Did the Jersey City School Board violate accountability regulations and the Open Public Meeting Law when it approved Superintendent Charles Epps’ contract extension? Board President William DeRosa says he followed every regulation, in spite of the fact that there was no 30-day notice to the public. In the Jersey City Journal, De Rosa notes that “the terms of Epps’ contract extension had not been negotiated and the board held another meeting and public hearing Aug. 11.” But a group of Jersey City residents, including Ward E Councilman Steven Fulop, parent Elvin Dominici, activist Shelley Skinner, and school board candidate Anthony Sharperson disagree. So does NJ Administrative Law Judge Margaret Monaco, who denied the Board’s motion to summary judgment.

The facts seem to be this: on June 18th the Board ran a notice in a Jersey City paper advertising that it was voting on June 22nd to extend Epps’ contract. A board agenda on the Jersey City Schools website show that a special meeting (no other business was transacted) was held on the 22nd to vote on “Approval to provide the Superintendent with written notice of its desire to enter into an employment agreement expiring on June 30, 2013.” The vote was 6 in favor, 2 against, and 1 abstention. After protests from the public, a second special meeting (agenda here) was held on August 11th – after the contract had been signed and approved, but after 30 days public notice — that states the business as “Proposed Superintendent Contract (Subject to Executive County Superintendent Approval).”

Here’s Epps’ contract. The terms are a renewal from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013. Salary is set at $268,200.00 per year with no increases, a car, and a $10K annual annuity. The contract also notes that, upon retirement, Epps is due 439 ½ sick days to be paid out on a graduated schedule.

And here’s Fulop in the Jersey City Independent: “It was sad that the politicians who supported the contract put their politics in front of the school kids to try and sneak in a contract extension of $280,000 to a superintendent with 30 out of 35 failing schools. With this order, the one thing I know from today is that we are on the right track.”