EDISON — Edison School District Superintendent of Schools Richard O’Malley recently announced he will leave when his contract expires in 2019.
Some members of the Board of Education want O’Malley to reconsider his decision.
At a meeting in March, board members Falguni Patel, Paul Distefano, Shivi Prasad-Madhukar and Beth Maroney urged O’Malley to reconsider saying farewell to Edison.
Prasad-Madhukar said O’Malley “has been an asset to the district and with a clear conscience I cannot let him go.”
O’Malley, who has worked in Edison for almost a decade and has overseen the fifth largest school district in New Jersey, notified the board he would not seek another contract when his current agreement expires on June 30, 2019.
In a 4-4 vote, board members did not accept O’Malley’s notice. Prasad-Madhukar, Patel, Distefano and Maroney voted not to accept his notice, while Richard Brescher, Shannon Peng, Theresa Ward and Jerry Shi voted to accept the superintendent’s notice. Board member Ralph Errico was not present at the vote.
O’Malley said he had given a lot of thought to the decision.
“I have enjoyed my time in Edison and it is time to move on and seek opportunities I have missed,” he said. “It is sad, but all good things come to an end.”
Maroney, the board’s vice president, said she believes the way the board is functioning is questionable at best.
“I fear any future search for another superintendent would reflect that dysfunction,” she said. “I think it is beneficial to keep somebody who has been in the job and knows the building that has to go on and [how to keep] moving forward. To come in and train someone right now is not prudent.”
The board members who voted not to accept O’Malley’s notice received applause from members of the public who were in attendance.
On April 6, O’Malley said he would not comment on the board’s vote not to accept his notice, nor would he say if he would reconsider his decision to leave the district.
In other action at the March meeting, a resolution stating O’Malley had satisfied and achieved certain merit criteria enumerated in his contract did not pass. Pending approval from the county superintendent, O’Malley would have received a merit bonus of $10,141 if the board had passed the resolution.
The merit criteria the board voted on was to increase the number of students in grade six honors mathematics classes by 25 percent when compared to the 2016-17 school year (165 students to 207 students) and to decrease the number of students in grade six level two mathematics classes by 10 percent when compared to 2016-17 (495 students to 445 students).
Other merit criteria included increasing the enrollment of students in grades six, seven and eight accelerated English classes by 20 percent when compared to the 2016-17 school year (1,736 students to 2,083 students) and decreasing the enrollment of students in grades six, seven and eight level two English classes by 10 percent when compared to 2016-17 (1,719 students to 1,547 students).
Patel, Distefano, Prasad-Madhukar and Maroney voted to approve the merit bonus for O’Malley. Brescher, Peng and Ward abstained. Shi, the board president, voted no.
The board’s attorney said five affirmative votes were needed to approve the merit bonus for the superintendent.
“I’m not saying (O’Malley) didn’t meet the goals, my vote is clearly procedural,” Shi said. “This is always done at the end of the school year when you put everything together, including the merit goals and the annual performance.”
Shi said he consulted with Frank Heelan, a former board president, about past board practices.
Ward said since she has been on the board, the panel has never evaluated the superintendent’s goals in a piecemeal fashion.
“We always sat down together to go over the whole thing,” she said.
The board’s attorney said there is no specific legal requirement in O’Malley’s contract which states the merit goals cannot be voted on separately by the board members.
