I’ll start by saying: Shauna should really be writing this. But she’s off at some scouting thing doing good deeds or something, so you’re stuck with me.

We can both be annoyed about this together.

Last month, district leadership told the community that a new state bill might bring an end to cooperative purchasing. That claim became the backdrop for Pam Stanley’s 11th-hour motion to remove the requirement that the District get quotes before spending above certain thresholds.  Concerns about fiscal oversight came up again last night.

The warning about the bill came from Business Administrator Anthony Juskiewicz—and was later repeated by Superintendent Dr. Kim Feltre in an email to Shauna earlier this week.

But here’s the thing:

It’s not true.

The legislation in question—Senate Bill S3041—does not ban cooperative purchasing.

In fact, it’s not even close. Here’s what the bill actually does:

• Bars vendors who violate prevailing wage laws from receiving contracts through co-ops for three years;
• Increases oversight and transparency to ensure those wage laws are followed;
• Expands the ability of New Jersey districts to use national and out-of-state co-ops, as long as they meet state rules.

tl/dr: The bill is about protecting workers and holding bad actors accountable—not cutting off access to co-ops.

After the May board meeting, Shauna followed up with Dr. Feltre to ask for clarification, since the bill had been cited in connection to Stanley’s motion. Her reply laid out several serious concerns.

“Mr. Juskiewicz said this was an Assembly bill (it’s a Senate bill), claimed it was introduced ‘a couple weeks ago’ (it was introduced over six months ago), and told the board it would end co-op purchasing—when it actually expands it.”

She went on to question whether the District was being misled—or knowingly misrepresenting the facts to push through changes:

“He wanted the $3,300 bid threshold removed and scrambled for a justification. Then Policy 6421 came up—out of nowhere, not even on the agenda. This wasn’t just sloppy. It felt dishonest.”

But it didn’t end there. Shauna’s email also touched on a broader issue—ongoing dysfunction and division, long after the departure of former Superintendent Melissa Varley.

“That animosity hasn’t gone away. We have two board members treating meetings like a war zone—breaking policies they themselves voted for just because they have the votes to do it.”

She called on Dr. Feltre to make sure this behavior doesn’t become the norm under her leadership. But frankly, some of what we’re seeing suggests more of the same.

This is the same administration that has refused to release school-specific budgets or give clear figures on police spending.

The same one where emails from the District’s OPRA email account don’t even include a name.

So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they’re now spinning the truth about legislation to justify weakening oversight.

(Side note: the District may find itself back in court on some of these very issues.)

Last night Mountainside Representative Bill Dillon asked some welcome questions on salary increases and why such a top-heavy District with administrators possessing advanced degrees needed to pay someone $15,000 to post on Facebook and Instagram.  This is a welcome set of questions from the Mountainside Rep whose approach is a departure from his predecessor.  His questions also gave me the ability to follow up on Shauna’s points as Gale seems to only allow rule bending for political allies.  As expected, no one from the Administration responded to my points.

Yes, legislation like S3041 can seem technical. But it’s not complicated enough to excuse getting it this wrong. District leaders owe the public clear, honest information—especially when it shapes policy decisions.

The “I’m new, I’m still learning” excuse only works for so long.

Full Email Exchange Between Shauna and Dr. Feltre

Read All Articles on BOE Agendas and Meetings

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free

Our Commitment to Ethical Journalism