An Unjust Punishment

On April 2, 2008, I lambasted Jan Rubino for soliciting campaign contributions from school district staff. I charged Ms. Rubino with violating school board bylaws. The story was reported in the local press. Ms. Rubino won a landslide victory and was appointed school board vice president. All this is old news. Or at least it was until a judge made an unusual and unwarranted recommendation.

Weeks after the 2008 election, the School Ethics Commission received a complaint against Rubino. A year later, the commission referred the case to an administrative law judge. A year after that, the judge considered the evidence and issued her findings and recommendation on July 19th, which must still be reviewed by the ethics commission and approved by the newly installed commissioner of education.

Judge Sanders is the acting director and chief administrative law judge. She considered four charges against Rubino:

• N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(e) prohibiting solicitation or acceptance of a gift or political contribution based on an understanding that the contribution is for the purpose of influencing the candidate in the discharge of his or her duties
• Same concerning an email to the board attorney
• N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), which prohibits the taking of private action that could compromise the Board
• N.J.S.A. 18:12-24.1(f), which forbids the use of the schools for personal gain or the gain of friends

The charges stem from three emails –

• An “unkonwn” email sent by Rubino to a group of friends, including school staff members at their school email addresses
• A similar email sent by her running mate, Marty Ruprecht, that included three staff members at their school email addresses
• A third and similar email sent to the school board attorney, Michael Gross

The email to Gross was deemed a communication soliciting legal guidance, not a political contribution, and was discarded. Ruprecht’s email was deemed an independent communication. Since the statutes only restrain office holders, not candidates for office, the judge properly discarded his email as well.

That left one email and three charges. Namely, Rubino solicited political contributions from district staff with the implicit understanding that such support could influence her actions as a board member, which would compromise the board. And, since Rubino used the school district email system to solicit the contributions, she made an illegal use of school property for personal gain.

We have no idea what was in that email or who received it, only Rubino’s testimony that it may have included some long-time teachers who were old-time friends who “may” have contributed to her campaign. Rubino testified that she regularly purges her computer of old emails and deleted the email during one of her routine purges, unaware the email may become critical to any pending or likely future hearing.

Judge Sanders believes Rubino fibbed about accidentally deleting the email, forgetting who was on the recipient list, and forgetting whether any of the recipients contributed to her campaign. The judge therefore, considering Rubino’s entire testimony and its context, made it a finding of fact that Rubino had solicited school staff at their school email addresses and received political contributions from them. Judge Sanders found Rubino guilty of all three charges.

Up to this point, Judge Sanders acted reasonably and within her discretion. However, her recommendation to the ethics commission was unduly harsh – that Rubino be suspended from participating on the school board for six-months. Judge Sanders even went a step further saying she would have recommended removal had Rubino not testified that she refrained from voting upon all personnel matters for one year.

It is obvious from Judge Sanders’ decision - her tone, findings, and harsh recommendation - that she is seeking to punish Rubino, not for the actual violations of which Rubino is accused, but upon Judge Sander’s belief that Rubino destroyed evidence and committed perjury.

Judge Sanders claims to have rejected the more appropriate punishment of censure on the scant case history that board members generally incur censure in cases of one violation, not multiple violations. On this point, Judge Sanders plainly erred.

When recommending a penalty, the determining factor is not the number of violations but the severity of the offense(s). A school board member (or a candidate for that office) soliciting money from school district staff is wrong and illegal but, on a moral barometer, is not much more offensive than state officials pursuing political contributions from state labor unions. The only ethical difference is that our state representatives outlawed such behavior for others but not themselves.

Any violation could conceivably “compromise the board”. Sending someone an email at his school address is no more considered “the use of the schools for personal gain” than mailing someone a letter at his place of business. Rubino’s offense was soliciting school employees. The secondary technical violations don’t aggravate the original transgression nor does Judge Sanders suggest they do.

Had Ms. Rubino’s offense been considered truly heinous, the ethics commission and the administrative law judge wouldn’t have waited until Ms. Rubino nearly finishes her term before rendering punishment. Had the ethics commission truly wanted a copy of the offending email, it could have requested a copy from the school administration, which regularly makes archival backups of email in case of a system malfunction. Had the ethics commission been truly concerned whether Ms. Rubino refrained from voting upon personnel matters, it could have spent twenty minutes to review the dozen board minutes posted online at the district website.

Perjury, destruction of evidence, and obstruction of justice are serious offenses because they undermine our legal system’s ability to administer justice in accordance with our laws. If Judge Sanders believes Rubino committed any of those offenses, there are legal remedies, each of which would provide Rubino an opportunity to defend herself. However, to convict Rubino of one offense and then punish her for a separate uncharged crime is a miscarriage of justice.

Jan Rubino solicited political contributions from a handful of school employees who happened to be in her email address book. That’s the charge. Nothing more and nothing less. The appropriate punishment is censure. >>> Read more!

Barbato-Zavorskas Regain Control

Yesterday’s Matawan-Aberdeen school board election was a blowout by any measure. Despite complaints of ethical misconduct, Jan Rubino garnered 1105 votes, possibly a new record in local school board elections. Her running mate, Martin Ruprecht, won 986 votes to Ken Aitken’s 759. It may also have been the most divisive with a record 758 undervotes and write-ins. The proposed budget was defeated for the 7th consecutive year .Yet, the people breathing the biggest sigh of relief were never on the ballot.

Yesterday’s election only saw a 17% voter turnout, in line with historical norms. While Aitken ran a campaign of ideas, his opponents worked to get out the vote. (Although Aitken’s numbers were lower than his prior election bid, this was likely due to his name being last on the ballot, the loser’s slot.) In an election where organization matters more than ideas or principles, the “powers-that-be” have every advantage.

The Barbato-Zavorskas (Barza) wing has the organization. They have aligned themselves with the local teachers union, members of the town council, and activists in the PTO. Barbato and Zavorskas also have deep ties within the community. Zavorskas has been living in the same house nearly her entire life. Barbato has been on the school board for almost a generation.

The Barza wing thrives on voter apathy. As long as most of the township remains convinced that no school board will ever improve education or reduce taxes, they will not take the time to vote. Unfortunately, the voters have squandered a real opportunity for change. Dr. O’Malley’s appointment, opposed by the Barza wing, could have been a watershed moment. He may now be driven out like the former superintendent, Bruce Quinn.

Meanwhile, Aberdeen’s town council members are relieved that grassroot efforts are so easily defeated. Despite every attempt by the current school board leadership to increase citizen participation through public and televised meetings, they could not raise voter turnout.

Yet, I remain optimistic. Ken Aitken lost this election, not the ideals of creating a low-tax, high-performing school district. There were nearly 1000 undervotes and write-ins for the Matawan and Aberdeen candidates but only 102 undervotes on the question of the budget. The budget was soundly defeated 54.76% to 45.24%.

Additionally, I credit this blog with the record number of undervotes in Aberdeen. Hundreds of people chose to not vote for a second candidate rather than push a button for someone without honor.

The Barza Wing and Sobel Gang may be celebrating now but even they must realize that change is afoot. And when it comes, it won’t be a tinkle but a torrent.

For over seven years, the people of Aberdeen have been begging for a candidate who will reduce the tax burden and expunge the corruption. For over seven years, we have been seeking a candidate who will prepare our children for a competitive, complex, and uncertain future. For over seven years, Aberdeen has been searching for a candidate who actually fights for the people. And next year we shall have it.

Mark your calendars. Plans are underway. 2009 will be the year we take back our town and take back our schools. >>> Read more!

The Battle for School Board Control

On April 15th, the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District is having its annual school board elections. Council members John Barbato and Catherine Zavorskas are waging a relentless campaign through their Mini-Me’s, Jan Rubino and Marty Ruprecht. They’ve abandoned all pretense of fighting “for the people” in their mad quest for power. The only thing standing in their way is the truth.

The stakes are high. For the first time in years, we have a school board trying to restrain spending and raise standards. They’ve won concessions on employee contributions to healthcare, halted all new construction, hired a demanding superintendent with a proven track record, and taken the prior administration to task for not raising test scores. Baby steps, for sure, but at least they’re steps in the right direction.

Opposed to the board majority is the Barbato-Zavorskas wing. For years, they’ve turned the school district into their personal fiefdom, doling out jobs and special favors for the privileged few. They supported every one of former Superintendent Quinn’s empire building schemes and have fought every effort to impose standards, including the appointment of Superintendent O’Malley.

Representing the board majority, Ken Aitken has tried to wage a campaign of ideas. He appeared at the BOE Meet the Candidates Night and created a website stating his record and platform.

In contrast, Rubino and Ruprecht have used every unscrupulous tactic Barbato and Zavorskas could imagine.

Meet the Candidates –
As detailed in my prior posting, they engineered a no-show to prevent any press coverage and then disseminated false stories to justify their actions.

Soliciting Contributions from District Employees –
The school board bylaws specifically forbid any board member from soliciting any employee or vendor for campaign contributions (No. 9270, Sec. H, I). Board members are further prohibited from accepting any campaign contributions from these same people (No. 9270, Sec. N). Even if a family member had received a substantial gift ($100 value) from a district employee or vendor, that board member must recuse himself from all discussions regarding that employee or vendor (No. 9270, Sec. O).

In complete disregard of the school board’s bylaws or any sense of propriety, Rubino and Ruprecht sent school employees, including a non-tenured principal, an email soliciting campaign contributions.

Enlisting Support from the Teachers Union -
While individual teachers are free to support whomever they like, the teachers union normally remains steadfast neutral. Not in this case. Not only did the local teachers union endorse the solicitation of school employees, they actually encouraged it. Rubino and Ruprecht were provided a mailing list of all teachers residing in the district, regardless of where the teachers actually work. A number of teachers who live locally but work elsewhere reported receiving this postcard from Rubino and Ruprecht.

Campaign Finance Shenanigans –
The postcards say they were paid for by “Educators for a Quality Education”. If any such organization actually exists, it is not listed anywhere in New Jersey State records or on Google.

Meanwhile, according to state election filings, Rubino and Ruprecht have only donated a measly $25 each to their own campaign. What greater proof exists that these two stooges are only stand-ins for Barbato and Zavorskas than they’re too cheap to even fund their own campaigns.

The question remains, however, who is funding their campaign?

(The filing was a bewildering display of incompetence - legally unnecessary (only contributions over $300 need be reported), highly damaging, full of errors, and submitted by Rubino. Here’s a fun game – I found seven errors in the one-page filing (counting liberally). How many can you find?)

Using the PTO for Political Purposes
In 2006, Barbato was re-elected by only 23 votes. He would have lost but for an absentee ballot campaign engineered by Krista Ruprecht, Marty Ruprecht’s wife. Under the guise of a “Kidz Count” campaign, Krista used PTO resources to recruit college students to submit absentee ballots for Barbato. Krista is a current PTO president. Rubino is a past president. We should expect more of the same.

Slanted Press Coverage
It’s no coincidence that the Asbury Park Press has been running a series of Letters to the Editor (plus one nonsensical editorial) critical of the current board leadership but not one letter in support. Nor is it a coincidence that these pieces began after Rubino and Ruprecht announced their candidacies.

Rubino and Ruprecht are running an unconscionable campaign to represent us in the education of our children. How sickening. A vote for either one of them is a vote against Aitken.

Vote for Ken Aitken. Leave the others blank. >>> Read more!