation. Citizens will likely expect further dialogue and a clear statement from the board on the matter. Former Sparta teachers Karen Scott and Phillip Seranni raised questions about teacher - administration relations and blamed the administration for some teachers leaving the district. They were allowed to speak their full grievance, however, and were not gaveled out of order by Schiavoni. Morton ended the public participation portion of the meeting on a positive note and continued to bask in the glow of the referendum victory. He said, “I can’t say enough about how impressed I am with the citizens of Sparta.” He referred to the long hours of work put in by the Community Facilities Taskforce in the early stages of the process and said, “You folks were remarkable. Students for years to come will benefit from this and I thank you.” As the meeting progressed into regular agenda items Morton and certain members of the board clashed over procedural issues regarding Morton’s presentation of the district goals and the superintendent’s goals for 2006-2007. Board Vice President Richard Sullivan said he’d expected something different from Morton’s presentation. Morton responded that he had provided exactly what had been asked of him by the board. He said, “If you change your rules or expectations, please fill me in before you criticize me for not complying.” Morton said everything the board was asking him to provide was contained in his Strategic Plan for the year which he has had since July, but was told not to present in July or August. He said he could present the plan Thursday night, but Schiavoni said he’d prefer time to review it first. Morton agreed to provide board members with copies of the plan for their perusal. When asked about the apparent lack of communication between the board and the superintendent, Morton responded the next day, “Whatever this board has asked, I’ve done my best to provide it. All I ask is that they are straightforward about what they want, and I’ll do it. Just communicate clearly.” Communication between board members came into question as well when the adjournment into closed session was announced. Gary Lane requested information regarding the subject of the closed session and Schiavoni said they did not have to tell the public the subject of a closed session. Lane responded that school boards are required to publicly state the topics to be discussed in closed session, the approximate duration of the session, and whether or not they will come back to public session for actionable items. Schiavoni questioned one of two lawyers who were retained to be present at the meeting and was told that Lane was correct. He responded that the closed session would deal with instructional technology contracts and the contract of Kathleen Monks. Lane then asked if Monks had been advised --as per required board procedure-- that her contract would be discussed in closed session. This is a common board of education practice known as “ricing.” Monks said she had not been advised, or “riced.” Sullivan and Schiavoni each said they thought the other had advised Monks. Lane responded that he assumed the closed session would then deal only with the instructional technology contracts. Citizens continued to question and comment on what they had just witnessed as they exited to allow the closed session to begin.