They say she missed meetings, didn’t offer facts or examples in her letter
See the full letter from the Ocean City Board of Education here
OCEAN CITY – A few days after Suzanne Morgan blasted the Ocean City Board of Education in a resignation letter released to the media, the board fired back, saying her accusations lacked facts and that most ethics complaints she cited were either dismissed or withdrawn.
Morgan, who lost in her bid for re-election to the school board on Nov. 2, wrote a lengthy letter to school district Business Administrator Timothy Kelley and sent copies to fellow board members and the media on Sunday afternoon, Nov. 28.
On Wednesday afternoon, Dec. 8, the board responded with a letter of its own criticizing Morgan for skipping multiple meetings and making accusations without specific examples or facts after she said there its “deep dysfunction” on the board and “apathy toward the families and children in the district.” (The letter appeared in the Sentinel’s Dec. 1 edition and it is available in full online at ocnjsentinel.com.)
The board’s letter was signed by President Joseph S. Clark, Vice President Dr. Patrick Kane and members H. James Bauer, Michael James, Dr. Charles Roche, Gregory Whelan, William Holmes, Fran Newman and William Sooy.
The letter pointed out that although Morgan claimed board members are “totally disengaged” that it was Morgan who did not attend school board meetings Aug. 4 and 11 and Nov. 17 and “refused to attend” the executive session Sept. 22 and another on Nov. 17.
The letter pointed out at those executive sessions Interim Superintendent of Schools Dr. Thomas Baruffi “took the time to try to address some of her unspecified allegations of wrongdoing towards unnamed district staff, and to try to amicably resolve any misconceptions some had about the board, the district and the role of a board member. But unfortunately, as with the unspecified and broad sweeping allegations in her letter, no specifics or support for those baseless allegations of wrongdoing were provided.”
While Morgan said the board ignored the wishes of the community on mandates from the state, the response letter said “this could not be further from the truth and is indicative of her misunderstanding of both the role of elected board members and the actual feelings of the community that we serve.”
The letter argued that the most discussed issue so far this school year has been Executive Order 251 requiring staff and students to wear masks indoors. “This invoked strong feelings throughout the state and here in Ocean City,” the letter reads. “As board members we listened intently to the comments that were made at our meetings and at the community forums that our interim superintendent held. We also took the extra step to solicit community feedback through a survey on that specific issue. The results of that survey revealed strong community support for the requirements in Executive Order 251 to wear masks when social distancing is not possible.”
The board, the letter argues, not only followed the law and kept the schools open and in session, it listened to the sentiments of the community.
“Just because Ms. Morgan may not agree with that sentiment does not mean we, as board members, did not consider the wishes of our community,” the letter read. “Perhaps the kind of questions that should be asked is why Ms. Morgan would rather us dismiss the wishes of our community and defy the requirements of Executive Order 251, or why Ms. Morgan voted ‘no’ on random board agenda items when she did attend a meeting, including the Memorandum of Agreement for the new contract with our teachers association.”
Morgan referred to an ethics complaint filed against Clark. (See related story on page A1 of the complaint.) The board of education letter rebutted that as well.
“If Ms. Morgan is referring to the ethics charges she and others filed with the School Ethics Commission against our board president and interim superintendent, then in the interest of transparency it should be noted that the charges against the interim superintendent have already been withdrawn, and two of the three charges filed against the board president have already been dismissed,” according to the letter. “The sole remaining charge claims only an improper use of the Executive Session on Sept. 22, 2021, in order to address, among other issues, the unspecified allegations of wrongdoing made by Ms. Morgan and others. That charge will likely be dismissed as well, but at an unnecessary expense to the district.”
The letter criticizes Morgan, Cecelia Gallelli-Keyes and Jacqueline McAlister – though it doesn’t name the other two – for asking the district to reimburse their legal costs for filing the complaint. It also criticizes Morgan for asserting the conflict is gender-based. The letter calls that “preposterous and completely unfounded.”
The letter concludes that the issue has been “a significant distraction” for the board and administration but that board members are proud to serve and appreciate the “outpouring” of community support in the wake of Morgan’s letter.
“We will continue to guide this district forward, providing the kind of representation you have come to expect and deserve,” the letter concludes.
By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff