OCEAN CITY – Three Ocean City Board of Education members who filed an ethics complaint about board President Joe Clark alleged he held an improper executive session Sept. 22 that allowed the interim superintendent of schools to make personal attacks against them.
Prior to that meeting, one of the board members complained that emails from Interim Superintendent Dr. Thomas Baruffi “have been outrageous and aggressive in their tone.”
The Sentinel received a copy of the complaint after filing two Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests with school district Business Administrator Timothy E. Kelley. Both requests were answered quickly, two days after they were received; the district had seven business days to respond.
The complaint by Jaqueline McAlister, Cecelia Gallelli-Keyes and (now former member) Suzanne Morgan was filed by attorney Beverly McCall. It claimed the executive session was improper because it was used “to impart interim superintendent’s list of personal grievances.”
The complaint alleges it violated five different sections of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24. (N.J.S.A. are New Jersey Statutes Annotated.)
In one, it read: “During the executive session … Mr. Clark was told that Sue Morgan was unable to attend. He read her text to him and remarked: ‘…She’s done.’”
“This is not a legal or ethical procedure,” the complaint reads.
Another violation is alleged because: “During the executive session …. Mr. Clark allowed the interim superintendent to distribute a list of grievances against 3 board members to the entire board; threaten same board members with ethics charges; and question their earlier votes during the regular board meeting.”
“This is outside the scope of confining board action to policy making, planning and appraisal,” the complaint read.
Baruffi started as interim superintendent in the district in August. Longtime superintendent of schools Dr. Kathleen Taylor retired during the summer. The third claim in the complaint actually involves the former superintendent.
“During the executive session … Mr. Clark allowed the interim superintendent to accuse the 3 board members of giving ‘secret’ information to the prior superintendent,” the complaint reads.
“This is outside the scope of working together with fellow school board members,” according to the complaint.
The fourth part of the complaint alleged that during the executive session “Mr. Clark allowed the interim superintendent to complain about us asking questions at the board meetings because he feels like he is being attacked. My response was that Mr. Clark has issued an order that board members are not allowed to communicate directly with the interim superintendent, so we can only ask our questions at board meetings.”
“This behavior,” the complaint reads, “compromises the board.”
The fifth part the complaint alleges Clark “riced the interim superintendent and allowed the interim superintendent to demand that all board members be present for the executive session and that attorneys be present. He then allowed him (Baruffi) to use the executive session improperly for personal attacks against 3 board members, making one of them cry as he attacked her by threatening ethics charges against her.”
A “rice” notice makes an employee – in this care Baruffi – aware that the board may be discussing his employment at a closed meeting.
“This is allowing the use of the executive session for the personal gain of the interim superintendent,” the complaint alleged about the fifth complaint.
Complaints before the Executive Session
In the complaint filing there also are emails prior to the meeting from McAlister to board solicitor Michael Stanton and to the New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA). McAlister, who won re-election to her school board seat in the Nov. 2 election, serves on the NJSBA Board of Directors.
On Sept. 8, McAlister emailed the NJSBA “attorney of the day” complaining about Baruffi.
“Our district recently contracted the services of an interim superintendent,” she wrote. “His emails to board members have been outrageous and aggressive in their tone and I would like some advice. His manner of communication is extremely concerning and overtly confrontational. I asked the board president and vice president to intervene and they’ve not even responded. Can you please provide some advice on how to proceed?”
Clark is president and Dr. Patrick Kane is vice president of the Ocean City school board.
The attorney, identified in the email is Kathleen Asher, responded that the NJSBA could offer training on communications and dealing with board members and the “best case scenario” would be to “have a dialogue with the superintendent about your concerns.” Asher also suggested looking at Baruffi’s contract to see if there were options available about his “potential separation from this district,” but the only legal advice should come from the school board’s attorney.
After that exchange, on Sept. 9, McAlister wrote to Stanton via email.
She told Stanton she asked Clark to intervene but didn’t get a response so she was advised by other people to contact the board attorney “to express my displeasure with the confrontational nature and the level of anger in emails received by myself and another board member. This email is intended to notify you of my desire to normalize the way the board communicates with the schools.”
In an email, Stanton asked McAlister to call him.
The following day, Sept. 10, McAlister said in an email that she appreciated his help. She followed that with, “On the advice of the NJSBA, I’m sending an email to the chair of the Negotiations Committee as I understand the board president has been spreading false information about me, and I would like email proof that I have addressed the issue.”
Baruffi and Clark did not return requests for comment prior to the Sentinel’s deadline.
A letter from the Ocean City Board of Education in response to one from Morgan (see related story here), asserts ethics charges against the superintendent were withdrawn and two of three against Clark were dismissed. The sole remaining charge alleged the improper use of the executive session. The letter claims that was expected to be dismissed as well.
By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff