The Jersey City Independent "

Despite the Board of Education’s (BOE) June 22 6-2-1 vote in favor of negotiating a new contract with superintendent Charles Epps, tensions at the board’s public meeting last night suggest that the contract controversy is far from over. Rather than explicitly discussing Epps’ suitability as superintendent, dissenters in the audience and on the board focused far more on process — specifically whether the June 22 meeting had been adequately publicized.

The audience in the small 6th floor conference room of the BOE building was disproportionately composed of city, county and state officials, including state Sen. Sandra Cunningham, Assemblyman Charles Mainor, Executive Hudson County Superintendent of Schools Timothy Brennan, and Ward F councilwoman Viola Richardson.

“I want to publicly say to you, Dr. Epps, that I will support you,” said Richardson, despite identifying herself as one of the six City Council members who voted to approve a resolution stating that the BOE contract decision was illegal due to inadequate public notice. Her objection, she explained, was not Epps’ performance and superintendent but the legality of the June 22 meeting. “My legal department said it wasn’t properly sunshined,” she said.

She was referring to the state Open Public Meetings Act, commonly known as the Sunshine Law. Passed in 1973, the law requires government bodies to notify the public 48 hours in advance of all meetings of public concern with the location and agenda of the meeting, unless the meeting is private, in which case the reason that the meeting is closed must be explicitly communicated to the public.

But some board members and officials disputed Richardson’s claim.

“Our counsel and I have been in contact every day,” BOE president William DeRosa said. “He told me everything we did was proper and properly noticed.”

Once the BOE negotiates the actual contract, it will have to be approved by Brennan. He agreed with DeRosa, saying he was satisfied with the legality of the June vote.

“I am not a lawyer, but an educator of 44 years,” he said. “I believe the Jersey City BOE acted completely within the letter of the law.”

Attorney Matthew Giacobbe of Scarinci & Hollenbeck, who has advised the board on Epps’ contract since June 22, confirmed this interpretation, assuring Richardson that the meeting “was noticed, 48 hours in advance, in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act.”

Yet some board members were not entirely satisfied with these assertions.

Angel Valentin noted that the only advertisement for the meeting was buried in the Obituaries section of the Jersey Journal. BOE Vice President Suzanne Mack agreed, adding that the ad only specified that the board planned to discuss a personnel matter, and possibly a contract.

“They met the letter of the law, but it didn’t say whose contract,” Mack said. “We have 6,500 employees. When I walked in here and there was no one from the public I was stunned.”

Though the number of parents and students attending last night’s meeting was also slim, the audience was rounded out by several activists who had come to discuss Spectra Energy’s proposed pipeline through Jersey City. The proposed route for the pipeline comes in close proximity to at least one public school. The board decided to draft a letter indicating its objection to the pipeline plan, though there was some discussion as to how to do so most effectively and thoroughly.

So when Dale Hardman, an activist and self-described “official legal intervener” in the pipeline plans, came to the podium to discuss the matter further, several board members and many of the politicians in attendance took the opportunity to depart the public meeting room for private consultations outside. Among the board members and attendees who joined the whispered discussions outside the conference room were Epps, Brennan, Richardson, and board members Sterling Waterman, Peter Donnelly, Frances Thompson, Angel Valentin, and Carol Lester.

Most returned in time, however, to hear the remarks of Matt Schapiro, a Jersey City resident who worked with Waterman on his campaign.

Waterman, one of the two BOE members to vote against extending Epps’ contract, has said he will file a formal complaint with the state’ s School Ethics Commission over the vote; he is currently waiting to see what the BOE’s final actions regarding the contract will be before doing so.

On Wednesday, Schapiro questioned why a national search was such a threatening prospect to Epps and his allies, if the superintendent truly had the support pledged by the BOE. He paused to let the board members answer, but DeRosa assured him that all questions would be answered at the end of Schapiro’s comments.

“The vote that was taken on June 22 did violate the sunshine laws,” Schapiro then contended.

In the face of this allegation, Giacobbe sprung into action. After suggesting that Schapiro listen to the tape of the meeting, the lawyer then went on to explain the terms of Epps’ current contract in detail in an effort to clarify why the June vote has generated so much confusion.

“The board did not vote on a contract, they voted not to not renew Dr. Epps’ contract,” he said.

This use of the double negative was not merely a rhetorical flourish, however. As Giacobbe explained, Epps’ contract contains a provision indicating that he must be notified a year in advance of the termination of his contract. Giacobbe clarified that the BOE voted to authorize him to work on a new contract for Epps, which was to negotiated in the closed session following last night’s public meeting, but will not be voted on for approval until the next public meeting, on August 11.

DeRosa notified Schapiro that his time was up. After a brief discussion of reassigning students from the schools that are closing into new high schools — Waterman contended that giving parents the choice of where to enroll their students would result in overcrowding in some schools and low enrollment in others — De Rosa moved to conclude the meeting and begin the closed session. Waterman was the only board member to vote ‘no’ on this motion.

“There’s a lot of confusion that we do things behind closed doors, but you can’t negotiate a contract in public,” DeRosa said, defending his and the board’s actions. “I resent the notion that I’m occluding or obstructing justice.” When he moved again to conclude the public meeting and begin the closed session, all board members voted in favor.

The next public Board of Education meeting will be held in the 6th floor conference room of the Board of Ed Conference Room on Wednesday, August 11.

File photo of Epps: Steve Gold

Like what you've read here? Please consider making a donation or becoming a sustaining member. As a grassroots news organization, we rely on community support -- as well as paid advertising -- to survive.