RBCS bylaw changes disappoint some parents
Parents can nominate, not vote on, members of board
BY LAYLI WHYTE
Staff Writer

RED BANK — Amendments to the bylaws of the charter school were approved last week, but the changes didn’t satisfy everyone.

The charter school board of trustees presented and voted to accept changes to the school’s bylaws at a special meeting Sept. 28, despite dissenting voices of not only some parents but trustees as well.

The issue in contention concerned giving parents and guardians a direct voice in the appointment of trustees.

Article II, Section 2 gives parents and guardians the right to nominate candidates for one of the three board seats that come up for re-election each year. Candidates for the nine-member board are voted on by the board of trustees.

Previously, the bylaws allowed for nomination and election only by trustees, with the parents having no input in the process.

The bylaw did not meet the demands of a group of parents who circulated a petition in August asking that parents and guardians have a direct vote for trustees.

“I am disappointed that it wasn’t a direct vote,” said Debra Jellenik, one of the parents supporting the petition. “I was hoping that you would have extended the vote for all seats. I feel that’s a fair way to appoint somebody.”

Jellenik said that she was also less than pleased with the board’s decision to allow only one vote per household, instead of one vote per parent or guardian.

“A lot of people might not agree with their spouse on school issues,” she said.

Jeff MacPherson, a charter school parent, was concerned with whether or not the bylaw amendments would be the final word for the school.

“The process can be done again at any time,” said Malachi Kenney, board attorney, who added that any changes made to the school’s bylaws must be approved by the state Department of Education (DOE) before they can take effect.

Board President Barbara O’Hern said that she understood that this compromise did not please everybody, but that she thought it to be a “good first step.”

“We did listen to you,” she said, “and we came a long way from the original bylaws and charter.”

Kenney said that the reason parents were given only the right to nominate rather than a direct vote was because there were disagreements among board members as to how much power should be handed over to parents.

“I think this is a very big change from the way things were done before,” he said.

According to the amended bylaws, nominations for the three parent/guardian seats on the board may be made by any member of the parent/guardian community, and that

nominees may be from either within or outside of the school community.

Ballots will then be mailed to the homes of students, and must be returned within one week, either by mail or to a designated locked box at the school, to be opened only by the school’s business administrator.

The business administrator, Wellington Davenport, will tally the votes, sending the names of the four nominees with the highest number of votes to the board, which will interview and appoint one of the four.

No nominee with less than 20 percent of support from the parent/guardian community will be considered, and if no nominees receive more than 20 percent support, the board has the right to appoint an interim member until the parent process is successfully completed.

Former board Treasurer Gayle Horvath, who has no children attending the school, continues to attend meetings and was present to give advice to the board last week.

“We need to remind ourselves why we are here,” said Horvath, who resigned from the board in July. “You had an opportunity tonight to listen to parents. This board could have chosen to give parents the vote they requested. You’ve betrayed the trust given to the board when the school first started.”

Horvath said that one of the reasons she chose to be involved in the school was because of the accountability of every adult to every child, making every adult a role model.

O’Hern stood by her conviction that the decision was the right one.

“A journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step,” she said.

“I appreciate your prerecorded statements, Barbara,” replied Horvath.

Former board President Michael Stasi, who has one child enrolled in the school, also attends meetings regularly, and said that he supported Horvath’s statements.

“I do appreciate the hard work that has been done,” said Stasi, who did not win reelection to the board. “The three newest board members say that they are listening to the parents. It’s easy to understand the interest of the majority. If you are here to serve the parents, you’ll vote accordingly.”

The newest member of the board, Kevin Donahue, agreed that he did promise to listen to parents.

“This is a dire situation financially,” he said. “I pledged to listen to parents, but the trustees have to make decisions that are best for the school. The parents are not the school. The board of trustees is not the school. We serve the school together. I’m listening, just not necessarily going to go along.”

Trustee Vincent Crapelli also had a problem with Article II, making a motion for the vote on the bylaw amendments to be split into two, one for Article II and the other for the balance of the bylaws.

“I simply think that the board should have the opportunity to vote for Article II separately,” he said. “Because of the nature of the content of Article II, the board members might wish to approve changes outside of Article II.”

Crapelli, along with trustees Daryll Hughes and Michael Moore, voted to separate the vote, but the motion was defeated by a vote of 3-4.

Kenney said that trustees were entitled to split their votes, excluding parts of the bylaw amendments from an affirmative vote.

Before the final vote was taken on the amendments, Crapelli made it clear that his reasons for opposing Article II was not the same as the parents.’

“I’ve heard what you’ve said,” Crapelli said to those who attended the meeting. “However, over the past year, with everything that’s gone on, it has shown that the makeup of the board is very important in determining the direction of the school and the safeguarding of the school. The board seated before you is determined to safeguard the school. The board that was constituted six months ago, their stewardship of the school, according to the Department of Education, was less than optimal.”

Crapelli referred to the changes in Article II as “a nice attempt, but inadequate, not workable and unwieldy.”

“There is no good way to give parents a direct vote for the trustees,” he said.

Crapelli voted against the bylaw amendments as a whole, with all other trustees voting to accept the changes, with the exception of Moore, who split his vote, voting against Article II.

According to Kenney, the bylaws will now be sent to the state Commissioner of Education and the DOE Office of Compliance, which mandated the bylaw changes.

At the request of four dissident trustees, the Office of Compliance investigated the school’s finances and issued a report last spring that said the school’s debt burden was “excessive” and made recommendations including the bylaw changes.

“By this vote taken tonight,” said Kenney, “the board has satisfied that provision of the corrective action plan.”

The DOE, according to Kenney, must review and approve the amendments before the changes can take effect.

One vacancy remains on the board, and the seat is expected to remain open until the bylaw amendments have been made, allowing parents to have a voice.

Kenney said the board informed him that the DOE responded within a few weeks to changes made to the bylaws in the past.

Other changes to bylaws include the restrictions on the terms of trustees, allowing a trustee to serve no more than two consecutive three-year terms, and no board member who has already served more than four years could stand for reelection.

Current trustees who have served more than two full-year terms will be permitted to complete their current terms.