Standards & Sources This article includes opinion and fair comment on matters of public concern. Factual statements are supported by public records (meeting video/minutes, OPRA responses, invoices, and ethics dockets). If something’s off, please send a correction-updates will be made promptly.
Why this format?
On September 9, 2025, Jean Barrett made a lengthy statement during a Hardyston BOE meeting. This annotated record provides: 1) Direct quotes (with timestamps), 2) Context/commentary on whether statements are accurate, misleading, or potentially improper under board-confidentiality norms, and 3) Instances where Barrett publicly described nonpublic discussions (attorney advice, executive session topics).
📝 Public Accusations
17:42 - Opening Framing
“There’s something that I wanted to bring up… it’s about the slander that’s been spread on social media…”
Commentary/Context:
- “Slander” is a legal finding, not established here. The posts at issue cite public records, including OPRA results about board phone use during student awards (What Was More Important Than Students? OPRA Results).
18:34 - Blog Characterization
“…the Hardyston school blog… nothing short of disgusting… This is something called character assassination.”
Commentary/Context:
- Strong opinion language without presented evidence. By contrast, linked articles cite filings and invoices related to ethics matters (Ethics Weaponization).
19:00 - Sweeping Accusations
“What these people are presenting is not the truth. It is trash. It’s loathsome and spiteful slander. It is cowardice at its lowest form. It is bullying.”
Commentary/Context:
- Presented as assertions of fact without substantiation. Public records reflect at least $9,697 in district-funded legal costs tied to ethics matters (see invoices summarized in Legal Fees Spiral Under Carey), which were the subject of the posts.
19:38 - Naming Members of the Public
“…It’s the spiteful bitterness of a man because he didn’t make it on the board… [Donna Carey] brought ethics charges against him…”
Commentary/Context:
- Ethics complaints are not findings. Records show Barrett/Carey also filed complaints against opponents, generating legal response costs (Ethics Weaponization).
- Editor’s note: I’m enjoying private citizenship; thanks to voters for the free time.
🔒 References to Nonpublic Topics (as described by Barrett in open session)
21:42 - OPRA Burden Claim
“…[staff member] was close to tears… cost this board money because everything has to go past the lawyer.”
Commentary/Context:
- OPRA is a transparency right. Prior requests surfaced issues like non-district phone use during student awards (What Was More Important Than Students? OPRA Results) and post-residency investigation pushes (OPRA: Dana Kalczuk Demands Probes).
- Separately, invoices reflect legal spend tied to ethics matters (Legal Fees Spiral Under Carey).
22:49 - Domain & Attorney Interactions
“…the board did decide to have the lawyer send him a letter…” [additional comments about counsel and the blog’s domain name].
Commentary/Context:
- This entry records Barrett’s own public description of interactions involving board counsel and the blog’s domain name. Board-counsel communications are ordinarily treated as confidential; we note only what Barrett described in open session and add no nonpublic details.
- Transparency context referenced in prior posts includes use of personal email for board matters and ethics-related filings (YahooGate, Donna Wasting Taxpayer Money).
25:13 - Personal Anecdote
“…Two weeks previously on Christmas Eve, my brother-in-law passed away… [a resident] posted this during the meeting…”
Commentary/Context:
- The referenced post addressed public behavior (phone use) during awards; private circumstances were unknown to the poster. OPRA records indicated no district business during those times (What Was More Important Than Students? OPRA Results).
27:09 - Disclaimer & Satire Image
“…please post a disclaimer… he did… but there is a watermark… portrays her as a clown…”
Commentary/Context:
- The image is satire/opinion about public conduct (Clowns Running the Circus). Disclaimer was posted to reduce confusion about affiliation.
28:28 - Residency Process Denial
“Privilege over policy… [denial of prior relationship] … executive meeting…”
Commentary/Context:
- The public concern raised is process transparency: an executive-session discussion involving a parent and no later public vote located in the minutes to date (Privilege Over Policy?).
- “…I never met that woman in question before the night in the executive meeting. That’s the first and only time I’ve ever sat at a table with this person…”
- We received an anonymous letter directly. We then observed in person, in open session, related board actions. Separately, county clerk records confirm that a residency hearing occurred. We are not publishing unverified allegations.
- It is the opinion of this blog that Dana Kalczuk appears inconsistent about her eligibility for candidacy. Former associates, and other residents, have made claims she was living in Franklin within the past year, matching this blog’s opinion, research, and observations, which would make her ineligible to seek office.
[Timestamp: XX:XX] - Attorney Guidance (as described by Barrett)
Paraphrase: Barrett states what the board attorney advised during a prior nonpublic discussion.
Commentary/Context:
- Attorney-client communications to the board are ordinarily confidential. This section notes Barrett’s public description without adding new nonpublic details.
- Example quotes asserted by Barrett in open session:
- “He told our lawyer…”
- “…the lawyer did ask [to] take down…”
- “…the lawyer required… please post a disclaimer on the site…”
[Timestamp: XX:XX] - Executive Session Content (as described by Barrett)
Paraphrase: Barrett references what was said during an executive session about internal disagreements.
Commentary/Context:
- Executive-session discussions are confidential by rule. This entry records that Barrett publicly characterized nonpublic content; no additional details are added here.
📋 Summary of Rebuttals (with records)
- “Slander/Trash” claims: The posts rely on public records such as OPRA responses and invoices (/2025-03-03-opra/, /2025-03-08-legal/).
- OPRA burden vs. value: Requests surfaced concrete issues; legal spend associated with ethics matters is documented (/2025-03-08-legal/, /2025-09-07-dana-formal-complaint/).
- Attorney/executive-session references: Noted strictly as Barrett’s public statements about nonpublic topics; no added nonpublic content.
Related Posts
- What Was More Important Than Students? OPRA Results
- Ethics Weaponization
- Legal Fees Spiral Under Carey
- YahooGate
- Privilege Over Policy?
- Donna Wasting Taxpayer Money
- OPRA: Dana Kalczuk Demands Probes
- Dana Kalczuk Ethics Concerns
⚠️ Why This Matters
- Public accusations carry reputational impact; public records provide a check on accuracy.
- Barrett’s public descriptions of attorney guidance and executive-session topics raise transparency and confidentiality questions.
- Clear sourcing and careful framing help the community vet what was said against the record.
Editor’s note: Quotes are from the September 9, 2025 BOE meeting video/transcript. Timestamps and references help readers verify statements directly.