On Monday July 22, it was standing room only (36 in-person attendees) in Newark’s administrative law hearing room with more than 80 persons on zoom when Judge Andrew Baron opened the long-delayed hearing on charges that Teaneck’s former Board of Education (BOE) President, Dr. Ardie Walser had somehow violated the State’s School Ethics Act. On Tuesday, over 100 participants zoomed in to observe the second day of the hearing. The experienced Judge Baron noted that he had never before seen such a large public attendance at an administrative law hearing. Voices interviewed several of those observers who opined that more than 95% of the public participants had attended in active, strenuous support of Walser.
As the eight hours of hearing unfolded, the facts emerged as to how Walser, a revered public servant, had become entangled for nearly 6 years in charges that even the individual who had initiated those charges, current Teaneck Mayor Michael Pagan, acknowledged under cross examination he had several times (he could not remember when) sought to withdraw. At some early point after Pagan made his 2018 complaint, the NJ Department of Education’s School Ethics Commission had found that there was “probable cause” to substantiate Pagan’s original allegations and thus denied Pagan’s request that the complaint be withdrawn. So at this hearing a Deputy Attorney General, Sadia Ahsanuddin, Esq., served as counsel for the plaintiff, calling 5 witnesses – Pagan, 1 Teaneck Schools Employee, 2 former Teaneck Schools employees, and one a former Board of Education member.
The public observers report that the process of the plaintiff’s counsel’s questioning was painful to watch.
At issue: Had Walser violated the School Ethics Act , N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21, by being on the BOE and simultaneously continuing to participate in a Saturday morning tutorial program he had founded as a project of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church 20 years earlier. The math and reading tutorial program, Math Adventures and Word Play (MAWP) has always been free and offered to all Teaneck and neighboring towns’ children. The program’s tutors and leaders, none of whom have ever been compensated, are diverse in ethnicity and religions. The Deputy Attorney General’s questioning boiled down to two basic questions:
o Had Walser benefited financially or personally from his role in MAWP while serving on the BOE. The clear and unambiguous answer from all five of the plaintiff’s witnesses, “not to my knowledge”.
o Had Walser used – or abused - his role on the BOE to promote the MAWP program in the schools or on the BOE website, etc.. The witnesses answer to that question involved clarification of how materials or BOE website content get approval. The answer from all the witnesses was that any such material or communication had always been approved by the proper administrative person, the Superintendent of Schools. And each witness testified to no knowledge of Walser pressing the Superintendent or other school personnel for such inclusion in schools communications.
Such was the Plaintiff’s case. When it was concluded, Philip Stern, the attorney for Walser, stated that the entire plaintiff’s case had definitively made the defense’s case and that the defense would not call any of its witnesses. He instead asked the judge to dismiss the case.
What the judge said in response clarified why this hearing, unfortunately, would not entirely end the matter. Judge Baron reviewed the fact that even were he to agree with Stern and rule that the case should be dismissed, that ruling would then go back to the School Ethics Commission which could either accept his judgment or reject it and send the case on to an appellate court. He implied that his decision would provide substantial clarification of his findings.
The process going forward is this: Both the plaintiff and defense attorneys said they were prepared to write final statements. The judge suggested several elements of such statements he would like to see included. A transcript of every word of the hearing will be completed. It will be sent to the plaintiff and defense attorneys who will then have 30 days to prepare their final statements. In turn, the judge then has 45 days to prepare and issue his ruling. Then it’s off to the School Ethics Commission.
Hence this entire process likely has 6 more months at least. In talking with hearing attendees, Voices found broad concern that Dr. Ardie Walser, who has already endured 6 years of false charges, will now have to wait even longer to clear his name.
Voices notes, as well, that a claim that even the original accuser said should have been be withdrawn will continue to be reflected in the continuing costs of using both Teaneck BOE funds and State attorneys’ fees to reach a conclusion. (Voices has submitted an OPRA to learn the amount the Teaneck BOE has thus far had to spend on this case).
We all deserve to have justice determined here, as in so many places in our public life, with a justice system that must do so more competently and speedily than what has occurred here with Dr. Ardie Walser
|