LACEY – Who can assign Board of Education members to committees? That’s the question that was explained during a recent meeting.
Board members are assigned committees where a few of them meet to handle issues and then present those issues to the rest of the board.
This became an issue when Salvatore Armato took office in January. Armato questioned who had the authority to assign a board member to a committee. He had not been assigned to any board committees by Board President Frank Palino.
Palino explained his reasoning for that, saying it was due to Armato’s refusal to wear a COVID-19 protective mask in school buildings where committee meetings would be held.
It is unclear whether Armato has been assigned a committee now that Governor Phil Murphy’s executive order mandating masks be worn by students, staff and visitors inside school buildings was lifted as of March 7. The prior mandate included masking up during Board of Education meetings and that became a contentious issue among Board members, the public and school administrators.
“It was agreed that it is the sole responsibility of the Board President to decide who would be on each committee and who would serve as an alternate and this also aligns with the NJSBA,” board member Kim Klaus said.
She summed up a recent meeting of the Board’s policy committee. They once again reviewed the duties of the president and vice president of the board. “The policy committee has been working on this since June.”
“The goal was not only to improve this policy but to be more in line with the New Jersey School Board Association. We compared the edition we had with another school district’s policy to see if we were on the same line, which we were,” Klaus added.
Furthermore, while looking over the policy, there was a discussion of whether language governing ethics should be included. The language was “to model a high standard of ethical conduct and confidentiality.”
Board member Linda Downing questioned the policy regarding the president and vice president saying, “I didn’t think we were going to keep that since we felt it wasn’t part of policy, it was more of a, how would you word it, someone’s personality or ability – but not a policy. I thought we were going to get rid of that.”
“Code of ethics, Mrs. Downing?” Board member Donna McAvoy interjected.
“Yes, that would be more of an ethics thing than of policy,” Downing agreed.
“So can we remove that and vote on the rest tonight or does it have to be redone?” Klaus asked.
Klaus was told it could be either pushed to another meeting or made with a correction.
“That is more of an ethical issue,” Downing repeated, noting it was how one behaved as a board president or their actions. She called for that item’s removal from the proposed policy vote.
It was ultimately agreed that portion of the policy would be removed from that portion of the resolution voted on. The remainder of the policy update was approved by a vote of the Board.
