In what is a long-standing practice of some BOE members, resident letters holding BOE members accountable are often taken down; usually one or two hours after being published.
The reason for this, I believe, is for the letter to get spread and then taken down as a way of undermining the individual’s credibility. Usually, the objections are ridiculous, and the articles often require minor or no edits.
Often, individuals other than the BOE member themselves request the take-down, so it does not appear as if the BOE Member is making the request. To Ms. Penna’s credit, it does appear she at least had the decency to request the take-down herself – if that counts for anything.
Laura wrote an opinion piece for BHCW and TAPINTO (essentially the same article which can be found here). Ms. Penna (or perhaps her campaign) wrote to TapInto setting off the takedown of Laura’s letter.
There was nothing improper about Laura’s article – it only focused on Ms. Penna’s role as a BOE Member and her actions in that role.
I am attaching the email exchange the parent had with a staff person of TapInto indicating the objections to the letter. The parent emailed me the exchange and provided me permission to post it.
Full Email Exchange:
As turnabout is fair play, I requested that TapInto apply the same ridiculous logic used by Ms. Penna to her own article:
Related Articles:
ANGELA PENNA’S CANDIDATE STATEMENT V. REALITY
THE DISTRICTS WAR ON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CONTINUES: THE 2022 LWV BOE DEBATE
THE BERKELEY HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT’S 12-MONTH PATH TO LESS INPUT AND ENGAGEMENT
WHAT HAPPENED TO A “PHASED APPROACH”?
Related Articles
The 06/25/2026 Berkeley Heights BOE Agenda – A Strategic Plan with No Academic Metrics and a Policy Change with Big Privacy Concerns
BOE Discusses Gaggle, Securly, Cell Phone Policy and GLHS Assistant Principal Appointment
