School board clashes with superintendent over his conduct

Citizens voice outrage over recent board actions, By Fran Hardy Sparta — The clash between the Sparta Board of Education and the superintendent of schools continued on Monday night, with the board president saying the superintendent had conducted himself in “an unprofessional manner” by raising his voice to the board and members of the public. It is not clear, however, if this is the only reason why the board seems to be going after superintendent of schools Dr. Thomas Morton. Morton stopped a motion the school board was about to bring against him Monday, saying he had not been given sufficient notice to allow him to consult with his lawyer. The school board continued to claim that “tight constraints” prevented its members from discussing the matter fully in public. But members of the public are chafing against these “constraints,” saying it is their right to know what the bard has against their schools superintendent, and objecting to the secretive way the school board conducts its discussions. “It’s sad that we gave the board 71 million dollars, and they are spending so much time and money on what appears to the public to be a personality conflict,” said Dorothy Le Beau, a citizen in the audience. Another citizen, Jennifer Dericks, said, “In meeting after meeting I have seen the board attempt to find something wrong with Morton. If he has done something so bad as to warrant this much attention, I, as a parent, want to know about it. I have yet to see what it could be.” n Citizen objects to secret talks On Nov. 7, Morton received notice from the board of education that his performance as an administrator would be discussed at the Nov. 13 board of education meeting. This “Rice” notice — named after a person who won a legal suit against a board of education that did not give him sufficient notice of a performance review — must be sent to a district employee before the board can discuss the employee’s performance or contract in a meeting. Morton had the option to request the discussion of his performance in closed session. Instead, he responded to the board on Nov. 8 that he would allow the discussion to be held in open session. “I have nothing to hide,” Morton responded when asked why he made this choice. “I know there is nothing in my job performance that warrants this kind of reproach.” This Rice notice came one day after a school board working session held on Monday, Nov. 6, which was not announced on the district website and was attended by only two members of the public. The district office said the change of meeting date was not posted because of an “I.T. [instructional technology] snafu.” The working session was supposed to have been held on Thursday, Nov. 9. Sandra Curran was one of two citizens present at the working session. She said she and the other citizen were under the firm impression the evening’s business was concluded when the board announced they would go into closed session. They believed the board would not return to open session so they left the meeting. The next day, Curran said she learned from some board members that they had indeed returned to open session and discussed several topics pertinent to the public, including school security. She said she was told that when the open session reconvened, vice-president Richard Sullivan remarked, “Good, Sandra is gone, now we can talk.” Sullivan said later in the meeting that he had never mentioned anybody’s name. In the regular meeting held Monday, Nov. 13, Curran asked the board, “Were there any items discussed after the closed session?” Board member Paul Johnson responded that the board returned to open session at 12:05 a.m. and then adjourned immediately. He said they had to return to open session to adjourn. Curran refuted this statement and repeated her question, claiming that many items were discussed. “I have a large problem with this,” she said. “Residents have a right to hear all discussions on issues regarding our children’s education. A significant amount of school business is being done after midnight. This is a violation of the Sunshine Laws and the Open Public Meetings Act. This is unreasonable.” Curran sent a letter to the board with the intention that it be read at the Nov. 13 meeting. Board president Michael Schiavoni made reference to a letter he had received and said he would send copies to other board members. He did not read the letter to the public, nor mention its author. Curran said it was the first time in several years that a letter sent from the public to the board was mentioned but not read at a meeting. In the letter she cited several legislative findings and declarations from the New Jersey School Board Association regarding “the right of the public to be present at all meetings of public bodies, and to witness in full detail all phases of the deliberation, policy formulation, and decision making of public bodies.” References included in the letter from the Office of the Attorney General regarding school boards state that “a public body shall keep minutes of all its meetings. No distinction is made between those held in public session and those held in closed or executive session.” The New Jersey School Board Association specifically requires that a public body state the general nature of the subject to be discussed in closed session, and when the matter can be disclosed to the public. When Curran pressed the board about what was discussed at the Nov. 6 closed session, the board told her the matter could not be released to the public due to privacy and matters of confidentiality. n Conduct unbecoming On Nov.13, Morton received a letter from Schiavoni informing him that a motion would be brought against him at that evening’s meeting. The motion, in essence, would require that he stop “unprofessional conduct and behavior not appropriate to a Chief School Administrator.” When Schiavoni attempted to bring the motion on Monday, Morton said he had consulted his attorney, who said that since he was not given 72 hours notice, such an action violated his rights. If the board went forward with the action they would violate their ethics code, he said. Morton said the motion against him was different from the Rice notice regarding his job performance and asked for time to confer with his attorney. After consulting the attorney for the board, Angela Paternostro, the board granted Morton the time he asked for. But Morton asked for more specifics regarding the nature of his “unprofessional behavior.” Schiavoni told him that he frequently “speaks in a loud manner at people.” Schiavoni said Morton had raised his voice to a board member in an open session and had spoken loudly to a citizen. He referred to a meeting in which Morton and the board’s vice-president, Richard Sullivan, argued and said he felt very uncomfortable sitting between the two. Morton countered that Schiavoni was “speaking in a loud manner” to him during this discussion, to which several members of the audience applauded. Morton claims the discussion in which he raised his voice at Sullivan took place in the reconvened open portion of the Nov. 6 working session. Johnson and Schiavoni said the meeting was adjourned after the closed session. But Morton said it actually went on for quite some time, and that the session began with Sullivan saying he was glad the public was not there, and what the board had to say was going to make Morton angry. The Sparta Independent gave Schiavoni and Sullivan the opportunity to respond regarding their complaints against Morton. Schiavoni was unavailable, but Sullivan responded on his behalf. “At this time, all discussion of the matter is restricted to protect the rights of the employee,” Sullivan said. “The board is obligated to operate within the bounds of very tight constraints when dealing with employees of the district. Often, these tight constraints do not allow for an issue to be properly articulated to the public.” When asked about what matters the board could have against him, Morton remained adamant that he has done his job to the best of his ability. “Since coming to Sparta I have dedicated myself to upgrading the curriculum and seeing that the new high school project is successful,” he said. “This is what matters most to the community, not that some people don’t like my communication style. I want to continue to focus on the priorities.” Further grievances or complaints against Morton are not forthcoming from the board at this time, so the public will have to wait until more information is provided. Many citizens on both sides of this conflict are concerned that too much time and money is being spent on personal matters when so much is at stake for the future of the district. Jim McCormack, a member of the community, told The Sparta Independent in a statement: “I recognize that communication styles may clash from time to time. However, losing the Sparta school district business administrator recently, combined with the observed effort to criticize and minimize the superintendent’s performance, appears to be a compromise of the fiduciary responsibility we must expect and demand from our school board members. It is also an insult to the people and taxpayers of Sparta. Replacing the BA alone will be at considerable cost, including the time and resources needed for a search and interview process. Should other top administrators be forced out, the financial impact of buying out those contracts combined with more search and interview expenses will only further burden Sparta’s taxpayers.”