Pattern Brief: Two Years of Documented Distraction and Governance Lapses
A documented review of board conduct across 2025-2026 reveals recurring issues involving attentiveness, procedural confusion, and governance boundaries.
This post is not a rant.
It’s a documented pattern review.
Over the past two years, multiple public meetings have raised recurring concerns about attentiveness, preparation, and governance discipline involving Board Member Donna Carey.
Any one incident could be dismissed on its own.
Taken together, they form a record.
I. January 7, 2025 - Student Recognition Ceremony
During the first meeting of the year, students were publicly recognized for their achievements.
At that time, the Board President was visibly focused on her phone during the ceremony, as documented in Hardyston BOE’s First Meeting: Where Are Their Priorities?.
An OPRA request was filed to determine whether district business was being conducted electronically during that period.
The district response indicated no responsive district communications, as covered in What Was More Important Than Students? OPRA Results.
Documented Outcome:
- Visible phone use during student recognition.
- No district business records associated with that time window.
II. January 20, 2026 - Budget Workshop
One year later, during a budget workshop, visible phone use again occurred, documented in Budget Workshop, Phone Screens, and Public Trust.
The timestamps overlapped with:
- Tax levy discussions
- State aid projections
- Staffing needs
- Preschool funding allocation
- Budget constraint analysis
The documented window of visible disengagement exceeded 13 minutes during core fiscal deliberations.
Documented Outcome:
- Phone use during high-stakes budget discussion.
- Extended duration during operational decision-making.
III. February 10, 2026 - Budget Process and Governance Questions
At the February 10, 2026 meeting, questioning reflected difficulty articulating foundational governance and budget mechanics, including:
- Budget timelines
- Levy cap mechanics
- Committee roles
- Superintendent search confidentiality standards
These are core governance concepts.
The board member in question has served more than eleven years, including as Board President.
Documented Outcome:
- Repeated clarification requests on long-standing procedural matters.
- Public discussion touching on areas requiring confidentiality discipline.
IV. Cumulative Record
Across 2025-2026, the documented record reflects:
- Phone use during student recognition.
- Phone use during budget deliberations.
- Confirmed absence of district-recorded business communications during those windows.
- Repeated clarification on foundational fiscal mechanics.
- Governance boundary tension in public session.
The incidents span:
- Ceremonial events
- Operational deliberations
- Governance administration
This is not a one-meeting issue.
It spans two full calendar years.
V. Findings
Based on publicly documented meetings:
- Visible distraction occurred during both ceremonial and fiscal proceedings.
- Extended disengagement overlapped with substantive budget deliberations.
- Foundational governance mechanics required repeated clarification despite long tenure.
- Confidentiality-sensitive matters were raised publicly.
These findings come directly from the meeting record.
VI. Governance Standard
Board members are fiduciaries.
The role requires:
- Sustained attention
- Preparation
- Institutional knowledge
- Respect for confidentiality and process
Public trust depends on consistent performance in all of these areas.
VII. Public Interest Question
The issue is not device usage alone.
The issue is pattern consistency.
When visible distraction overlaps with critical deliberations - and basic mechanics require repeated clarification after more than a decade of service - residents are entitled to ask whether governance standards are being met.
This brief presents the record.
The community may draw its conclusions.