Jackson board members had no previous problem with teacher

My name is Ted Koch, and I am a member of the Jackson Board of Edu-cation. This is my opinion and not that of the board.

As with anything that happens, there are many sides of a story. Gus Acevedo’s recent letter fails to include some key facts about the so-called "nepotism" issue that Chuck Murphy used as a reason to resign from the Jackson Board of Education.

First of all, Mr. Acevedo fails to mention that the board approved the young lady as both a student teacher and a substitute teacher on previous occasions by both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Ace-vedo. Typically, these positions within the Jackson school system can and do lead to the employment of those individuals since it gives the administration direct experience with a potential employee. (Board President Kathleen Kelly) Mallette abstained on this vote.

Second, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Acevedo had also previously approved the other relative of Mrs. Mallette for employment. Again, Mrs. Mallette abstained on this vote.

Thirdly, a relative of another board member was approved for hiring by the board this past year. This board member fully disclosed this fact at the vote and abstained from voting for their relative. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Acevedo voted yes.

In all cases, the administrators responsible for hiring of employees by the board follow written nepotism guidelines. My information is that the administration was fully aware of the relationship of the young lady. Please know that this young lady is not a blood relative of Mrs. Mallette’s, as stated by Mr. Acevedo.

Please also note that the nepotism policies of the board are more stringent than the state of New Jersey nepotism policies.

Also, the insinuation that a magna cum laude student did not get hired in the district because this young lady was hired is entirely unfounded.

Board members are not involved in the hiring process for district teachers. If Mr. Acevedo has proof that this happened, I’d be happy to sign my name next to his on the ethics charges against the board member who exerted that undue and illegal influence.

How far does Mr. Acevedo want us to go?

Should we exclude family members of the Township Com-mittee since they have oversight of our budget when the budget is voted down by taxpayers?

Should we exclude the relatives of current employees such as teachers and paraprofessionals since people might think they have an edge in the hiring pro-cess?

In closing, please note that the first time this became an issue was this young lady’s hiring as a permanent employee. She was employed as both a student teacher and substitute teacher. Why wasn’t the issue raised at that time?

The issue was never raised, never even hinted at until this young lady’s name was on the agenda for permanent employment. When you speak to Mr. Acevedo and Mr. Murphy, ask them why they waited so long to raise the issue and then only with this young lady.

Ted Koch

Jackson