Many F’s for Oceanport BOE

Colin Soyer, (Standing) President of the Oceanport Board of Education, attempts to answer questions about the proposed contract for Andrew Orefice (seated to his left). Also pictured on the far right is R.Armen McOmber, BOE attorney and on the left is Norma Tursi, Business Administrator and Christopher McCrae, VP of the BOE.

Oceanport — Last week the Oceanport Board of Education held its regular public meeting which lasted nearly five hours, and was very contentious. It was also a meeting marked with failure.

The board failed to respect each other. They failed to provide each member with updated documentation. They failed to act responsibility. They failed to get a written contact. They failed to notice that the business administrator had worked an entire year without a contract. They failed to run an organized and professional meeting. They failed to have microphones on the table so you could hear what each board member had to say. They failed to communicate with each other, and they failed in being transparent.

The meeting started off civil enough, with the Maple Place Middle School band getting recognized for winning many accolades at a competition. Then it went downhill.

The first issue was that Oceanport Board of Education had entered into a verbal contract with a firm to conduct a feasibility study on sharing services with Monmouth Beach, West Long Branch and Shore Regional. At the time only Oceanport had a superintendent under contract. Nick Puleio, who headed the study, told Oceanport that they owed $3,000 for the 20-something page document that contained a few sentences on Oceanport.

The study determined that since Oceanport had a superintendent under contract and a business administrator who had tenure, Oceanport would receive no benefit from the shared services and the other towns did not want to enter into an agreement with Oceanport. Kelly McGowan was the board president at the time of the verbal agreement.

A majority of the board members were upset with how they found out about the study results, posted on the West Long Branch website, and stated that Puleio should have told them going into the study that it would not serve the needs of the community.

Board members Bill McVity and Mark O’Neill (brother of this reporter) stated that Oceanport had to pay one third of the study but did not get anything in return for their investment into it.

Jay Coffey, an Oceanport resident and attorney, questioned the board about the study. “The Board of Education members who talked the other members into spending money on this feasibility study were trying to deflect the blame for the results, by blaming the contractor,” said Coffey. “The real problem, however, was that our Board was at fault because the scope of services wasn’t defined properly at the inception of the contract. In fact, based upon what I heard from the meeting tonight, the contractor only had a verbal concept of what our board was looking for.”

Puleio stated that he and his company would see if they could expand the scope of the study for Oceanport.

The biggest failure of the evening was on the vote to give Andrew Orefice, superintendent of schools, a new contract. When the board started to discuss the contract it was apparent that not everyone was on the same page. Board members Joan Osgoodby, Dr. Madeline Badalaty and O’Neill had different contracts in their packages from the rest of the board.

O’Neill stated that he had sent a list of questions on the proposed contract offered to Orefice, but never received an answer. He noted that the personnel committee, which is composed of Colin Soyer, Board President, Christopher McCrea, Vice President and McVitty, never held a workshop or meeting with the other board members on the Orefice contract or the one offered to Norma Tursi, Business Administrator, or the memorandum they signed with the teachers union.

Soyer told O’Neill that he had the answers to the questions but never sent them to him. It became a heated subject as they argued over what was written in the contract. That is when it was discovered that O’Neill, Osgoodby and Badalaty had different copies from the rest. “It does not matter,” said Soyer. “The majority vote wins, not the minority.”

“I took tomorrow off. I packed a lunch and we can go all night,” said O’Neill as he demanded documentation to support his questions. His first question to Soyer was the compensation increase Orefice received last year. After 45 minutes he was given three different answers. “This is what I’m talking about. We need accurate information before we can vote on this.”

“Andrew, this isn’t personal, I think you are a good fit here. In fact I think you are an awesome superintendent, But I have serious questions about this contract,” said O’Neill.

He pointed out that fellow board member Badalaty had calculated that Orefice would get 20 vacation days, 12 sick days, which accumulate without limit, 4 personal days, 5 bereavement days and 23 holidays that the teachers get off. “That is 64 days, 12 weeks do you think that is fair to the residents of Oceanport?” asked O’Neill.

The exchange between Soyer and O’Neill became heated, and Soyer got up from his seat with his gavel in hand and started walking towards O’Neill who was seated. “What are you going to do, hit me Colin?” asked O’Neill.

And then all hell broke loose as O’Neill got up and a yelling match ensued. McVitty stopped O’Neill as McCrae attempted to stop Soyer.

“For the record, the board president placed two important contracts on the agenda for approval without allowing the full board an opportunity to discuss any of the contracts,” said Osgoodby. “Additionally, board members had specific fact-gathering questions regarding the terms of the contract that went unanswered by the board president before the public meeting, hence forcing board members to attempt the unachievable task of fact-gathering process during the public meeting, resulting in an insufficient amount of time for consideration to formulate constructive questions. This was extremely counter-productive, and unfair to the district.”

Osgoodby stated that when a meeting gets to the point where she and Badalaty felt the need to flee the board table for personal safety, something is seriously wrong.

“In defense of Mark, while his tendency to sometimes lose his cool doesn’t help lend credibility to his cause, he has valid points, and it was the board president who ultimately forged toward Mark in the near brawl,” said Osgoodby.

“It is obvious that O’Neill is frustrated with several members of the board, and it’s justified,” said Coffey. “Some have come to see the light as far as the type, amount and accuracy of the information that is given to them by the administration.”

After a break in the meeting to allow everyone to calm down, the full board returned and both O’Neill and Soyer apologized for their unprofessional behavior. When it was pointed out that the vote should be held until the next meeting so all board members could review an accurate contract, Soyer said no and a vote was held.

Osgoodby, O’Neill and Badalaty voted no. Approving the contract, which pays Orefice $130,657 for 2012-2013, and $133,270 for 2013-2014 and $135,000 for 20-14-2015, were the board members who had identical contracts in their packages, Spencer Carpenter, Ted Gammon, McGowan, McVitty and Soyer.

The next hot topic was on the contract for the business administrator, Norma Tursi. While it is her responsibility to make sure all contracts are legal and updated, at the meeting it was revealed that she failed to recognize that she didn’t have a signed contract for all of last year.

The contract on the agenda last week called for a 2 percent increase at a salary of $99,878 for 2012-2013.

McVitty stated that he submitted a few questions to Soyer on this contract and he never received an answer. “And I’m on the personnel committee and I didn’t get an answer,” said McVitty.

Osgoodby noted that the 2 percent increase was inaccurate, that it was really a 4 percent raise Tursi would be getting. After a brief discussion, Tursi stated that Osgoodby was correct and a sub-secretary had made a mistake on the contract.

A vote was called and this time McVitty, Osgoodby, O’Neill and Badalaty voted no. The rest of the board had a majority and the contract was approved. However, it was approved at 2 percent; no correction was made to reflect the 4 percent increase.

The final failure of the evening concerned a memorandum of agreement between the Oceanport Board of Education and the Oceanport Education Association. When the board met in February the personnel committee was told to hold the line.

O’Neill took the prior contract and sent it to the New Jersey School Boards Association for a free wellness evaluation.

“The state sent me a very detailed report that listed several labor law violations and the fact that the board negotiated away something that was nonnegotiable,” said O’Neill. “I sent this report to Soyer in April and he thanked me and said it would be helpful.”

But at the meeting, it was found Soyer had not shared the report with fellow board members or the board attorney. In fact, the personnel committee signed a memorandum of agreement with the teachers before reporting back to the entire board.

“I am asking that the board hold off on this decision and we hold a special meeting to discuss this report,” said O’Neill.

R. Armen McOmber, attorney for the board, stated that it would be a good idea to review the report. He also informed Soyer that McGowan and Gammon could not participate in the vote. McGowan is a teacher in another district and member of the teachers union, while Gammon’s wife is a teacher.

The only person who voted to give the teachers a new contract, which according to the state might violate the law, was Carpenter. Some of the teachers in attendance stated that they have a signed memorandum (no details of the contact were discussed) and said they might be starting the year without a contract. Osgoodby stated that worst case scenario is that they would start the year with an expired contract.

“I am afraid that the personal battles between board members masked the fact that there were some incredibly bizarre things happening at this meeting,” said Coffey. “The business administrator lacked even a basic familiarity with the superintendent’s current compensation package. And she forgot to have her own contract approved for 2011-2012 school year? How can that happen?”

NEXT OCEANPORT BOE MEETING IS THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012