Beyond the Talking Points: Analyzing BOE Candidate Responses on Shared Services and Governance

Part One of a Series Analyzing Public Statements Made by Berkeley Heights Town Council and BOE Candidates

This article is the first in a series that will serve to recap the candidate statements and answers to questions put forth by TapInto Berkeley Heights.  We start with Board of Education candidate answers for weeks one and two.  (Candidates’ answers are in the order that candidates will appear on ballot,)  

Before getting into the meat of the article, it is worth noting the language used in the questions that were asked.  The Week Two question on shared services mentions agreements becoming “political tools”.  This leading question gives a direction to candidates in shaping their answers.  The second question is, “As an elected official, what do you see as your role in overseeing and guiding the operations carried out by professionals hired to run the day-to-day functions of the municipality or school district?”  The use of the word “professionals” implies that the decisions or recommendations that come from the district administration should not be questioned or debated. This is a critical concept that we see reinforced in candidates’ answers.  These two low-key directives are worth keeping in mind as we take a look at the candidates’ statements. Week One questions involved the candidates’ inspiration to run, and their goals. 

Arik Samson is the first candidate.  His answer for week one was a very brief statement that he believes there has been an erosion of education, transparency, and accountability, and that his goal is to work to make improvements in those categories, particularly in education.

Samson’s week two answers give us a clearer picture of his views and goals.  With regard to shared services, he mentions a need for critical examination of shared services contracts, referencing a contract with law enforcement that had no ceiling and that deviated from what surrounding districts’ agreements look like. He notes that avoidance of conflict can mean acceptance of unfavorable terms in a contract.  Samson noted that debates about bills and agreements are not “small”, they are the primary function of the Board of Education, and that there should not be a push to enter agreements “blindly”.

Candidate Javier Morales tells us that his inspiration to run comes from his desire for kids to have the best possible education, and he rounds that out with a wish to see that our school buildings are safe and well-maintained, and that we focus on student health and wellness.

Morales’ week two answer on shared services highlights the need for agreements to be implemented with transparency and to be guided by communication and focus on student outcomes.  He notes the importance for residents to understand the purpose and impact of these agreements, and says ‘shared services’ doesn’t automatically mean cost savings.  He says it would be his responsibility to “ask the right questions” about agreements, and he reinforces his commitment to ensuring agreements are tools to strengthen education.

Our third candidate, Debbie Terrero, is a sitting board member.  In answer to the question of inspiration to run, she tells us she hopes to set higher expectations for students and see that those at all academic levels receive necessary support.  She lists “student-centered decision making”, college and career readiness, transparent communication and technological advancement as goals. 

Terrero’s answers to the week two questions begin by noting that the district enters into several shared services agreements each year, though there can be a focus on those that make headlines.  Where agreements have “drawn political attention”, Terrero says the path forward needs transparency and respectful dialogue. She states, “…compromise isn’t a weakness – it’s leadership”, and says she will bring those principles to negotiations.  On the role of a board member, Terrero tells us that board efforts to provide guidance must be informed by the community and stakeholders.  She mentions the responsibility of the board to safeguard public funds.

Candidate Gale Bradford is also a current board member.  She notes a “strong commitment to community” as her inspiration.  Three of her stated goals are to navigate a transitional phase, “drive forward critical upgrades” and move the referendum. 

Bradford tells us shared service agreements lose effectiveness when politicized, and that this is a sign communication has broken down.  She notes that it’s critical for there to be a collaboration between the town and the Board of Education – working together instead of putting forward political agendas.  On the role of a board member, Bradford says that role is not to manage operations directly, but to provide oversight and direction, hire a qualified Superintendent, and to educate themselves.

The final candidate is David Moore.  In answer to what inspired him to run, he says it was initially to improve education in science and share his expertise on grants and funding.  However, he tells us that he now is inspired to “break” the board of education of “dysfunction”.  His stated goals are to oversee a plan for growth and stability, to modernize libraries and classroom technology, and to avoid circular discussions of minor issues.  He says we have the opportunity as bonds roll over to secure millions of dollars for renovations and improvements.

While Moore highlights due diligence and clear language as needs for shared service agreements, he says these agreements have become “focal points for those seeking to inflame political divides”.  He says the role of a board member is to hire the Superintendent and to educate themselves on what the role of a board member does NOT entail.

The following section of this article is my own take and analysis of what the candidates are saying.  

I was struck by the overall commitment from both Javier Morales and Debbie Terrero to remain focused on students and education in their answers.  I also noticed the similarities between candidate answers from Gale Bradford and David Moore in mentioning dysfunction and in maximizing spending (‘drive forward critical upgrades’ and ‘secure millions of dollars’).  Arik Samson’s week two answers indicated a willingness to challenge the ‘go along to get along’ style of “collaboration” that is indicated from other candidates.  Candidates full statements are available online.

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free