The Money Was There — They Just Mismanaged It

Let’s stop pretending this was inevitable.

The foreign language classes, the instrumental music, the co-teaching support — these programs already existed with the taxes we were paying. They weren’t bonuses. They weren’t optional. They were part of the foundation of a well-rounded education in East Brunswick.

So how did we get here?

You can blame the state if it makes you feel better. But at the end of the day, this is a local failure. There was money. There were choices. And those choices led us to a place where restoring basic programs now feels like a heroic act.

On March 19th, the community made it loud and clear that the proposed budget cuts were unacceptable. Parents, teachers, and students spoke up. And now, in response to that pressure, Superintendent Victor Valeski issued an update:

“I will recommend the complete restoration of the Hammarskjold Upper Elementary School (HUES) schedule, including no impacts for foreign languages at HUES. I will also recommend the restoration of the co-teaching instrumental music program at both HUES and Churchill Junior High School (CJHS).”

That’s a step in the right direction. But let’s be honest — it should’ve never come to this.

We are not asking for extras. We are asking for the continuation of what our community already funded. When programs are pulled without a clear explanation of where the money actually went, we have every right to demand transparency — not just gratitude for our “patience.”

There’s a special board meeting on April 8th. It’s informational only — no action will be taken. But make no mistake: this is not the time to go quiet.

We shouldn’t have to fight this hard just to keep what we already had.

So the question remains:

Where did the money go?

And until there’s a clear answer, we keep asking.

If you visit the East Brunswick Public Schools website, you’ll notice some recurring themes—most notably, repeated references to the district’s “11 National Blue Ribbon Schools” and a Redbook magazine article naming East Brunswick High School (EBHS) the best in New Jersey and one of the 51 best in the nation. The district proudly displays these accolades across multiple pages, including Our Schools, Staff and Community, Awards and Accomplishments 2021–2022, and Awards and Accomplishments 2022–2023.

But if you look closer—really look—you’ll see what’s not there: dates.

The Omission of Time Matters

It’s a deliberate choice not to include the years when these awards were granted. And when it comes to public trust and transparency, that matters.

The Redbook article? That was published in April 1996—28 years ago. The Blue Ribbon designations? The most recent was over a decade ago, and many date back to the early 1990s. Yet, on all three of these webpages, the district fails to provide that critical context. Instead, the accolades are presented in a way that suggests current relevance—painting a picture of a district at the peak of excellence today, rather than one coasting on achievements from a different generation of students, staff, and leadership.

Misleading by Omission

No one is disputing that the honors were real. EBHS was named one of the best in the nation—in 1996. Several schools were awarded Blue Ribbon status—in the 1990s and early 2000s. But to present these honors without the years is a subtle form of misrepresentation. It creates the illusion that the district is still being recognized at the national level, which is simply not the case.

In fact, since 2012–2013, East Brunswick has not received a new Blue Ribbon award. That’s more than a decade without the kind of recognition it continues to advertise as a defining trait.

Why This Matters Now

This matters because East Brunswick is facing very real challenges. Recent years have brought deep budget cuts, arts program reductions, staff attrition, and parental frustration over transparency and leadership. And yet, in the face of all this, the district clings to decades-old accolades as if they still hold the same weight.

It’s not just about outdated facts—it’s about accountability. It’s about whether families and taxpayers are being presented with an honest picture of the current state of the schools.

A Call for Transparency

We should take pride in our history—but not at the expense of truth. The continued omission of dates on the district’s Blue Ribbon and Redbook references is not just a formatting oversight. It’s an editorial choice. And it’s one that misleads the community.

If we want to move forward—if we truly care about rebuilding trust and restoring East Brunswick’s reputation—we must start by telling the whole story. That includes when these accolades were earned, and more importantly, what has happened since.

Sources:

https://www.ebnet.org/about-us/awards-and-accomplishments/awards-and-accomplishments-2022-2023-school-year

https://www.ebnet.org/about-us/awards-and-accomplishments/awards-and-accomplishments-2021-2022-school-year

https://www.ebnet.org/departments/human-resources/our-schools-staff-and-community

When Transparency Becomes Inconvenient

On February 26, 2025, East Brunswick Superintendent Dr. Victor Valeski sent a letter to the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) Ethics Commission requesting an advisory opinion. The subject? Whether Board Member Dr. Lou Figueroa should be restricted from voting on certain “key issues.” Specifically, it appears that Dr. Valeski wants Dr. Lou removed from voting on his future contract.

But here’s what makes this troubling: Dr. Lou Figueroa was just elected by thousands of residents who expected him to represent their voice—especially on matters like administrative accountability, budget decisions, and yes, contract renewals.

Who Is Dr. Valeski Worried About?

It’s becoming clear that Dr. Valeski sees Dr. Lou as a threat—not to the district’s mission, but to his own position. Why else would he take preemptive steps to silence a board member before any vote has even taken place?

Dr. Lou made it clear during his campaign that he would ask hard questions and demand transparency. Many voters supported him precisely because they felt unheard for too long. If the intent behind the advisory opinion is to sideline Dr. Lou before critical decisions are made, it’s not just politics—it’s a betrayal of the public trust.

Democracy Doesn’t Work Like This

When an unelected administrator tries to block an elected official from doing their job, we’ve stepped out of the bounds of democracy.

Imagine voting for a new mayor because you didn’t like how the old one handled budgets, only to find out the town manager is trying to have the mayor’s vote disqualified on key issues. Would anyone consider that fair? Of course not. Yet that’s what’s playing out in East Brunswick.

This isn’t about one contract or one vote. It’s about whether the voices of thousands of residents can be dismissed by a single administrator wielding obscure legal tools.

The OPRA Response Says a Lot

After confirming the date of Dr. Valeski’s letter to the DOE, Jeff Winston submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request to obtain a copy. The district didn’t deny the letter’s existence—they simply refused to release it, citing the “deliberative process privilege.”

This means the public has no access to a letter that could directly impact whether their elected representative can vote. And yet the administration expects the community to trust that this is all being done in good faith.

A Pattern of Avoidance

This isn’t the first time legitimate questions have been shut down. When residents asked about the funding of the high school hockey team—largely funded by parents—the district claimed it was “too much work” to provide a breakdown. That request was also dismissed as “answered and closed.”

Why is there such a resistance to basic transparency? Why are questions met with legal barriers instead of answers?

A Dangerous Precedent

If Dr. Lou is blocked from voting on a matter as important as the superintendent’s contract—despite being duly elected by the people—what message does that send? It tells future candidates that standing up for the community could get them silenced. It tells residents that their vote only matters until it becomes inconvenient for those in power.

That’s not oversight. That’s control.

What Comes Next?

Some have suggested filing a similar OPRA request with the NJDOE directly. Others have brought up the “Doctrine of Necessity,” a legal principle that allows board members to vote even when a conflict is alleged, if their vote is necessary for a quorum. These are important avenues—but the larger issue remains:

Who decides who gets a voice in East Brunswick?

The November election is coming. Between now and then, residents should be watching, speaking, and demanding answers. Because if a superintendent can eliminate dissent by disqualifying opposition, East Brunswick has much bigger problems than just a budget shortfall.