SOUND OFF: Should These Laws Be Changed?

Under what circumstances should someone who has been convicted of a crime be allowed to work in a school?

And under what circumstances should someone who’s been arrested on criminal charges be allowed to receive pay while their case is adjudicated?

These are the two questions vexing Brick Township residents right now.

At Thursday’s Board of Education meeting, in addition to the uproar over a proposal to eliminate 31 full-time bus driver jobs, residents and board members were vocal in their frustration over these two issues, which relate to the arrests of superintendent Walter Uszenski and former special services director Andrew Morgan earlier this month
in what prosecutors say was a scheme to provide what amounted to taxpayer-funded full-time day care for Uszenski’s grandson.

Morgan was additionally accused of lying on his application to the school district by not disclosing a 1990 conviction on drug offenses.

Board President Sharon Cantillo told the audience she spoke with investigators at the state Department of Education, which handles all criminal background checks for districts across the state.

The investigator told her that while Morgan’s conviction was indeed in his file, the information also included a notation that Morgan had been deemed fit to work in a school district -- so the conviction was not reported to the district.

The investigator confirmed that information for the Patch.

“His prints have been run 10 or 12 times and he has always been cleared to work” because of that notation, which the investigator said was because the commissioner of education at that time approved the appeal.

“There used to be a process where someone could appeal if they could show they had been rehabilitated and be deemed acceptable for school employment,” the investigator told the Patch.

That means that while Morgan’s criminal convictions are in the system, he is marked as employable. Even now, they would be required to say he was approved, but it would be marked with a pending because of the charges pending, he said.

That process no longer exists, he said, but he wasn’t sure when it was halted.

“There aren’t too many of those people still around,” he said.

Several people complained about the fact that Uszenski is suspended with pay, which board attorney Jack Sahradnik is required under state law. Uszenski’s pay can be suspended if he is indicted, Sahradnik said.

That’s a law that needs to be changed, board members Michael Conti and Frank Pannucci said. Conti said they have contacted local legislators to get the law changed.