Toms River School Admins Threatened By NJ Officials, Attorney Says

TOMS RIVER, NJ ? A pair of state assemblymen are demanding an investigation into allegations that officials with the state Department of Education threatened district administrators during the struggle over the Toms River Regional School District's budget.

William Burns, the Toms River Regional school board's attorney, accused state officials of threatening the district along with Superintendent Michael Citta and Business Administrator William Doering in the final weeks of discussions with the state over school funding and the district's 2024-25 budget.

Toms River Regional had been pleading with state officials to revisit the aid the district is receiving for 2024-25, citing a $12.4 million revenue gap that existed after all other measures ? including a 9.9 percent increase in the district's property tax levy ? were accounted for.

"The pleas for our students have been met with accusations, empty promises, and direct threats," Burns said as he announced the district would be filing a lawsuit against the state. "A state takeover of our schools and school district has been threatened. The forced closure of district schools has been threatened. The slashing of jobs that have a direct impact on our classrooms and our kids has been threatened."

"And when Superintendent Michael Citta and Business Administrator William Doering pushed back, saying we cannot and will not cut programs or jobs that impact kids, and reminded the state that they were legally required to certify only a budget that provides for a thorough and efficient education, the revocation and forfeiture of Mike and Bill?s certificates were threatened," Burns said.

Assemblymen Greg McGuckin and Paul Kanitra say those threats may have broken the law and called for the state Attorney General's Office to investigate.

Michael Yaple, spokesman for the state Department of Education, did not address the accusation of threats directly in a response to a request for comment.

"While the Department must limit its comments due to the district?s stated intention to litigate this issue, it must be made clear that the Department was obligated to take action to ensure the students of the Toms River Regional School District continue to be provided with a thorough and efficient education," Yaple said. "The statement previously released by the Department and the letters confirming the adoption of the district?s final budget provide the Department?s public statements on the issue."

A letter on that matter addressed to Toms River Regional school board president Kathy Eagan and dated July 24 says in part, ""The failure of your district to adopt a budget within the timeframe required by law is a serious matter and potentially bears upon your ethical responsibilities" under state law. The letter was signed by Susan Naples, the interim Executive Ocean County Superintendent, on behalf of the state Department of Education.

McGuckin and Kanitra, who represent the 10th District including Toms River, say the department potentially violated a state statute that makes threatening a public servant with purpose to influence a decision a third-degree crime.

"The DOE isn?t even trying to hide its disdain for certain school districts," Kanitra said. "The verbal harassment has devolved into slanderous public statements and thinly veiled threats. It?s time the leaders of the department are held accountable for this reprehensible behavior. I hope the AG?s office acts swiftly to restore a sense of dignity and decorum to a state agency tasked with overseeing our children?s most important futures."

Toms River Regional has been faced with significant state aid cuts for the last several years and they ramped up under S2, the amendment to the School Funding Reform Act of 2008. S2, signed into law in 2018 after several years of efforts to enact it, was billed as cutting so-called "adjustment aid" that was given to districts under the School Funding Reform Act, with the districts being forced to pay what S2 proponents said was their fair share of property taxes to support their schools.

In Toms River, the result has been job cuts and ever-increasing "under adequacy" in the amount the district spends in educating its students, because the aid cuts under S2 far exceeded the district's ability to raise property taxes because of the 2 percent cap on tax levy increases.

"Adequacy" is the number defined by the state education department as the minimum amount needed to properly educate students and meet the state's constitutional requirement of providing a thorough-and-efficient education. Toms River Regional is more than $90 million under adequacy.

In April Citta said the then-$26.5 million revenue gap would have meant the loss of 368 positions and more. Read more: 368 Job Cuts, 'Ridiculous' Class Sizes In Toms River: What Slashing $26.5M Would Mean

Even at $12.4 million, Citta said in July that the revenue gap would push the district even further away from providing a thorough-and-efficient education, because in addition to laying off teachers, the district would lose full-day kindergarten. It isn't mandated by state law and ironically comes at a time when Gov. Phil Murphy is pushing to offer preschool to 3- and 4-year-olds across the state.

Citta said it also would mean eliminating sports and co-curricular programs, stripping students in Toms River Regional of activities seen by education experts as necessary for having well-rounded students.

"There is no way to even propose that. What they have done is nothing short of legislative child abuse and neglect," Citta said.

The Toms River Regional school board rejected the district's tentative 2024-25 budget in early July and announced the lawsuit. In late July the state Department of Education enacted the tentative budget as its final version ? in spite of the fact that it didn't have a fully defined plan to fill the $12.4 million gap other than by selling off pieces of district property.

"It is a crime in this state to threaten to harm a public official in order to influence a decision or vote of that official on any public issue," McGuckin said. "Whether that threat is physical or economic makes no difference. This is on the same level as organized crime in my opinion. I don't see any difference."

"Attorney General (Matthew) Platkin must take these threats seriously and investigate them fully. If true, acting education commissioner Kevin Dehmer and any other state official who conspired to issue such a threat should be fired immediately by Governor Murphy," McGuckin said.