The Hardyston Board of Education meeting on March 11, 2025, will be remembered as a defining moment in local governance. Nick Demsak delivered an absolute masterclass in accountability, meticulously exposing the hypocrisy of Board President Donna Carey and Vice President Jean Barrett. Their inconsistency in handling board policies-both in selective modifications and outright removals-was laid bare in a way that left the room stunned.
Policy 0174: Transparency for Thee, But Not for Me
The evening’s first major contradiction came during the debate over Policy 0174 (Legal Services). Donna Carey and Jean Barrett pushed to modify this policy under the guise of aligning Hardyston with surrounding districts. The revision expanded the President and Vice President’s power to unilaterally consult legal counsel, yet when Demsak proposed adding language that would ensure full transparency by requiring board-wide notification of these consultations, the proposal was flatly rejected.
Demsak wasted no time in calling out the hypocrisy: if the goal was truly to align with other districts, why cherry-pick which aspects of policy to adopt? Why mimic neighboring districts’ policies when it increases their own authority but reject adding transparency requirements? The silence from Carey and Barrett was deafening.
Adding to the contradictions, Jean Barrett falsely claimed that the former Board President had contacted the attorney over her and Donna Carey-a statement that is 100% false. If Barrett has evidence to back up this claim, she should provide it. Otherwise, this was a blatant attempt to mislead the public and deflect from her and Carey’s failure to ensure transparency in their own actions.
Policy 5756: The Selective Standards of Policy Removal
Later in the meeting, the hypocrisy reached new heights when Carey and Barrett led the charge to abolish Policy 5756, which provided guidelines for accommodating transgender students.
Demsak pounced on the inconsistency. If modifying a non-mandatory policy like 0174 was acceptable, why was removing another non-mandatory policy like 5756 necessary? Why claim to be aligning with surrounding districts in one case, while disregarding the fact that no other nearby district had removed this policy? Carey and Barrett could not provide a coherent response.
Carey further attempted to rewrite history by falsely stating that the former president had previously voted against abolishing Policy 5756 because he sided with the other side. In reality, his concern was about ensuring proper oversight and guidance-something Carey and Barrett completely failed to provide with their abrupt removal of this policy, leaving schools with no direction on how to handle these sensitive matters. Instead of leadership, they chose to skirt their responsibilities, creating more confusion and risk for the district.
The Real Cost of Carey’s Leadership
As if this display of selective policymaking wasn’t enough, Demsak also highlighted the financial consequences of Carey’s leadership. He pointed out that her frequent and often unnecessary legal consultations had already cost the district over $10,000 in legal fees, including a $2,268 bill for a legal memo that the board wasn’t even informed about until much later.
Demsak connected the dots: while Carey and Barrett were fighting to expand their own authority under Policy 0174, they were simultaneously refusing to provide guardrails for transparency and making costly decisions behind closed doors.
The Takeaway: Political Theater Over Policy
By the end of the meeting, one thing was clear: Carey and Barrett’s policy decisions were more about political posturing than actual governance. Demsak’s performance was not only a brilliant takedown but also a much-needed moment of accountability that exposed the contradictions at the heart of the board’s decision-making.
For residents of Hardyston, this meeting served as a wake-up call. If policies can be changed to consolidate power while others are removed to serve an agenda, what does that say about leadership? If transparency is only necessary when it benefits those in charge, how can the community trust that decisions are being made in the best interest of students and taxpayers?
Hardyston deserves better. And thanks to Nick Demsak, the hypocrisy is now out in the open for everyone to see.