Editors Note: We received the following feedback: “One small correction on your article policy 132 will now allow the superintendent to promulgate regulations to the policy book without board approval. Currently all regulations need to go through committee and be voted on. In your article I think you said policy instead of regulation.” We are currently checking this and will adjust if needed.

Shauna’s Notes of the 05/15/2025 BHPSNJ BOE Meeting

The May 15th Berkeley Heights Board of Education meeting agenda was lengthy and yet, for the most part, the meeting trajectory was smooth. The reports of the Student Representative, Superintendent, Committees and Liaisons, and Business Administrator took a significant amount of time, but the thoroughness of the reports is appreciated.

There were a few noteworthy items included in these reports. Dr. Feltre welcomed Crystal Marr, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, Instruction and Student Achievement. She noted that the SAT/ACT data used by the District in their report was from Naviance, and that this source averages students’ best scores. By contrast, data from the State gives the most recent scores. While both data sources are valid, using the State data will give a clearer picture of how Berkeley Heights students are scoring from year to year. It may be a good idea in the future for the District to wait to give its report once the data from the State is available.

Mrs. Bradford noted that the flag retirement box which is generally at the VFW is currently at Governor Livingston being refurbished. Residents can bring flags in need of retirement to the Mountain Park flag raising, June 13th at 8:40 am..

Mrs. Joly reported on the most recent Curriculum Committee meeting. Textbooks were discussed for Geometry, Psychology (for the AP Behavioral Science class) and AP Calculus. The scale used by our district for student GPAs was discussed, with Dr. Janosko going over the school profile that gets sent to colleges and universities, and Mr. Nixon gave a presentation of surrounding districts and how their GPAs are scaled. Mrs. Joly suggested this presentation be given to residents at an upcoming meeting, however, after Mrs. Joly left the meeting, this suggestion was rejected as not being an appropriate venue for this data.

Mrs. Terrero gave an update from the Technology and Communications Committee. The homepage of the Berkeley Heights School District – bhpsnj.org – has a page on the upcoming referendum. Residents can find the results of the first survey, a marketing presentation, and links to the BOE meetings where presentations were given. A protection plan for Chromebooks was discussed, but is not available at this time.

Mr. Dillon reported on items from the Athletics Committee. He verified that there is nothing in Town ordinances prohibiting lights at Governor Livingston High School. The Committee is looking into an online ticketing system where students and residents can purchase tickets, and where there may be an option to buy tickets at a discount for the season. The subject of “Active Clubs” was brought up. These are club sports that are not currently part of the official teams in the district, but that may become teams in the future. Two examples given were Girls Flag Football and Boys Volleyball. The GL Athletic Director, CJ Hendricks, will give further information about what is required in order for these club sports to become official.

During the Public Comment section for agenda items, the new Thomas P. Hughes Principal, Chris Derflinger, stood to speak and introduce himself. He spoke of how impressed he was that the current principals from each elementary school in our District were also in attendance to show support. Mrs. Nardi spoke next, expressing her thanks at his quick hiring and her well-wishes for him, and letting the public know that she was already working with Mr. Derflinger to facilitate a smooth transition and get him acquainted with the District.

There were way too many items on the agenda to include them all here. Residents are urged to look at the District website’s BOE “Meetings and Agendas” page for details. Meeting Schedule & Agendas | Berkeley Heights Public Schools

One thing that stood out to this author was the section on Cooperative Pricing. Purchases made through any of the numerous Co-ops the District belongs to do not need to go out for a bid, or can be used if bids have been rejected. Each Co-op works with specific vendors to provide goods and services. Business Administrator (now former) Anthony Juskiewicz informed the Board that there is a proposed bill in the State Legislature that seeks to do away with these Co-ops. NJ 21st will look into this bill to see what, exactly, is being proposed and how it may potentially affect school districts.

Due to the ability to purchase without going to bid, the question arises as to how competitive pricing is from the included vendors. Research is needed to see if the co-ops routinely engage in getting bids from the vendors they select for participation. Logic says that by being part of a larger group, purchasers may benefit from economies of scale. Perhaps this is something that can be addressed when we hire a new Business Administrator, or that might be able to be answered by Dr. Feltre. Berkeley Heights School District currently has cooperative purchasing agreements with at least nineteen organizations, and approved more at this meeting.

A contract for food service was approved, with Board Members Deb Terrero and Pamela Stanley commenting that they would like the District to work with the vendor on food quality and quantity. Columbia Middle School’s issues with food and having two separate lunch periods was mentioned.

Upon reading the agenda, which states under Business Item L “approves an agreement from Solutions Architecture for a gym floor bid for $18,900 for replacement of GL red gym floor, repair of CMS gold gym floor and recoat of CMS blue gym floor”, this author mistakenly believed the $18,900 awarded was for work done. In sitting down to write this article, it occurred to me that there was no way all that work could be done for that price. In looking at the provided contract (UPDATED_Combined_Attachments_A-AB_5.15.25.pdf), the agreement was for review of existing conditions and “will include design, bidding and construction documents” along with evaluation of bids. Is this number in line with what would be charged by other firms?

Up to this point of the meeting, there had been little dissent, but in typical fashion, this all changed when New Business was brought up. Mrs. Stanley had several policies listed on the agenda for first discussion. Conflict arose when Mrs. Stanley added two policies/bylaws that were not included, handing out copies to Board members and leaving the public with nothing to reference. If readers recall, a previous Board created a 48 hour rule (part of policy 0164) specifically to prevent “surprises” during the New Business portion of meetings. Mrs. Stanley was among those who voted to have this rule put in place, yet when it was convenient (in other words, when absences by two other Board members meant that she had little opposition), she didn’t hesitate to ignore this rule in order to force through policies of her choice. Board members were then asked to consider these at the end of another long meeting. As head of the Policies Committee, this behavior should be concerning. While this isn’t a major infraction, Mrs. Stanley has already been found to have violated the Code of Ethics for school board members, and is currently appealing the decision. She should be using caution when ignoring the rules – particularly those which she favored when it came to stopping those with whom she disagrees. Shame on Mrs. Bradford for allowing this to proceed.

One of these two policies, Bylaw 0132, deals with the ability of the Superintendent to approve policy without Board approval. Dr. Feltre noted that she felt this policy had previously been revised away from what Strauss Esmay suggests due to distrust. The Board absolutely did limit the power of the previous Superintendent to act on policies without Board approval for very good reason. As the Board gets to know Mrs. Feltre, they may have reconsidered this on their own without Mrs. Stanley’s machinations.

The second policy brought up was 6421, which currently allows the Business Administrator to purchase goods under the amount of $3,300 without going out to bid. The policy says that for purchases between $3,300 and $6,600 a second bid should be attained in addition to the price from the first vendor. Above that amount, unless purchased from one of the aforementioned co-ops, the standard of three bids are needed. The previous policy had the same upper limit, but made no provision for a dollar amount under $6,600.

It is unclear why Mrs. Stanley felt the need to revert to the previous policy, and why this was so urgent that she disregarded the 48 hour rule to do so. Mr. Juskiewicz has repeatedly said that the current policy has not caused any delay or inability to purchase, though he tried last night to backtrack that statement and say it would become an issue for “graduation”. As to what needs to be purchased for graduation that cannot be done, he did not specify. One would think that with graduation roughly a month away, if there were any problems they would have been addressed at this point. Thankfully, the Business Administrator is now our former BA, and this policy change was voted down, with Mr. Dillon aptly stating that if this policy – in the words of Dr. Feltre – “raises eyebrows” when we go to hire a new BA, that it’s a good thing for a future hire to understand that we strive to be frugal. Well said.

Read All Articles on BOE Agendas and Meetings

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free

Our Commitment to Ethical Journalism