This isn't personal. It can't be as I have not met the person in question.
Although there are over 600 school districts throughout New Jersey, Plainfield will find itself again in the unique position of potentially having to remove a sitting school board member. Despite the unusual silence from a usual voiceful Board of Education and community, the legislation to bar those convicted of crimes from serving on school boards and requiring board members to undergo criminal checks was approved again and is moving through the process.
Frankly, at this point it really doesn't matter what many have spoken locally think or feel about this issue. There were some emotional remarks about second chances and turning one's life around of which I understand. Despite their being a splash of articles and commentary about whether the current school board member should be removed for his past criminal record and conviction, the elected officials in Trenton, including our very own Assemblyman, clearly and unanimously stated their position in their 76 to 0 approval of the Bill. The slightly revised version of one that passed the Legislature in February was conditionally vetoed by the governor.
Apparently, the Governor's veto was not a sign of hope for convicted felons currently serving on school board. It was a notice that the Bill would be signed once the stronger language was included. The conditional veto added language barring people convicted of bias intimidation and any fourth degree crime involving a child. The bill also would require each member of a board of education to undergo a criminal history background check within 30 days of being elected or appointed.
Clearly, he wanted to make the Bill even tougher and place board members that are convicted felons on notice that their time is up.
Under the bill, any person elected or appointed to a board of education would be disqualified from serving if they have been convicted of any crime that, under existing law, would disqualify them from being employed in a public school. The cost of the criminal background check will be the responsibility of the school board member, but unexpended campaign funds may be used in the case of an elected member.
The Bill it would also amend the oath of office taken by new board members to include a specific declaration that the member is not disqualified from service due to conviction of one of those crimes and any member who falsely swears that he or she is not disqualified would face penalties of up to 18 months in prison and $10,000 in fines.
The revised Bill was sent back to the Senate.
The crimes included under the bill include any crime of the first or second degree; an offense involving the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, distribution or habitual use of a controlled dangerous substance or "drug paraphernalia; a crime involving the use of force or the threat of force to or upon a person or property including, but not limited to, robbery, aggravated assault, stalking, kidnapping, arson, manslaughter and murder; a third degree crime, or any of the following crimes: recklessly endangering another person; terroristic threats; criminal restraint; luring, enticing child into motor vehicle structure or isolated area; causing or risking widespread injury or damage; criminal mischief; burglary; threats and other improper influence; perjury and false swearing; resisting arrest; any crime of the fourth degree involving a victim who is a minor; or conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit any of the aforesaid crimes.
The Bill is for those that were convicted of the crimes listed above. It does not apply to instances in which a person may have been arrested or even charged with such crimes. Sadly, we just lost from the Board a law abiding citizen with a clean record and known service to the community in Lenny Cathcart. There were other candidates last year with impecable resumes, records of service, and yes, clean criminal backgrounds that were not elected to the Board.
This issue would again place the Plainfield Board of Education in the middle of this debate. A member of the Grand Slam Team has been identifed as a convicted felon that would be subject to removal. That would leave the Grand Slam Team slate that swept last year's board election down to two after one member who was an educator decided not to run after only one year in office. Was her decision not to run due to district's gloomy financial picture, signs of what would be a failed reform agenda, an inability to keep campaign promises, politics, knowledge of the limited powers that board members have to run the daily affairs, or all of the above? I guess we will never know.
What we do know is that the Grand Slam Team and the Plainfield Board of Education is going to have to show real leadership and practice what it preaches. Accountability. Transparency. Ethics. Honesty. Law.
These will be guiding words that will shape how they deal with one of their own who just last year served as Vice President and held major sway on the runnings in the district.
The Board and community have been extremely silent on this issue.
Should a convicted felon be allowed to serve in a position of leadership and authority over a school district when the people employed in the district under that authority could not be hired if they were convicted of similar crimes?
This is a question that will have to be answered soon. It is my hope that the Board of Education lead and the convicted board member bow out graciously and step down. Any other option would be politics as usual in the Queen City.
No more silence. Let's get it out in the open and talk about it.
What do you think?
Should a convicted felon be allowed to continue to serve on the Plainfield Board of Education when the law passes? Yes or No.
Remember, it is not personal.
Everything about this article is clearly personal. Objectivity, yeah right. You have the temerity to accuse me of not ever writing anything complimentary about the Gallon team; and I could very easily (and I do) say that you have myopia when it regards those you do not agree with....Serving on a Board of Education as a member is about implementing district policy not cheering at a basketball or football game. Many people personally laude Mr. Cathcart for his involvement with the young people of our community and I am one of those people. However, I can separate his community involvement and his ability to implement district policy as well as, manage a $150 million dollar budget. There is a difference.........in case you were unaware.
ReplyDeleteTo allow the state or the cowardly Jerry Green to make a chosen BOE member step down is beyond fathoming. I can see that a Board member needs to be honest about their past, but this is crazy. It is up to the people who they want in an office, not up to politicians and the "business as usual" group that have brought our state to near ruin. Maybe they whould concentrate on a state toad or something to go along with our state soil. How dare they tell us who we can vote for!
ReplyDeletedr. e=mc2,
ReplyDeleteMy post simply states the facts about a Bill that will have an impact on Board members that are convicted felons. In this case, Plainfield BOE falls in this category. What's personal about that?
My comments about Lenny Cathcart are factual. He was not re-elected, he has a track record of caring about students and donating his time, and he is not a convicted felon.
The Board member that is a convicted felon ran on the slate of the Grand Slam team that swept last years election. I expect people that run on a platform on reform to be willing and able to see that reform agenda through. It is a fact that one of the more qualified members of the Grand Slam slate who is an educator decided not to run. I always thought that when you are a member of a team you see the team through to the end. Her decision not to run after only a year on the Board is her decision but raises questions.
Maybe she was the smarter of the bunch and got off the Titanic.
Based on the districts finances, unstable leadership, failing schools, increasing charter schools, etc. the Plainfield schools seems to be a sinking ship.
Your mentioning of implementing district policy is also misleading. Board members dont implement policy and they do not manage the budget so that was not Mr. Cathcart's job as a board member.
He seemed to care about the children in the community and thats a good quality to have as a board member as opposed to focusing on incompetent, overpaid teachers and administrators.
He seemed to have failed the politics in supporting a superintendent that had a reform agenda that by all accounts was showing to be a success.
I still have not received any factual information about Gallon which suggests that he was either corrupt, incompetent, or both of which I promised to post if I ever received it. It has been over a month now. Your feelings about Gallon and his team are your feelings, sir or madam. But they are feelings that always come across in your comments and on your blog.
I will post your comments as long as their tasteful. But remember facts, not fancy words or phrases move me.
Have a nice weekend!
FYI
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is a Board member's role in the educational process?
In a nutshell, the Board is legally charged with creating the policies that the administration uses as a blueprint for running the schools. Through policy, the Board outlines the district's philosophies, goals, and objectives, and provides the framework for the administration to build educationally sound curriculum and programming. But, once the policies are set, the Board must give the administration ample leeway in allowing them to determine the best way to meet the district's goals and objectives, and fulfill the intent of its educational philosophies. In short, Boards are not responsible for running the schools; that task falls to the Superintendent and his or her staff.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tap_hosting/old_site/ethics.pdf
You really should dig a little deeper into the FACTS about Lenny Cathcart. First of all his community involvement with the children is his PAID JOB. He is PAID with tax payer dollars for heading the basketball program through Recreation and he was a PAID umpire for the little league program. Also just because you aren't brought up on formal charges about some indiscretion doesn't mean you are clean. Why don't you dig deeper into his separation from his job at Job Corp.
ReplyDeleteHe probably didn't get elected because at one of the forums he still admits he would support Gallon even after he was proven to be shady in his dealings.
You said he "seemed to care about the children". In that you are correct.
You condemn a man you state you do not know! Your blog's title "Politics of Plainfield" and this posting would in dictate a strong connection with City Party Chairman Green.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that you meet Mr. Abdul-Hagg. He is honest about his youthful failings but has been a sincere citizen promoting the welfare of Plainfield's youth for more years than I can recall and I have been acquainted with him for over 2 decades.
Plainfield and the BOE could use a thousand individuals who have Mr. Abdul-Hagg's character.
Or would you prefer more individuals in the school system who accept gifts from crooks? Are they a better influence on our kids?
Thank you Olddoc!! Kenneth, I am more convinced that you are either Steve Gallon or a close friend/relative of his, plain and simple. Everything you posted so far was either about Gallon directly or indirectly. Again Gallon is not coming back to Plainfield nor can he reach out and destroy the current school board. Abdul is an honest, caring man who in his youth made some mistakes. Lenny on the other hand has no clue about finance or curriculum and does not deserve a seat on the board.
ReplyDeletedr.=mc2 2:17 p.m., In your first comment you state "implement" and "manage" when you refer to Mr. Cathcarts "inability" as a board member. I am glad to see that you went to do research and have now come back to say "create policies" and "not responsible for running the schools". Do your research first before you post a comment or even on your blog in the future.
ReplyDelete4:22 p.m., You are correct. I dont know about the "paid" status of Mr. Cathcart. But I am glad to see that we agree that he cares about kids. I am not investigating Mr. Cathcart's past nor the past of the board member that may be affected by the law. What I am doing is pointing out that there is a law to be passed that the BOE would have to follow.
Mr. Cathcarts past as it relates to the law will not matter as he is no longer a board member. The voters of Plainfield spoke, albeit a very low, sad turnout. The new law will matter for a sitting board member if in fact he is a convicted felon. As for Gallon and "proof" of anything "shady" corrupt, or incompetent as I said earlier it has been over a month and I have received neither. Maybe Mr. Cathcart showed his integrity as he obviously knows from his official position as board member and what I read from official documents that Gallon did nothing wrong. In fact, the gentleman was wronged by this system and the politics of Plainfield. You can research that or request the documents through OPRA. I suggest you get them directly from the State.
olldoc 8:22, Please show me where I have "condemened" anyone. In fact, it is you not I that mentioned the name of the person in question. I did not mention names because I have seen neither court document or criminal record. I have only read articles in a newspaper which would suggest that the new law would affect this individual.
I am sure that the person is an honest person that cares about the youth. Many do. But my main question which nobody seems to want to answer directly is about the law and a board member that is a convicted felon.
As for my preference, I would prefer individuals that do a better job in improving our schools, being ethical and honest, managing our finances, staying away from cronyism and back door deals, and preparing our students for life after high school if in fact they make it to graduate from Plainfield.
These are just a few things that this BOE of which the individual was a part of before has failed to do.
Why did you delete my post?? Is it because it points out the moot point of this post, in fact this entire Blog.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't need to call his name, people are well aware of who you are referring to, and the point is -- He serves far more for the benefit of our children then you do.
You are sounding more and more like the man for whom you are on a mission. Avoidance, double-speak, disingeniousness, malarkey!
Again, the law is the law -- and the Board has not decision in it other than to follow it.
8:32,
ReplyDeleteI have already addressed my NON affiliation with Gallon. As for finance and curriculum, the record of the Plainfield school district speaks for itself. The finances are in shambles and the schools are not progressing.
12:21,
I did not delete a post. I have not received a comment that I though was not appropriate to post even if it differed with my point of view. Even if I did, it is my blog but I didnt.
As for double talk, the title of my post asked a question based on what is about to become law. The "avoidance, double talk, disingenuous, malarkey" are really in the fact that there has yet to be a straight answer. A yes or no.
To both, if I am am on supporter of Gallon or Ctahcart or any of the others that is my choice. That is my point with this blog. The politics of Plainfield is about going along to get along. Those that dare dissent beware.
Amen to that Kenneth.
ReplyDeleteObjectivity and the ability to view facts as they are is not a popular characteristic in this area. However, to answer your question the original comment made by Bob makes sense (although I don't agree). If the community wants to elect someone with a past criminal record that is their choice. I feel that it is the public's right to put in office whom they feel will represent their best interest.
However my personal perspective on this issue is that in the public school
system all involved should be held to the same standard including the school board. So yes I believe that the new law is FAIR.
On another note: School boards as a whole should be re-evaluated. I have always felt that members without any understanding of how education works, especially public school systems, never really understand the impact of their decisions. Many of them don't have a clue as to what they vote on looks like implemented and it's effect long term, especially curriculum and instruction. Kenneth, should board members be required to have some type if trainings in curriculum and instruction before taking office in order to ensure they understand those processes and procedures? Moreover, to help them understand what their decisions look like in the classroom.
Kenneth,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure your question on whether the BOE should allow a convicted person to serve the BOE or not, got a straight answer, but the answer is quite simple, I think; if the law passed then there is not much to discuss unless the BOE wants to break the law. Perhaps the question is now on whether the BOE will follow the law or someone will have to make a complaint.
Maria