Jim Morgan
Ridgewood NJ, I read with rising dismay some of the comments concerning my recent posting about Saurabh Dani, a candidate for the Ridgewood Board of Education, and an attempt force the taxpayers to finance his crusade to uncover nothing. While a number of Villagers appear to understand how nonsensical his behavior has been, and I appreciate their comments, there also those that seem bent to position him as some kind of hero in this fight. It is my sincere hope the majority see his conduct for what it really is – a self-serving and unproductive threat to Ridgewood Schools.
The latest “legal victory” his team celebrates is a good example of the destructive impact Mr. Dani has had on the District. He sued the Board to “uncover” malfeasance where none existed. His premise was simple, Ms. Brogan and I, current Board members, were somehow circumnavigating the New Jersey Open Public Meetings/Records Acts (“OPRA/OPMA”) by conducting Board business through our personal email accounts. He ignored the fact that the use of personal accounts does not prevent citizens from requesting information about District business from these accounts. He also ignored the fact that Board policies, Department of Education and New Jersey State law permits the use of these email accounts. No, Mr. Dani saw a conspiracy to hide the public’s right to transparency in the District’s governance. Nothing of the kind can or has occurred.
Before filing his lawsuit, the District explained to Mr. Dani why his suspicions were incorrect. He refused to believe this to be the case and he sued.
What was the much-ballyhooed judgement that this lawsuit achieved? The Bergen County Superior Court judge hearing this case did not take exception to any Board email practices, or Ms. Brogan or my email practices. Her judgement was that the District must produce “certifications” concerning Ms. Brogan and my email practices and the Board promptly did so. These included the following inconsequential information:
- What “non-Board” devices we use,
- What “non-Board” programs and applications we use to access Board emails,
- What email settings we use to retrieve our Board emails, and
- Whether these settings were on “Board email accounts, Board devices, private email accounts, or private devices.”
Mr. Dani had already been told this information in the past. Most importantly, the judge did not identify any OPRA/OPMA violations or order the District to change any of its practices. The sole outcome of her judgement was that Mr. Dani was entitled to a certification of information that he already knew. I can’t understand why it was worth a lawsuit to get what was already available. A monumental waste of time.
Mr. Dani has touted this decision as some sort of open government victory. Nothing could be farther from the truth. None of his suspicions of wrongdoing ever emerged because they did not exist. The Board of Education has conducted its business in full compliance with state OPRA/OPMA laws and regulations.
What Mr. Dani has accomplished, however, is far more corrosive to Ridgewood Schools. He has wasted the time of administrators, Board members and outside attorneys in responding to his increasingly wide-ranging information requests under the law. Make no mistake, I am not taking exception to the OPRA/OPMA law. It is good and promotes governmental transparency. What Mr. Dani has done is weaponized the law to harass the District. As annoying as his behavior has been, it is permitted under the law.
He now wants to compound this diversion of District resources to require that Ridgewood taxpayers to fund his attorney fees for this inconsequential case. He is trying to divert financial resources away from the children in Ridgewood’s schools and using his candidacy for election to the Board of Education leverage a settlement and payment of the fees for legal services he commissioned. The Board has declined to play his game.
This is not the first time Mr. Dani has behaved this way. Several years ago, he promoted a false narrative that the District had somehow perverted the use of monies from the 2009 Referendum. He continued to argue this even though the State of New Jersey had audited and certified that the projects done with these funds were spent in accordance with the wishes of the voters and state law. Over the last number of years, he has harassed the Board with technical challenges to our agenda wording and meeting procedures. In doing so he has accomplished nothing but waste time. Since I have known Mr. Dani, he has yet to offer a constructive thought that would improve our schools.
I have served as a volunteer Trustee Board of Education for over eight years, the last three of which as Vice President. I receive no compensation for this service that often requires long hours and handling difficult issues. I do this because I believe in the educational programs that Ridgewood’s teachers & staff afford our children provide. The schools are the backbone of the Village and the strength of its property values. The Village must continue to support these precious assets.
Saurabh Dani has exerted a negative influence on the Board’s affairs for several years as a resident. I urge all Village voters to recognize that he has done nothing other than pervert the public discussion of education. If you have not already done so, please cast your mail-in ballot for Dan Creed and Mike Lembo in the election on Tuesday May 12. If your ballot is postmarked by tomorrow evening, it will count in this election.
These comments are mine and do not represent the position of the full Board.
Jim – thank you again. It is clear the Dani gang want to see themselves as some kind of martyrs of democracy. The always online crew like to think they are House of Cards, but the silent majority in this town knows they are really Parks and Rec. I just wish it wasn’t so expense for the taxpayer for them to play make-believe.
in before james starts censoring speech again
Why is Jim afraid of?
Is he worried about sales of books to RPS from his bookstore?
The swamp rises up to defend itself.
.
Go Dani.
Expose the corrupt BOE.
The silent majority supports you. Jim Morgan and the BOE know it and they are justifiably scared.
I stand with Mr. Dani!
I stand with Dani. Morgan is a lying sack of shit. Good riddance Morgan
Methinks Mr Morgan doth protest too much
Mr. Morgan,
I read with interest your reply, and while your volunteer service is to be commended and appreciated, I believe, that based on your own words, you simply do not understand the purpose or value of the state’s Open Meeting Laws, why they even exist and to be frank you seem to thumb your nose at them.
In addition, your representation of the DANI lawsuit is factually incorrect, perhaps understandably influenced because Mr. Dani, regularly exerts his legal rights to speak and address questions to the board at public meetings, that you [in your own words] refer to as “harassment”.
I’ll explain further, any person who works for a company, is counseled, and in many cases mandated not to use their work email for personal (non-work related) communications. So, to use a colloquialism, we all know not to mix ‘business with pleasure’, when it comes to our electronic communications. It’s really just common sense and a bad practice, and very often it’s a mandatory policy that employees are required to follow, and we may even get fired if we make this violation at work.
You, on the other hand, by your own admission, believe that it’s perfectly OK to discuss board business using personal email accounts, thereby mixing business with pleasure. This is exactly why in a regular job, you may get fired and contrary to what you say, this is in-fact, the definition of circumventing Open Meeting Laws. The fact that this information can later be requested by an OPRA Records Request is not a nonsensical rationale for using personal email accounts for board business, especially when you have a business email for board business at your fingertips.
The lack of understanding of this very simple fact, is not a recognition of malfeasance or nefarious behavior as you suggest is the reason behind the lawsuit, but it’s a simple declaration that you do not understand Open Meeting Laws, why they exist and why they are critical to board governance, and public trust.
How a tenured board member of 8 years, can be so deficient in this basic board governance understanding can’t be understated.
Also, your suggestion that DANI is costing tax payers money is misleading, you know full well that the board has oversight, responsibility and voting authority to approve the use the school funding, and the board elected to use tax payers money on a legal defense which in hindsight was not necessary, as you lost.
Note that in many cases, boards members are sanctioned individually and personally with a financial penalty in matters such as these, and in most instances the amounts are nominal, and are meant to teach board members a lesson and to convey the seriousness of adhering to a state’s open meeting laws. In addition your board’s members should be aware that if your D&O insurer reads your post, they would most likely drop your insurance since you have conveyed that you find it perfectly acceptable to conduct board business outside of the public purview using your private personal email accounts. This would leave the board exposed to represent themselves in any future legal matters.
As I read through the legal filings, I would note that the matter has nothing to do with nefarious behavior on the part of the board, or malfeasance, as you see to suggest, from the onset it’s been a simple matter of adhering to the law, and being transparent in board business, ensuring public trust.
In closing, your representation is misleading, and it’s astounding that you would insist that using personal emails for board business is fine, because it’s just simply not the case (a lack of transparency in board business leads to a lack of the public trust) and for this reason you are just wrong.
Mr. Dani’s has not exerted a negative influence as you stated, he has simply asked the board to be transparent in their business dealings, that’s really all there is to it.
The board choose to litigate and use school funds to argue to the contrary.
You lost.
Now, as a normal course of business are required to pay the other sides reasonable legal fees.
Your letter convey’s two strong points, one is good old fashioned ‘sour grades’, but number two is what really matter’s most, you by your own admission, do not understand (or maybe you do, and you disagree), open meeting laws, and the larger purpose they serve in serving the public.
There is nothing happening at the BOE that is truly transparent because Board members do not see themselves as representatives of the people but as an agent (s)of the superintendent. Committee meeting reports are rarely heard . For years minutes were not kept. Until recently you never even heard real discussions. The last public comment session takes place before the last agenda items which often include important items relevant to those attending and those watching from home. Mr. Dani attends meetings and asks politely for information that should be readily available to the public but doesn’t receive it. This happens to others as well. He pursued his request and we found out that there is no policy that precludes Bof E members from conducting business on private email accounts. This must be corrected. Also, without the questions regarding the bond referendum , we would be looking at an additional vote this year on a 95 million dollar bond on top of the 115 million dollar budget vote.
Wow, all one way articles James, what a surprise. You’re such a boomer.
Jim Morgan is the author
Your comment section is biased one way. Not fair & balanced.