Disinfecting our School Board

GA was positively shocked to read that 350 NJ Board of Education members refused to submit ciminal background checks as required by a new law enacted last year.


What kind of people are these sitting on School Boards across the state? 

What have they done that they are ashamed of?
Some 350 school board members across New Jersey must resign their positions immediately after failing to complete a criminal background check now mandated by state law, a Department of Education official said.

Failure to have completed the background check by Dec. 31 is also an offense and officials who refuse to step down could be charged with a fourth-degree crime under the new law.

"If you don’t complete the background check, and you try to stick around, you risk going to jail. It’s as simple as that," said Assemblyman Jerry Green (D-Union), the legislation’s sponsor.
 Wow.  Anyone refusing to step down may be charged with a fourth-degree crime and go to jail!

Thank goodness!

Incidents of inappropriate behavior by school officials toward kids are in the news everyday.  Criminal background checks are a great tool to oust perverts and potential criminals from such sensitive posts where they are responsible for the lives of children.

GA was delighted to see that the legislation Co-Sponsor of Bill A-444  is Hoboken's very own Ruben Ramos! 

Ruben wants to cleanse Hoboken's School Bard of miscreants as much as GA does!

Perhaps the kind of miscreants that approve of kids sleeping over a teacher's house?

And do you know this bill passed the NJ State Senate 39-0 and the Assembly 76-0!

What else could unite both Democratic and Republican parties in such bipartisan harmony?  The protection of our children.

What if a School Board  member submitted their criminal background check LATE?  GA was told that the bill passed 7 months ago-in May- and Board members received notification and multiple warnings in that time frame.

So there is NO EXCUSE for a Board member to have submitted late or past the deadline.  That kind of carelessness is not what is expected in an elected School Board official?

What kind of example does that set for the children in the district they govern?

Let's hope that no one on OUR School Board has failed our entire community.


  1. I am generally opposed to all legislation related to social engineering. I'm definitely voting for my dog before I ever consider Rick Santorum. Or a house plant if anything happens to the dog.

    But, having said that, background checks like these are common sense. I don't want to hear that it's an unpaid position. What the hell kind of rationalization is that? Jerry Sandusky wasn't paid by the Second Mile Foundation either. How's that workin' out? PS. The school board has the purse strings on $59million. So the uncompensated position argument is moot. The question is - exactly who is minding the store.

    It passed both chambers unanimously - as it should. I can't imagine the freakout Secaucus gadfly Burns will have if someone from Kids First refuses. And the worst part is, I'd have to support her. Look at the list of offenses and tell me they shouldn't be disclosed.

    Be smart Kids First. I'm not looking forward to agreeing with Burnsy.

  2. One can imagine part of the protestation involves the "inconvenience" in time & expense to complete the vetting/clearance. Separate from whatever someone might want to hide.

    As an aside: NJ may have some sort of pay-to-play scheme operating with the fingerprinting contractor, Sagem Morpho. Approximately $75/fingerprinting "event," plus time/travel expenses to the closest Sagem Morpho regional office. And one must schedule the appointment well in advance, including a fee for late cancellation.

    No longer, can one simply go to the local police precinct (either muni or State) for fingerprinting, which in turn would be forwarded to the State entity involved in the vetting. (Conceivably understandable, given the level of law enforcement corruption in the State.)

    Even if one is fingerprinted/background-checked/approved by another State or Federal entity, it must be repeated (at the applicant's expense), each time another entity (or legislation) requires.

    Even though the fingerprinting process is digitized (& resident in Sagem Morpho's secure central data base) & already resident within some other State department, there is patent refusal of intra-state departmental communication of same. And forget about State:State or State:Fed communication.

    Nor will Sagem Morpho provide the applicant with his/her own unalterable digital fingerprint copy, even though s/he essentially "owns" the fingerprints & has paid for the service, sometimes multiple times.



Post a Comment