The Diploma Privilege the Berkeley Heights School Board Wrote for Itself

Berkeley Heights Board of Education members have access to graduation and promotion ceremonies that ordinary residents are not shown receiving in the public record. They are invited to select students whose diplomas or promotion certificates they want to present. They also developed and voted on a policy extending a family diploma-presentation privilege to certain former board members.

The clearest example is Pamela Stanley.

In April, Stanley asked Columbia Middle School Principal Paul Kobliska for permission to hand promotion certificates to a large redacted list. She grouped the students as her daughter, her daughter's friends who spent time at Stanley's house, Girl Scouts she led, and children she described as "like family." She acknowledged, "I know this is a large request." Kobliska replied the next morning: "No problem, we can make that happen." The exchange appears on pages 1 through 3 of the OPRA production.

Four days later, while defending proposed changes to Policy 0149, Stanley wrote that board members "receive nothing for their volunteer hours." She said it would be unfair if a member could present one child's certificate but not a second child's. She also confirmed, "I was the one that put it on the policy committee's agenda." That email appears on page 8.

This is not proof that Stanley violated the School Ethics Act. No ethics tribunal has made such a finding, and the records include professional advice against treating the policy itself as a statutory violation. But the emails create a serious appearance problem: an official used her public position to seek special ceremonial access for her child and friends, helped shape a policy protecting similar access after board service, and participated in a vote on it without a documented recusal.

That is exactly the kind of fact pattern residents are entitled to scrutinize.

Two privileges, one public office

The records reveal two related but distinct practices.

The first is informal access for current board members. On May 13, Governor Livingston Principal Meg Berry told board members that if there was a special senior they wanted to honor, they could present that student with a diploma. She offered to accommodate a senior "or seniors" close to each member's heart. The invitation is on page 21.

On June 2, Kobliska similarly invited board members to identify any middle-school students whose certificates they wished to present. The email is on page 86.

Stanley responded by again submitting the large list covering her daughter, friends, Girl Scouts, and children "like family." That second request is on page 87. By June 8, the principal's attendance list said Stanley had supplied student names to present, as shown on page 95.

When Stanley and board member Sai Bhargavi Akiri both selected the same student, Kobliska asked them to decide who would present the certificate or to stand together at the podium. Stanley replied that she wanted the student because she was the student's Girl Scout leader. The exchange appears on pages 97 and 98.

The second practice is Policy 0149. The existing policy allowed a "retiring" board member to present a child or grandchild with a high-school diploma with the superintendent's prior consent. The proposed revision broadened and formalized eligibility for retired members who completed a full term, placed the privilege within a 10.5-year window, and added language for send-receive representation.

These are not identical benefits. The current-member custom allowed members to name students beyond their own families. The formal policy concerned children and grandchildren of certain former members. Together, however, they show ceremonial access being distributed according to board status rather than a published process open to all families.

Stanley made the personal stake explicit

Stanley's own explanation is unusually direct.

She wrote that she would present her daughter's eighth-grade certificate that year and asked what would happen with her son if Stanley did not run again. She said the 10-year period was chosen so members with two or three children would have time to present all of their diplomas. The extra half-year addressed terms ending in December. Grandchildren were added for older members who might not have children currently in the district. Those statements appear on page 11.

That does not require guessing at motive. Stanley herself connected the policy discussion to her children and to the possibility that she might no longer be on the board.

It also exposes the weakness in describing the revision as a neutral administrative cleanup. The policy did not merely standardize paperwork. It set the conditions under which Stanley and other members could retain a personally meaningful privilege after leaving office.

When Natasha Joly objected that the board should not vote on a change conferring a benefit on board members, Stanley replied that the committee had reviewed the Ethics Act and "did not see a conflict." She characterized the New Jersey School Boards Association concern as general. That response is on page 27.

The problem is not that Stanley held an opinion about the law. The problem is that she treated the conflict question as resolved while she had already described her own family's stake in the outcome.

An ordinary resident asked for the same thing

The last page of the production is an email from resident John Migueis. On June 17, he told Superintendent Kim Feltre, "I plan on giving my daughter her diploma next year," and cited his frequent attendance at board meetings and work informing the community. The email is on page 109.

The production does not show a district response. It would be inaccurate to say his request was denied. It would also be inaccurate to say the district granted it.

That missing answer is itself a transparency problem. The records show board members receiving direct invitations and quick accommodation. They do not show a public application, neutral criteria for ordinary parents, a published limit on how many students one person may select, or a response to the ordinary resident whose request appears in the file.

If presenting a diploma is simply an assigned board duty, the district should publish the assignment rule. If it is a personal honor, the district should explain why public office is the ticket to receive it.

What each person said

Pamela Stanley: Supported broadening and clarifying the privilege. She said she placed the matter on the Policy Committee agenda, argued that board members receive nothing for their volunteer hours, connected the timing to her own children, sought to include current and future family circumstances, and said the committee saw no ethics conflict. Separately, she requested permission to present certificates to her daughter, friends, Girl Scouts, and children "like family."

Bill Dillon: Asked what problem the policy was solving, why it covered high school but not middle school, how it would treat send-receive members, and why the privilege expired after 10.5 years. He later proposed language extending the opportunity to a retired send-receive member after one full term on the Berkeley Heights board. His questions and proposal appear on pages 4 and 14.

Debbie Terrero: Wrote that she was "100% against" the change. She said it appeared designed to overturn a superintendent's decision and appease a complaining former member. She later reported advice from the New Jersey School Boards Association warning against language that could be perceived as a member benefit and asked for legal guidance. Her emails appear on pages 6 and 17.

Natasha Joly: Opposed the board voting on a benefit for its members and explicitly asked whether there was an ethics concern. She also objected that a Mountainside parent could serve for years on the Mountainside board yet remain ineligible if the person did not complete a term on the Berkeley Heights board. Her email appears on page 76.

Superintendent Kim Feltre: Sought guidance from the board attorney and policy consultant. According to Stanley's email, Feltre also worried that an open-ended rule could support claims decades later and asked for a time limit. The emails do not show Feltre taking a clear personal position for or against the privilege, but they do show her trying to obtain a rule the administration could apply.

Jeanne Cleary of the New Jersey School Boards Association: In a direct reply to Stanley, Cleary said no statute specifically regulates diploma presentation, a former member is no longer bound by the board-member ethics code, and presentation by a current member is a duty rather than a benefit if it is a responsibility assigned to current board members. She advised consultation with board counsel. Her direct response, which is more qualified than Terrero's earlier summary of their conversation, appears on page 39.

Board counsel Brian Giardina: Did not resolve the ethics question. He called diploma presentation a "privilege" and identified conflicting approval paths and unclear definitions in the proposed language. His response appears on pages 59 and 60.

Philip Nicastro of Strauss Esmay: Said he knew of no education-law or School Ethics Commission decision prohibiting a current board member from presenting a diploma and did not view the proposed retired-member policy as a statutory or code violation. Even so, he recommended that a retired member present only one relative's diploma, have an administrator present, and return to the audience. He also recommended removing discretionary superintendent consent because the policy supplied no criteria for withholding it. His advice appears on pages 73 and 74.

Principals Paul Kobliska and Meg Berry: Administered the current-member custom. Kobliska approved Stanley's large April request and later invited board members to select middle-school students. Berry invited board members to identify one or more seniors close to them.

Sai Bhargavi Akiri: Submitted student names for the middle-school ceremony and selected at least one student Stanley also wanted to present. The production does not show Akiri stating a position on Policy 0149.

John Migueis: Asked, as an ordinary resident, to present his daughter's diploma the following year. No district response appears in the production.

Other people copied in or involved in ceremony logistics did not state a substantive policy position in the produced emails.

The policy's design flaws

The record exposes at least eight flaws.

1. No neutral public process. Board members were directly invited to name students. The record contains no equivalent published process for ordinary residents.

2. The policy makers are potential beneficiaries. A current member who completes the required service can later qualify. Stanley expressly discussed how the rule could affect her son if she left the board.

3. No documented recusal. Stanley participated in developing the policy and voted yes at its first reading. The official June 1 minutes list Stanley among the ayes while Joly and Terrero abstained on Policy 0149.

4. Arbitrary eligibility. The 10.5-year period was reverse-engineered around members with multiple children and terms ending in December. That may be understandable as family planning, but it is not a public-interest explanation for why officeholders deserve a privilege unavailable through a general process.

5. Unequal send-receive treatment. The revision tried to include Mountainside representation but still tied eligibility to service on the Berkeley Heights board. Joly objected that this could exclude long-serving Mountainside officials whose children attend Governor Livingston.

6. Undefined discretion. Counsel identified competing approval methods. Nicastro warned that superintendent consent without criteria put the superintendent in an uncomfortable and arbitrary position.

7. The formal rule is narrower than the informal favor. The consultant recommended one relative's diploma and an administrator beside the former member. Stanley's current-member request covered a much larger circle of friends and Girl Scouts.

8. No evidence of a student-centered need. The justifications in the emails focus on what members, former members, and their families want. The record does not show students or families being surveyed about who should present their diplomas.

At the June 11 meeting, the board debated an amendment that would have excluded former members who had received a censure-or-worse penalty under the School Ethics Act. The amendment failed, and the policy passed. During the debate, members discussed the rule as a "benefit" and warned about board members awarding themselves personal favors. The relevant portions of the official video begin with the proposed ethics amendment, continue with the personal-favor and unwarranted-privilege concerns, and include Joly's self-benefit and Mountainside objections before the amendment and policy votes.

The ethics question

The New Jersey School Ethics Act contains several provisions that deserve careful attention here.

N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) says a school official may not use or attempt to use the official position to secure "unwarranted privileges" for the official, immediate family, or others.

N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) bars official action in a matter where the official or an immediate-family member has personal involvement that creates some benefit for the official or family member.

N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) requires a board member to refuse to use the schools for personal gain or the gain of friends. The implementing regulation says evidence under that provision must show that the member used the schools to acquire some benefit for the member, immediate family, or a friend.

The strongest potential ethics theory is not simply that Stanley liked the policy. It is the combined conduct:

She used her board email and board-member access to seek certificate-presentation roles for her child and a broad circle of friends and Girl Scouts.
She helped develop a policy preserving a related family privilege after board service.
She expressly tied the policy's duration to her own children.
She participated in the first-reading vote without a documented recusal.

Those facts create a reasonable question under the unwarranted-privilege, personal-involvement, and personal-gain provisions.

But a responsible account must also state what the evidence does not prove.

The production does not establish that ordinary parents are categorically forbidden to present diplomas.
It does not show a denial of Migueis's request.
It does not prove that Stanley actually presented every requested certificate.
It does not establish whether the district treats presentation as an official duty assigned to all current board members.
Cleary and Nicastro supplied arguments against finding a violation, and Nicastro expressly said he did not view the drafted policy as a statutory or code violation.
No School Ethics Commission decision in this matter has found Stanley or any other member in violation.

The fair conclusion is therefore not "Pamela Stanley violated the Ethics Act." The fair conclusion is that Stanley's conduct creates a substantial and documented appearance of self-interested use of public office, and the facts are serious enough to evaluate under the Act's specific elements.

What the board should do now

The Board should repeal or suspend the privilege and replace it with one neutral ceremony rule. The rule should state who may present diplomas, whether any parent may apply, what relationship qualifies, how conflicts are resolved, how many students one person may select, and who makes the decision under published criteria.

Board members with a personal or family interest should disclose it and recuse from shaping or voting on the rule. The district should publish its response to the ordinary resident's request, with private student information protected. It should also publish the final adopted Policy 0149, the certified June 11 roll call, and all written ceremony criteria.

Public service can deserve gratitude without creating a private entitlement. A thank-you plaque is recognition. A power reserved to officeholders to step into a student's graduation ceremony is different. If that honor is legitimate, it should survive a simple test: offer it under the same transparent rules to every similarly situated family.

Sources

This article distinguishes documented facts, reported advice, and legal questions. It is not a finding by the School Ethics Commission and is not legal advice.