Guest Column

The judgment of the Eatontown Board of Education concerning the reinstatement of Superintendent Robert Soprano, continues to merit scrutiny. At the Nov. 25 Board of Education meeting, the majority of board members, represented by Board President Mark Van Wagner, once again refused to entertain the notion of allowing our superintendent to continue his service to our district, in spite of a sterling record.

The board has declared unequivocally by word and action its intention to move forward with its plan to replace him despite the protests and petitions of parents familiar with and appreciative of his accomplishments.

The Board of Education has yet to explain why it would even consider replacing a superintendent who is established and proven in his position. Considering the body of evidence in support of his contributions, it has been a remarkable term.

The board itself seems to have endorsed Mr. Soprano with a positive evaluation — he was awarded a bonus last January. The board offers no evidence in support of its decision, and its behavior with regard to this matter continues to generate serious questions and concerns.

What possible justification can the Board of Education offer for refusing the continuance of Mr. Soprano’s services? Who else will possess qualifications that so specifically satisfy our unique requirements? How can we guarantee we will continue to move forward as we have during the past four years under Mr. Soprano’s capable leadership if we dismiss the obvious solution of inviting him to continue his work here?

These are important questions and deserve to be addressed.

It is a mystery why certain key members of the Board of Education apparently do not value his qualities as superintendent and, more satisfying still, many of those same qualifications are specified in criteria the board is applying in its superintendent search.

The Eatontown Board of Education does not seem to feel obligated to detail its intentions or defend its actions to the public with regard to these issues. Legitimate inquiries, respectfully stated, are met with a distinctly disrespectful silence. As a result of this, addressing the board has become a demoralizing ordeal.

When parent Susan Cook approached the board with the suggestion that the New Jersey State Board of Education representatives be allowed to facilitate communication between the board and Mr. Soprano, Board President Van Wagner did not even show her the courtesy of considering the possibility of a dialogue. His posture of bemused contempt is not one I’m likely to forget anytime soon.

Concerned parents and Mr. Soprano himself have made every effort to persuade the board to clarify its motivations. Mr. Soprano voluntarily agreed to surrender his rights to privacy in order to promote open discussion and expedite the resolution of this controversy. The board will not agree to submit to this examination, citing the privilege of executive privacy in personnel matters as an excuse. Does this privilege excuse them from accountability?

Whose privacy was this privilege intended to protect? The application of this tactic seems inappropriate in these circumstances, and its implications do not bode well for those who would like to consider the Board of Education a responsive administrative resource.

The consequences of permitting this behavior to go unchallenged are well illustrated in the case of Mr. Soprano. His loss is our loss.

Hopefully, parents and educators will be compelled to express their disapproval of this arrangement at the school board elections in the spring. I believe it is our best chance to ensure that those few board members who still value our input receive our support.

Susan Todd is a resident of Eatontown.