September 25, 2013 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • Page 3 Midland Park Board plans to limit records available with agendas The Midland Park Board of Education is considering broadening the amount of information it makes available to the public along with its public meeting agendas, but the documentation will be limited. By a 6-3 vote on a proposed policy to make available online prior to the meeting all pertinent information relative to the items on the agenda, trustees decided to limit the information to the actual appen- dices. The revised policy will be up for second reading and adoption at the board’s Oct. 1 meeting. Trustee Robert Schiffer objected to posting the information in advance. “Ms. Garvey (board secretary) says that our attorney says we don’t have to provide the information prior to approval,” Schiffer Referendum input sought Midland Park public school parents want to help the board of education sell the next public question put to voters. The last referendum to fund school construction projects was defeated by more than 450 votes in December, 2012. “I want you to use me. Use CAMP (Community Alliance of Midland Park, a group organized after the defeat of the last referendum). We want to work together,” Joan Petrocelli Doumas of First Street told the board at its regular meeting last week. Elaine Seals of Orchard Street asked that members of the community be involved earlier in the process if a referendum is again proposed. School Business Administrator Stacy Garvey said special meetings had been held to seek community input at that time. “Last time you only asked the public to meetings when it was already laid out,” Seals countered. “”We expected to discuss the proposal. You did it your way, and it didn’t go so well. The community would like to help pass it this time,” Patricia Fantulin of Vreeland Avenue told the board members. “I admire your passion, but not every- body feels that way,” cautioned Laurie Kamp of Third Street. “The vote has to get out and we all have to be on the same page. We have to come up with a number we can sell to the people.” While no proposal is yet in the works, the board has applied to the NJ State Depart- ment of Education’s Schools Development Authority for a grant to undertake some of the projects included in the defeated $15.2 million question. The authority would provide 40 percent of whatever projects it approves; the board would have to float a bond for the other 60 percent. “If we get only a small amount, a referendum might not be the answer,” said trustee Robert Schiffer. School Business Administrator Stacy Garvey said the board applied for funds to do all of the items included in the defeated referendum except roof work at all three school buildings. Roof replacement has been done since then using operating budget surplus funds and a nearly $1 mil- lion special assessment approved by voters in April. About 20 percent in roof work still needs to be done, she said. State grants being sought would fund capital projects and infrastructure upgrades, including doors/windows, floors, ceiling tiles, boilers, bathroom fix- tures, and mechanical and electrical sys- tems at all three borough schools. Board President William Sullivan said the board expects a decision on the grant by the end of October. said. Board member Brian McCourt asked whether there is enough office staff to handle the posting of the additional docu- ments. Board Vice President Sandra Criscenzo said it would confuse the public to see dif- ferent versions of a proposal prior to the actual adoption. Superintendent of Schools Dr. Marie Cirasella said earlier versions could be clearly marked “draft.” “The public knows there is nothing official until it is approved by the board,” said board President William Sullivan, who had asked the Policy Committee to consider the issue. Trustee MaryAlyce Thomas noted that the support material supplied to board members in their packets is substantially more extensive than an appendix. She said posting just the appendix, which is shorter, should be sufficient. “I am taken aback by the discussion,” said David Opderbeck of Smith Lane, who had previously objected to the with- holding of the information. “It is unac- ceptable. Any document is public. Your board attorney’s opinion is just one per- son’s opinion,” he added. “I worked a deal with the board attor- ney. If it falls through, the courts will have to decide. The public is entitled to the information in a timely manner,” Opder- beck said, adding: “Your logistical con- cern is specious. The documents can be put on the web in 10 seconds. I just don’t understand it. The courts would agree. This will not fly.” The Policy Committee had proposed that the agenda posted online include “any attachments, reports, or supplementary materials specifically referenced therein, with the exception of those that are con- fidential, privileged, or exempt from access under the New Jersey Open Public Records Act.” Sullivan said the changes were prompted by requests from the public. The board elicits public questions and comments on agenda items at the begin- ning of its meetings, but the actual items are only listed by title or a short descrip- tion and are not provided for review. Cur- rently, for instance, a proposed resolution, or policy or the list of financial claims cannot be obtained until the day following board approval.