Every election, we get to choose the people who will shape the future of our schools. And every election, it’s worth asking: has this person actually earned the right to keep making those decisions?
In Ed Reinle’s case, the answer is becoming harder and harder to justify.
This year, two of the board’s official goals weren’t generic “good governance” fluff. They were laser-focused on problems tied directly to Ed’s track record.
Goal Complete mandatory training as early as possible.
In past years, Ed dragged his feet until the very end - and only after multiple prods (and sometimes borderline pleading) from the business administrator. Training isn’t busywork; it’s the foundation for informed decision-making. If you can’t be bothered to get it done without someone holding your hand, that’s a problem.
Goal Come to meetings and committees prepared.
Seems basic, right? Unfortunately, Ed has a history of walking into meetings without having read the materials - which means he often doesn’t know what he’s voting on.
There was almost a moment of redemption. During last nights policy discussion, Ed actually considered making a motion to table the vote until the following month so he could be better prepared. For a brief second, it looked like he might take the responsible path. But instead, he backed down - and voted anyway, unprepared. That hesitation isn’t just a one-off - it’s part of a larger pattern of indecision that leaves the board stuck with half-measures and missed opportunities.
When your board goals are basically reminders to do the bare minimum, and even then you can’t follow through, it’s a sign that maybe it’s time to step aside. And if he shows up at all, Hardyston deserves someone who’s ready to put in the work from day one.