Summary: At a recent Hardyston Board of Education meeting, Board President Donna Carey and Vice President Jean Barrett steered the board into extended personal attacks and social-media disputes-on the record-instead of district business. This behavior stands in stark contrast to the “Kids First” platform of student-centered decision-making and fiscal responsibility that Carey and Barrett campaigned on. On tape, multiple members described the exchange as embarrassing and warned it could invite slander/libel concerns. This post documents what was said, why it matters, and how a recent Wayne, NJ case shows how quickly this kind of conduct can escalate.
What happened-in their own words
During New Business, Vice President Jean Barrett delivered a prepared monologue attacking a local blog and explicitly naming a resident by surname. The remarks included:
- “It is trash.”
- “It’s loathsome and spiteful slander.”
- “It is cowardice at its lowest form.”
- “It is bullying.”
- “If Mr. Van Ginneken… and yes, I said his name because this is public knowledge…”
Rather than redirecting to district business, the board majority allowed (and joined) the detour into personal disputes and social-media commentary. One member warned-on the record-that this approach risks legal exposure:
- “You’re potentially opening up, not just the board, but yourself individually to some concerns for slander and libelous lawsuits.”
- “Yes, you’re saying it’s a private account, but you’re not quite a citizen, you’re a board member.”
Another member captured the reputational damage plainly:
- “I’m embarrassed by what has just transpired… From a board perspective, I’m embarrassed for us.”
That same speaker underscored the timing-day four of the school year, moments after recognizing an award-winning STEM teacher-which amplified the optics problem:
- “We have one of the top technology STEM teachers in the state here tonight… and 40 minutes ago she stood up in front of all of us… And look at what we’re doing.”
The Request to Silence Public Input
During the meeting, Board President Donna Carey directly intervened to silence a member of the public, stating: “I’m gonna ask you one more time because I’ve asked you in private if you could ask your spouse and your sister-in-law to stop” This moment, captured in the raw transcript, exemplifies how personal frustrations escalated to suppress open dialogue, potentially violating principles of public participation and free speech in open meetings. Such actions not only derailed the agenda but also raised concerns about accountability and the right to be heard in public forums.
Why this creates risk (and distracts from students)
-
Personal attacks from the dais: Using meeting time to label community criticism as “trash,” “slander,” and “bullying” invites allegations of viewpoint suppression and exposes the district (and individual officials) to unnecessary defamation cross-claims-even if ultimately defensible. See the explicit on-record caution above.
-
Blurring private vs. official speech: When board leaders discuss social-media posts and opponents by name during a meeting, it’s harder to argue later that subsequent pressure, warnings, or “requests” tied to that speech are purely private actions. Multiple remarks acknowledge board members are “board members all the time”-another self-inflicted complication.
-
Mission drift & reputational harm: Members themselves recognized that the exchange derailed the agenda (“nothing to do with children”) and embarrassed the board. That’s a governance failure and a message to staff, families, and students about priorities.
Broken Promises: “Kids First” vs. Board Reality
The recent behavior by Carey and Barrett is part of a pattern that contradicts the “Kids First” platform they campaigned on:
-
Students First?: Instead of focusing on education, the board majority prioritizes personal disputes and legal battles that waste taxpayer money and distract from student needs.
-
Fiscal Responsibility?: The district faces potential legal costs from leadership that can’t separate personal grievances from official duties, diverting funds from classroom needs.
-
Transparency?: Public meetings have become platforms for personal attacks rather than transparent, accountable governance that the community deserves.
A cautionary parallel from Wayne, NJ
In Wayne, a board’s response to a trustee’s spouse’s social-media posts escalated into potential and then actual legal action:
- Notice of claim / potential suit (Sept. 6, 2024): Patch reported that after the board sent a “cease and desist” about a spouse’s online comments, she filed a Notice of Claim alleging First Amendment violations.
- Subsequent lawsuit: TAPinto Wayne later reported that the spouse sued the board, alleging violations of free speech and civil rights.
Bottom line: When boards respond to criticism with official-seeming pressure, name-calling from the dais, or policies targeting online speech, it invites litigation-even if the board believes the criticism is unfair or inaccurate.
What responsible leadership looks like
- Stick to the agenda & students: Redirect personal disputes to appropriate channels; keep public meetings focused on policy, budgets, curriculum, and student outcomes. (Your own members pleaded for this on record.)
- Model restraint: Avoid labeling critics or residents-by name-with pejoratives during meetings. If you believe a statement is false, state the facts without escalating rhetoric.
- De-risk online spillover: If a social-media post truly implicates the district (e.g., unlawful disclosure, threats), route concerns through counsel and policy, not from the microphone-especially not as ad hoc on-record admonitions that blur personal/official roles.
A Case Study in Proper Conduct
Contrast the recent meeting with best practices from well-governed boards:
- Focus on issues, not individuals: Address policies, programs, and budget items with specific data and stakeholder input
- Maintain decorum: Even when facing criticism, respond with facts and policy references, not personal attacks
- Protect the district: Refrain from making statements that could expose the board or taxpayers to legal liability
- Uphold public trust: Remember that every action from the dais reflects on the entire district’s commitment to transparency and accountability
Community Impact: What This Means for Hardyston Families
The conduct displayed at recent board meetings affects every family in our district:
-
Students learn by example: When leaders model disrespectful behavior, it sends a message about how to handle disagreement that contradicts the character education we strive to instill in our schools.
-
Parent engagement suffers: Families who witness personal attacks may disengage, believing their input isn’t valued or welcome.
-
Community trust erodes: The foundation of effective public education is community trust in its leaders. When that trust is damaged, it becomes harder to build support for important initiatives, from budget referendums to educational programs.
Call to Action: Restoring Accountability to Hardyston BOE
This November, voters have the opportunity to restore the student-centered governance that Hardyston was promised. The “Kids First” majority has shown that their campaign promises were just slogans-now it’s time to demand real change:
-
Vote in the Election: Research all candidates and choose those who demonstrate genuine commitment to students, fiscal responsibility, and transparent governance-not just political slogans.
-
Attend Meetings: Show up at board meetings and fill the public comment period with calls for agenda-focused discussion.
-
Contact Board Members: Email President Carey and Vice President Barrett (and all board members) to express your expectation that meetings prioritize district business over personal disputes.
-
Support Responsible Journalism: Share articles like this one to raise awareness about the importance of accountable school board leadership.
-
Engage in Constructive Dialogue: Participate in public comment with specific, policy-focused suggestions rather than personal criticism.
The Hardyston Board of Education works for the community. When its leadership fails to maintain focus on student outcomes and respectful discourse, it’s our responsibility as stakeholders to demand better-starting at the ballot box.
Receipts (selected)
- Barrett remarks characterizing criticism as “trash,” “slander,” “cowardice,” “bullying,” with a named resident.
- On-record legal risk warning (slander/libel).
- “I’m embarrassed by what has just transpired… I’m embarrassed for us.”
- Context: meeting timing and STEM teacher recognition the same night.
Related reading (Wayne)
- Trustee’s Wife Might Sue Wayne, School Board Over Free Speech: Report (Patch, Sept. 6, 2024).
- Wife of Wayne Board of Ed Trustee… Sues the Wayne Board of Education (TAPinto Wayne).
Editor’s note: This article is an opinion-analysis grounded in the public meeting transcript and contemporary reporting. It is not legal advice.