Board to draw up tenure charges vs. administrator

BY JOYCE BLAY
Staff Writer

The Lakewood Board of Education voted to have its attorney draw up tenure charges against district Business Administrator Kathryn Fuoto at an emergency meeting April 8, according to board member Leonard Thomas.

“We decided to take this course of action based on the information we received over the last several months from the private auditors we hired,” said Thomas. “As a board, we need to be fiscally responsible, and we decided this was the course of action we needed to take. This board has gone to great lengths to expose any improprieties in our district to regain the trust of the community and (its) support for the budget to benefit the children.”

Residents said in public and in interviews with the Tri-Town News at the March 7 and March 23 board meetings that they would not vote for the board’s 2005-06 budget based on the district’s mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.

The board hired the accounting firms of Bowman and Company and Rosenfarb Winters to assess the district’s finances. A partner from Bowman and Company presented the firm’s findings at the March 7 meeting, prior to the introduction of the 2005-06 school budget.

A representative of the forensic accounting firm Rosenfarb Winters presented a report prior to the board’s adoption of the same budget at the March 23 meeting. Copies of the report were distributed to the public and the media.

The Rosenfarb Winters report said Fuoto’s actions relating to the handing of district finances were inappropriate. It also took Assistant Superintendent Ed Luick to task as board secretary for inaccurate or unsupported certifications of overdrawn line items in the current budget. The report termed Luick’s actions “troubling.” Despite the report’s characterization of Luick’s actions, Thomas said no tenure charges would be filed against him at this time.

Neither Luick nor Fuoto returned a call for comment from the Tri-Town News after the presentation of the report or on Monday. Fuoto was not in her office the day the board voted to have Inzelbuch prepare tenure charges against her. Fuoto’s attorney, Francis Campbell of Red Bank, did not return a call for comment.

Time and cost may be factors the board considered in deciding to press tenure charges against only Fuoto at this time, according to Frank Belluscio, director of public information for the New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA).

“Because the tenure process is a lengthy one, it does impose a financial constraint on the [district],” he said. “Tenure charges can only be filed for incompetence, inefficiency or unbecoming conduct. If the charge is based on inefficiency, the employee has to be given 90 days to improve or correct the deficiency. Any other reason for filing tenure charges would result in the employee being suspended as soon as the charges are filed.

“The employee is suspended without pay for 120 days. At the 121st day, if a decision has not been made, pay is restored. The employee can still remain suspended until the issue is resolved,” he said.

Belluscio said that under a state statute all certifiable appointees receive tenure after three years and one day in their position. That includes administrators such as Fuoto as well as teachers. Belluscio said that tenure essentially puts the burden of proof on the employer to show a reason why the employee should be removed from his or her position.

Once tenure charges are filed with the commissioner of education, the matter is referred to the Office of Administrative Law. An administrative law judge conducts a hearing and then makes a recommendation to the commissioner of education. The commissioner can accept, reject or modify the recommendation.

Belluscio said the time necessary for the process, between the filing of the charges and the rendering of a decision by the commissioner, takes on average more than a year.

“This is a system you would not find in private industry,” he said. “In private industry, employees are employed at will. That’s the difference between employment in the private sector and with a public school district; public school employees have the protection of tenure.”

Belluscio said tenure was established at the turn of the 20th century as a means of protecting employees from patronage or nepotism. He said that since that time, other protections such as court decisions, anti-discrimination laws — both federal and state — and also collective bargaining have rendered the need for tenure obsolete.

“The whole tenure system is one we have questioned at the NJSBA,” said Belluscio.

Belluscio said the NJSBA has lobbied unsuccessfully for an end to tenure. He said the New Jersey Education Association, representing teachers and other affiliated personnel, opposed such a change. However, some changes have been made as a result of the organization’s persistence, said Belluscio.

“Ten years ago, tenure charges would have taken 16-18 months” to resolve, said Belluscio. “We would favor contractual tenure for all employees. On this particular issue, there is not a great reception among legislators to change the law. That’s all fine, but this is a cumbersome system.”