A Familiar Playbook: Residency Questions and the Push to Silence Critics

Let’s be clear: Dana wasn’t just saying she dislikes this blog. She was effectively handing her “Kids First” allies a script for going after it.

At the August meeting, she stated:

“This page is targeting the current board member, Ed Reinle, and other candidates with attacks, false stories, and attempts to ruin their reputations. I believe this is interfering with our election. The name of the hardyston board of education makes people think this is an official board page, but it’s Dave’s personal views. This list leaves our community and is damaging to the board’s credibility. I’m asking you to investigate why does Dave go out to use this name that sounds official? Should be renamed Dave’s news to show it’s not connected to the board? This is a matter of keeping our election fair and transparent. Thank you for listening and taking steps for justice.”

This wasn’t casual commentary. It was a public request for the board to investigate a private citizen’s blog during an active election cycle. That’s not transparency. That’s using public office to settle personal grievances.

This approach mirrors a prior incident involving Donna Carey, another “Kids First” member, who filed an ethics complaint against a fellow board member she opposed politically. That action consumed taxpayer funds while producing no tangible benefits for students. Kalczuk’s remarks suggest a readiness to follow the same pattern before even holding elected office.

Significantly, there are unresolved questions regarding Kalczuk’s own residency and whether she satisfies the statutory requirements to serve on the Hardyston Board of Education. The potential incongruity of seeking to discredit a community watchdog while under such scrutiny is, at minimum, noteworthy. Rather than addressing these eligibility concerns directly, Kalczuk has chosen to focus on initiating actions against a platform that reports on public matters.

When viewed alongside her running mates, the implications are telling:

• Ed Reinle - A candidate whose attendance record invites the question: will he appear if elected?
• Ellis Marples - Current Hardyston Republican Municipal Chair & Republican Committee person for District 4 with potential competing priorities between governance and organizational loyalty.
• Dana Kalczuk - Advancing the same punitive tactics associated with her slate’s prior actions, while leaving fundamental questions about her own candidacy unanswered.

If the board were to act upon her request to “investigate” this blog, it could potentially constitute an ethics violation - specifically, the misuse of official position to target a private citizen for personal or political purposes. Such conduct undermines public confidence and risks diverting focus from the board’s core responsibilities to policy development, planning, and oversight.

At minimum, this is a reminder that boards need procedural fairness, restraint, and clear boundaries between public duty and personal conflict.