GA just got this email from a source within the NJDOE:
The bottom line: Sullivan missed the December 31 deadline. Her fingerprinting was done late last week.
According to Ruben's Law (the one he co-sponsored, A-444) the fingerprinting was to have been completed BY December 31st. Keep in mind, Board members had SEVEN MONTHS to comply with the criminal background check mandated.
8 Board members complied with multiple notices and warnings from both State and Local entities.
8 out of 9.
So what does this mean in practical terms?
Sullivan can no longer sit on the dais with Board members, nor can she vote. This is the policy as of today.
What this means for Sullivan and 349 of her ineligible counterparts seems to be undetermined as of now.
GA is surprised by this development- considering this Board Member's brother, a Union County Freeholder, is a big Republican Party muckity-muck; I just assumed strings would be pulled like a harp.I gathered this much... She is on ineligible list as she has not received nor will she receive her eligibility letter before this evening's meeting
-letter of approval comes 10 days after fingerprinting has been completed.
-approval set to print tomorrow night. her approval date will be Jan. 11, the letter will be mailed to her sometime on weds or thurs. She will get it within 10 days from jan 11
The bottom line: Sullivan missed the December 31 deadline. Her fingerprinting was done late last week.
According to Ruben's Law (the one he co-sponsored, A-444) the fingerprinting was to have been completed BY December 31st. Keep in mind, Board members had SEVEN MONTHS to comply with the criminal background check mandated.
8 Board members complied with multiple notices and warnings from both State and Local entities.
8 out of 9.
So what does this mean in practical terms?
What this means for Sullivan and 349 of her ineligible counterparts seems to be undetermined as of now.
As an isolated matter it would be one thing. But this becomes part of a larger pattern of contempt for the standards and requirements of the office - including fighting with fellow board members via the internet, disclosing information from closed sessions, and so on.
ReplyDeleteThe board must, at a minimum, extract assurances from Sullivan that she recognizes that her behavior has in fact been contemptuous - point by point - and that she is committed to conducting herself in a manner befitting of the name Trustee going forward. $59million is a lot of capital in the hands of someone so habitually reckless. Other remedies could also be applied.
Meantime she can't be seated regardless of anyone's hurt feelings. If board xyz seated a pedophile so as not to offend the pedophile and his supporters, the lawsuits would never end. Don't even think about it. It's not your call. She can sit with Holmesy and Burnsy and have a seething contest.