I, Dan Kleinman, 641 Shunpike Rd #123, Chatham NJ 07928, 973-610-8296, safelibraries@pm.me, request the School Ethics Commission accept this Complaint against the below-named Respondents whose home addresses, phone numbers (obtained from the Internet so accuracy is not assured and I chose not to vex them by calling just to confirm the number), and email addresses are shown below, in accordance with the authority of the School Ethics Commission to entertain such complaints under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq., and I have sent a CC of this Complaint to all:
Bryan Chapman
[redacted address and telephone]
bchapman@nhvweb.net
Glen Farbanish
[redacted address and telephone]
gfarbanish@nhvweb.net
Tara Marie Hintz
[redacted address and telephone]
thintz@nhvweb.net
Brendan McIsaac
[redacted address and telephone]
bmcisaac@nhvweb.net
John Melick
[redacted address and telephone]
jmelick@nhvweb.net
Beth Kotran
[redacted address and telephone]
bkotran@nhvweb.net
Daniel Spanton
[redacted address and telephone]
dspanton@nhvweb.net
Jessica Viotto
[redacted address and telephone]
jviotto@nhvweb.net
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
"What is the role of the school board and the superintendent? The school board has a dual role: To represent the concerns of the citizens, taxpayers and parents to the school administrators, and to represent the needs of the students and school district to the citizens, taxpayers and parents of the community." Source: New Jersey School Boards Association. “School Board FAQs.” New Jersey School Boards Association. Accessed October 21, 2024. https://www.njsba.org/news-information/school-board-basics-frequently-asked-questions/.
The school board represents the citizens, says NJSBA. Nowhere does it say the school board represents special interests, let alone out-of-state special interests. Indeed, representing special interests is explicitly against the law, a law the School Ethics Commission is changed with enforcing.
Along comes members of the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District Board of Education, Annandale, NJ. They are above the law. They represent the concerns of, not the citizens, but the American Library Association from Chicago, Illinois. They do this openly, so openly that some board members decry how special interests are getting precedence by other board members over the citizens. An acknowledgement of partiality to the special interest is then made, an apology is then offered, and we are all supposed to continue on with the decision made while the majority of the board members were breaking the law.
Well that shouldn't happen. The law should apply. There should be real consequences for breaking the law.
The law broken is under the purview of the School Ethics Commission.
I am here today bringing this Complaint under the law before the School Ethics Commission, supported by many facts reliably sourced, to help the Commission determine if a violation of the law has indeed occurred.
There should be consequences, meaningful ones. Only then can justice be done. Only then can the school board truly represent "the concerns of the citizens, taxpayers and parents." Only then can school children be protected from the harm caused by a school board illegally acceding to special interests who care not about New Jersey laws or children.
All Respondents are members of the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District Board of Education [NHV BOE] charged with compliance with the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) through (j)). All have violated that law, specifically N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) stating, "I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups…." All have surrendered their independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups, namely, the American Library Association [ALA], 225 N Michigan Ave., Ste 1300, Chicago, IL 60601, and the various groups it brings to bear on communities nationwide, including in Annandale, NJ, to force decisions in compliance with its aspirational creed. That creed is given the vaunted name of the "Library Bill of Rights" that specifically makes it age discrimination to keep children from any material whatsoever. As a direct result of that violation of law, Respondents accepted the aspirational creed of that private Chicago special interest group that all material should be available to children of all ages and ignored New Jersey law regarding obscenity for persons under age 18, so it decided to keep children exposed to what’s considered obscenity under New Jersey law, just to satisfy the Chicago-based organization’s "Library Bill of Rights."
It is notable that ALA is seeking to get its "Library Bill of Rights" passed into New Jersey law via legislation called S2421, A3446, "The Freedom to Read Act" bill. It would exempt school librarians and teachers from the obscenity law, but the bill has not yet been signed into law. You see, the same tactics to which the NHV BOE succumbed in violation of New Jersey law are also being applied throughout New Jersey and nationally. ALA even has a name for it, "long-term inoculation." See the evidence contained herein: "Library Boards Trained to Lie by ALA; Banned Books Wedge Issue Adopted by White House," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 21 June 2023, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html.
The principal incident precipitating this Complaint is a Board vote to keep a book called, "Let’s Talk About It; The Teen's Guide to S[]x, Relationships, and Being a Human," by Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan, ISBN-10 1984893149, ISBN-13 978-1984893147. That book may be fine elsewhere but in New Jersey it is obscenity under N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 "Obscenity For Persons Under 18." Full analysis of why it is obscenity for persons under 18 in NJ is here: "Time to Charge NJ School Librarians Martha Hickson and Roxana Caivano with Obscenity Under 2C:34-3," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 April 2024, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/04/time-to-charge-nj-school-librarians.html.
Given the book contains obscenity under the law, this Complaint will not describe the obscenity nor will it provide photographs, but detailed and specific information can be found here: https://booklooks.org/data/files/Book%20Looks%20Reports/L/Lets%20Talk%20About%20It.pdf. Contrast this detailed and informative review, by the way, with the American Library Association's own book resume that summarizes the book in three glowing sentences: https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/wp-content/uploads/Moen_LetsTalkAboutIt_20240404.pdf.
Surrounding Respondents' vote to keep the obscenity in the school library was a massive effort by special interest or partisan political groups that resulted in many emails and a massive crowd crowd that vastly outnumbered the few parents present at the meeting deciding on removal of the obscenity. They even took celebrity shots during the executive section of the meeting. Martha Hickson was the star. I too got in the shots though I don't know where they appear or who has them. The few parents present were outnumbered by about 100 to 1. I was there so I saw this first hand. Even school librarians from other towns were there, like Roxana Caivano of Roxbury, NJ, who is suing a number of parents for complaining under Board of Education v. Pico, 457 US 853 (1982) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/457/853.html about similarly inappropriate school books at another school board’s meeting. I am named in that lawsuit.
When one looks at the totality of the pressure brought to bear on the school board, precipitated by the school’s librarian reaching out to numerous special interest or partisan political groups, one can understand the pressure Respondents likely felt to be willing to violate the Ethics Code. That is the purpose of the bullying effort, after all. But Respondents allowed the bullying effort by special interest or partisan political groups to be effective and cause them to supersede New Jersey law. This violates the Ethics Code. There are no affirmative defenses in the code that allow for school boards that have been bullied into acting illegally.
Special interest or partisan political groups involved here even brag about the success of the pressure campaigns they wield nationwide and recommend they be called in immediately whenever school librarians feel any pressure whatsoever. What example do they use? The NHV BOE. Martha Hickson. The school librarian at North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School. That's how bad is this case on the national stage. Respondents choose to be persuaded by the workings of special interest or partisan political groups in violation of the law rather than New Jersey’s obscenity law and a school board's ethics code when Respondents voted to keep obscenity in the school library.
And by obscenity I mean as defined by N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3, not as the special interest defines it as a violation of the Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) case. See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/. The special interest ALA from Chicago defines it that way because then nothing will ever be adjudged obscenity and obscenity will remain in New Jersey school libraries despite New Jersey law. More about how and why Miller doesn't apply from an attorney who successfully prosecuted obscenity cases here: "Details on Stopping Indoctrination in Schools and Libraries: Guide for Parents and Legislators on Obscenity, Drag Queen Story Hour, 1619 Project, Etc.," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 28 January 2023, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/01/details-on-stopping-indoctrination.html.
I anticipate that in defense of the Complaint, Respondents will argue the Miller case applies so no law was broken and it will be alleged I'm just trying to mislead the Commission to satisfy my own personal interests in harassing librarians or to make a name for myself. I know their tactics. This is a Complaint against NHV BOE, not the librarian. It is based on fact, not conjecture. I anticipate they will argue the Miller case applies so the book is not obscenity and will remain in the school library anyway, so this Complaint is moot as nothing will be accomplished, so the Complaint should be dismissed. Watch for that. I'm not seeking to remove any books, I'm here because the NHV BOE egregiously violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. I've been reporting on ALA for twenty five years so I've learned to anticipate the kabuki defenses and excuses like those just anticipated.
Here is the American Library Association then President Emily Drabinski (currently Immediate Past President) telling ALA members in a Town Hall meeting for all ALA members, held March 19, 2024, about how ALA worked with the school’s librarian to bring pressure to bear on the community,--remember, ALA is a special interest or partisan political group from Chicago, Illinois:
"And it was the kind of challenge that I think all of us are familiar with. It's appropriate for our public to engage with us around those kinds of questions. But what we're seeing is today in many parts of the country is nothing like that. But we at the ALA are committed to fighting back against that. This is our wheelhouse. We know that uh the Unite Against Book Bans campaign that has been running uh since I took office as President-Elect continues to pull together members uh both institutional and from uh individuals that provide information and toolkits about how to fight back, but it's also a platform used to mobilize interested and concerned citizens when we see cases of censorship uh happening. And so we know that people are battling back and we are using that platform to pull people together. I was at a a conference and uh Martha Hickson was there who some of you may know as school librarian in New Jersey. And when she faced a challenge at her school through that UABB platform, and other forms of organizing, 400 community members came and joined her to sign, to to stand with her in that moment. So the United Against Book baba Bans platform facilitates that. Our state chapters are using uh OneClickPolitics®, a tool that comes from our Chapter Relations Office and from uh the Washington Office to organize locally. We know that local organizing is what wins the day, that ALA can't come in and save places, but what we can do is provide the tools to the people who are on the ground doing that kind of organizing work."
Source: https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/l-jlRTWlI0MscCTWtDk1Ng2i5hyvPOI74LQssLOreNfCKpf2v4KOjaugx1vBh3aIzdvZPNbZsghJtkMrRVg5P78EBog?loadFrom=SharedLink
"This is our wheelhouse" was apparently more persuasive to Respondents than New Jersey criminal law N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18 and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) Code of Ethics for School Board Members.
"We know that local organizing is what wins the day, that ALA can't come in and save places, but what we can do is provide the tools to the people who are on the ground doing that kind of organizing work." And NHV BOE ran with the ball from Chicago's ALA, right over "the citizens, taxpayers and parents of the community."
Regarding the ethics law, Respondents also set aside N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) that requires, "I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups." As a result, children remain exposed to illegal material--in a school library, of all places. They keep saying a school library is a safe space when the reality is the exact opposite--because Respondents refuse to comply with the law. Respondents refused to comply with the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. That law is in place for a reason. What these Respondents allowed is a perfect example of that reason. If these Respondents are not subject to consequences for violating N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) through (j) in the face of the open admission of meddling directly in North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District by a special interest or partisan political group and Respondents siding with the special interest or partisan political group instead of NJ law on obscenity and NJ law of codes of ethics, then no case will ever be strong enough to bring under the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. We might as well throw out the law if it will not be upheld by the School Ethics Commission. There will never be a stronger case.
One partisan political group named EveryLibrary, P.O. Box 406, 45 E. Burlington St., Riverside, IL 60546, brags that it can create local astroturf organizations in as little as five minutes. In Prattville, AL, for example, it created four such local groups, and one of them is now suing the public library. So American Library Association is essentially side stepping standing rules and has found a way to sue in any community anywhere, simply by first creating a local group. The NHV school librarian’s local group was created in this exact manner. It’s astroturf.
Still, despite all that, Respondents should have complied with the law. There’s simply no excuse for violating the law, let alone leaving school children exposed to obscenity in school.
Here is what EveryLibrary said, and keep this in mind because next I’ll show how EveryLibrary was promoted by both the school librarian’s own astroturf group and by the New Jersey Association of School Librarians itself, the very organization legislation S2421 A3446 sets as the one to create model book selection policy for all NJ school boards:
"Um, we put to work our value system right now in a couple of key ways that we help, we hope people who who can join us can do. We have a, an a, uh, a platform called Fight for the First. Uh, fightforthefirst.org is a, uh, it's basically change.org for libraries. You know, we, we've set this up so that if there's a problem, thank you for putting that out. There's a problem, uh, in a local community. Somebody can, can say, we have a problem. We'd like some, some assistance. Here's what our problem looks like. We can platform that call to action very quickly. What we do is, uh, train, coach and guide and support the good people who are in that community who wanna stand with either the library or for the First Amendment, depending on how things are going. Um, and then we need folks who are outside of the zone. You know, if you're in it, man, if you're in, if you're in the trenches on this, it's exhausting. It's hard. It is, uh, it's community organizing. It's union organizing. It's the, the fights are akin to the anti-nuclear, you know, uh, reproductive justice, um, you know, civil rights fights. I mean, these, these people are in it. So, if you're outside of that zone, what we do as a national organization is we put money to work from donors, from vendor donors, individual donors. We've kind of a Bernie Sanders model for our donor base, and we help them, we help them, yep, help make their voice heard. Uh, we spend money on every single campaign advertising on social. Um, nothing goes viral anymore. You know, if anybody's doing marketing knows, you gotta be able to put that out in front of folks, you know? Um, and we, we show up. We, we show up, uh, sometimes with, uh, direct donations. Right now we're doing a, a fundraising drive in Prattville, Alabama, where the, the library director and four members of the staff quit rather than implement unconstitutional, bigoted policies on the part of that library board. I mean, these these, this is how we do it when there's, when, when you're in a, when you're in a green zone, like, like a San Francisco. If you're in a hot zone, though, like a Prattville, what you can do if you haven't, if you're just coming around to understanding this situation, is, again, a Fight for the First kind of flight framework. Join in, you know, join in. We've got opportunities for people to articulate, you know, a, a value system when it comes to the watchdog work. We've got our opportunities for people to be guard dogs for the First Amendment and for the library and for the schools. That's really, you know, hardcore activism. Um, there's, there's a chance for people to bird dog this digitally. Uh, and Jim, we're trying to give 'em different pathways to, to put their role [unintelligible] to work."
https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/tDlPQvLCIz837d74s2NLRJaZ5V-kj12ikVEcTQSekV3jixI4DrOjmQmflScUaZdNbqSMJEqx80xwoy7hB5ZW65iXSlI?loadFrom=SharedLink
So EveryLibrary has "a platform called Fight for the First. Uh, fightforthefirst.org is a, uh, it's basically change.org for libraries" It will "train, coach and guide and support" people. "[I]t’s community organizing. It's union organizing." "[W]hat we do as a national organization is we put money to work from donors, from vendor donors, individual donors. We've kind of a Bernie Sanders model for our donor base, and we help them, we help them, yep, help make their voice heard. Uh, we spend money on every single campaign advertising on social." "Um, and we, we show up. We, we show up, uh, sometimes with, uh, direct donations." "That's really, you know, hardcore activism."
And that organization, power and money goes directly against "the citizens, taxpayers and parents of the community," as the New Jersey School Boards Association puts it. It's completely unfair. It's why NHV BOE voted despite the law to accede to special interest wishes instead of those of "the citizens, taxpayers and parents of the community."
Families in the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District really don’t stand a chance against this massive "community organizing … union organizing." That’s why Respondents got so many emails in support of exposing children to obscenity as defined in New Jersey. That’s why hundreds of people showed up to BOE meetings to support the "right to read." There’s no right to read obscenity under 2C:34-3 nor under the Pico case.
More importantly, that’s why the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) through (j)) was written in the first place, to protect parents from board of education members who are perfectly willing to violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) by "surrender[ing their] independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups."
And look what a violation of that code of ethics has caused. Here is the X/Twitter account for the librarian’s astroturf group, NH-V Intellectual Freedom Fighters @NHVfREADom, repeatedly citing to EveryLibrary’s Fight for the First platform:
NH-V Intellectual Freedom Fighters
@NHVfREADom
·
May 3
Contact the N Hunterdon BOE before May 7 to protect students’ right to read. @UABookBans makes it easy
https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/messages/edit?promo_id=22620
That says it has sent 108 emails. Here is the sample form:
[START OF CANNED MESSAGE FROM AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION:]
Subject:
Protect the right to read at North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional School District
Message:
Dear [official],
I am writing to express my concern regarding the demand to remove Let’s Talk About It and other titles at North Hunterdon-Voorhees.
Over the last three years, a handful of individuals have attempted to ban books in our school libraries. Their attacks are part of a nationwide fringe movement that has resulted in historic levels of book challenges. In 2023 alone, the American Library Association recorded attempts to censor 4,240 book titles, the highest level ever documented.
For North Hunterdon-Voorhees to be included among these numbers is a stain on our district and a blight on our community. As the attendees and speakers at board meetings have demonstrated, local book banners do not represent our community, which has turned out in force time and again to support intellectual freedom.
I understand that the topic of teen s[]xual behavior addressed in Let’s Talk About It is a sensitive one, and that some families may prefer that their students not read books on that subject. In that case, there is a simple solution: Those parents should talk with their teens about the family’s expectations for reading selections. If the parents do not trust their own children to respect the family’s boundaries, they can contact the school librarian to request that a note be placed in their student’s library record prohibiting circulation of Let’s Talk About It to their child. This solution offers concerned parents the control they seek over their own child, while retaining the freedom to read for all other students and families.
I urge the board to focus on the question the reconsideration committee was asked to answer: Does Let’s Talk About It meet the selection criteria specified in Policy 2530? The committee rated Let’s Talk About It a 4 on its 5-point rubric, meaning that the book meets the selection criteria well. And there you have your answer.
Please vote to retain Let’s Talk About It and uphold students’ right to read.
Sincerely,
Your Name
[END OF CANNED MESSAGE FROM AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION.]
NH-V Intellectual Freedom Fighters
@NHVfREADom
·
Apr 30
Hey, Hunterdon County, stand up for the right to read and help us get to 200 signatures by Friday:
https://www.fightforthefirst.org/petitions/stop-the-nh-v-book-ban
From fightforthefirst.org
That link provided in the @NHVfREADom post is to special interest or partisan political group web site EveryLibrary. And that EveryLibrary web page contains a link back to the school librarian’s astroturfed group: https://tinyurl.com/NHV-LetsTalk, a shortcut that resolves to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ClWBTqQgKtMJb3jSFyxQt-AZgBTJRq7yjnQ_7GLiEPQ/edit that’s a document apparently sourced to the school librarian. That school librarian source then links again to a second special interest or partisan political group web site, namely, ALA’s Unite Against Book Bans: https://uniteagainstbookbans.org/attend-library-school-board-meetings/. It also points to a link to urge people to sign a petition: https://tinyurl.com/NHV-BOE-petition, a shortcut that resolves to https://www.fightforthefirst.org/petitions/stop-the-nh-v-book-ban that is created and maintained by EveryLibrary. It also points to yet a third special interest or partisan political group, namely, National Coalition Against Censorship: https://ncac.org/resource/backgrounder-sex-sexuality-thelaw. "The National Coalition Against Censorship was formed by a group of activists affiliated with the ACLU in response to the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California, which narrowed First Amendment protections for s[]xual expression and opened the door to obscenity prosecutions," and is based in New York City.
So we have here the school librarian openly working with three separate special interest or partisan political groups, two in Chicago and one in New York City. And Respondents voted in favor of the school librarian’s wishes backed up by three separate special interest or partisan political groups. Exactly how many are needed before there’s a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)?
NH-V Intellectual Freedom Fighters
@NHVfREADom
·
Apr 26
Email the NH-V today to tell them pioneering YA librarian Margaret Edwards was right. Knowledge is protection. Let teens read about the facts of their lives in “Let’s Talk About It.” https://action.everylibrary.org/nhvboe
That post from @NHVfREADom provides a link to EveryLibrary that gives people a sample email to write then it sends the email ostensibly on their behalf.
[START OF CANNED MESSAGE FROM EVERYLIBRARY:]
Dear [recipient position will go here] [recipient name will go here],
The eyes of the community will be upon you on May 7th when you determine whether to retain or ban Let's Talk About It from district libraries. I am writing to urge you to follow Policy 2530, stand up for intellectual freedom, and vote to retain the book.
This should be a simple matter. According to Regulation 9130, your reconsideration committee's charge was to evaluate Let's Talk About It according to the selection criteria outlined in Policy 2530. Using those criteria and the rubric contained in the reconsideration report, your committee rated the book a 4 on a 5-point scale, determining that the book meets the selection criteria well.
That should be the end of discussion: The book meets the criteria and must remain in the library. Full stop.
Unfortunately, several members of the committee violated the reconsideration guidelines by focusing on a portion of the book, a 5-page chapter on s[]xting. Those members advocated for removal based on their personal dislike of the content. In doing so, they have ignored the realities of the modern world and the judgments of experts in the fields of adolescent health and young adult literature:
Content about s[]xting is developmentally relevant. According to the 2022 Washington Post article “What parents are getting wrong about teens and s[]xting,” 19% of teens have sent a s[]xt, 35% have received one, and 15% have forwarded one without consent. Let's Talk About It recognizes that s[]xting -- like it or not -- is a form of expression that young people will encounter.
The Journal of Adolescent Health recommends that parents, educators, and medical professionals adopt a harm-reduction approach by “provid[ing] teens who choose to s[]xt with information they can use to mitigate the potential fallout.” Let's Talk About It discusses s[]xting through a harm-reduction lens.
NJ Standards for Comprehensive Health & Physical Education require instruction on s[]xting that includes the consequences and strategies to communicate safely and with empathy when using digital devices for s[]xting. Let's Talk About It cautions readers against s[]xting under the age of 18, advocates for consent, and provides safety tips that are useful for ensuring privacy when posting or sending any types of images online.
Numerous professional review sources have praised Let's Talk About It. In its starred review recommending Let's Talk About It for ages 13-18, Kirkus Reviews said, "[This] colorful, visually appealing, and easy-to-read volume is honest, normalizing, and s[]x positive as it offers readers excellent and reassuring information."
Please consider these facts when you deliberate. Resist the call to ban Let's Talk About It, a call that does not represent the will of the community. An October 2023 IPSOS poll found that 78% of Americans are less likely to support candidates who favor book bans. And a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released in February 2024, found that 58% of New Jersey residents are more concerned about book banning than they are about students engaging with controversial topics.
As we navigate this pivotal moment, please heed the words of the United States Supreme Court in its 1982 decision on Island Trees v. Pico: "Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books."
The decision you make on May 7th will not only determine the fate of a single book but will also reflect the district's commitment to fostering critical thinking, diversity of thought, and open discourse. Do not waver in the face of pressure from a vocal minority but instead stand firm in your duty to protect the rights of all students to access diverse perspectives and ideas.
A vote to retain Let's Talk About It will identify you as a board member who serves as a champion of knowledge, defender of liberty, and steward of a vibrant and inclusive educational environment.
Sincerely,
[your name will go here]
[your email address will go here] [your location will go here]
[END OF CANNED MESSAGE FROM EVERYLIBRARY.]
Respondents likely got this email or variations thereof in the hundreds. And those are in addition to the hundred plus emails from the American Library Association. Let alone the 400 people who showed up at the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District Board of Education meeting per the ALA President. I did not FOIA or OPRA for the documents but Respondents admitted to getting hundreds of emails. And the emails and the massive crowds are all from special interest or partisan political groups.
Yet none of the Respondents understood nor cared about parents who supported finding the book to be the obscenity it is under N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 who did not have access to a massive community organizing campaign, or any organized campaign at all, for that matter. Those parents simply got crushed by special interest or partisan political groups that move from community to community nationwide like locusts that overwhelm local populations. The Code of Ethics for School Board Members (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) through (j)) is designed in part to prevent this very problem from happening, is it not?
There are two more @NHVfREADom posts like those above, both dated April 25, and they both lead to the web sites of special interest or partisan political groups. So to save space I won’t list them here.
Here’s what the school librarian’s astroturf group says on April 21, 2024, and buckle up for this one:
NH-V Intellectual Freedom Fighters
@NHVfREADom
·
Apr 21
Why do teens need s[]x ed books in the school library? For their safety & protection. And bc they can walk into a drug store to buy the pill OTC & s[]x toys. Help students stay informed. Show up & speak up at the NH-V BOE mtg 5/7 to protect the right to read “Let’s Talk About It.”
They even thank the SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS that Respondents are required by law to ignore, and they gloat about NHV BOE keeping the obscenity in the school library:
NH-V Intellectual Freedom Fighters
@NHVfREADom
May 7, 2024
We did it: Let’s Talk About It retained!!! Thank you @NJASL, @NJLA, @UABookBans, @EveryLibrary, loyal community members, and students for proving yet again that NH-V stands up for the freedom to read.
https://x.com/NHVfREADom/status/1788053666596860241
So this has been going on for a long time right in front of Respondents, namely the out and open reliance on multiple special interest or partisan political groups, and Respondents still defied N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) stating, "I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups…."
It’s egregious the open defiance of that law. They defied the obscenity law as well, but that’s a matter for another forum.
The end result of the defiance of the law is direct harm to children by continuing to be exposed to obscenity, and in a school library, no less. That is the ultimate in aggravating factors.
These are messages posted or reposted on X by @NJASL. There are many. Many link directly to American Library Association and its EveryLibrary group astroturfing platforms. So there is zero chance Respondents were not aware that special interest and partisan political groups were involved in convincing them to keep the obscenity books in the school’s library.
Here are the web sites promoted by NJASL:
1) http://tinyurl.com/NHV-LetsTalk (redirects to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ClWBTqQgKtMJb3jSFyxQt-AZgBTJRq7yjnQ_7GLiEPQ/edit?usp=sharing) which includes:
2) a link to "Unite Against Book Bans" (https://uniteagainstbookbans.org/attend-library-school-board-meetings/) that is an ALA web site,
3) a link to "Send an email" (https://action.everylibrary.org/nhvboe) that is an EveryLibrary web site,
4) a link to sign a petition at https://tinyurl.com/NHV-BOE-petition (redirects to https://tinyurl.com/NHV-BOE-petition) which is an EveryLibrary web site, and
5) "all three parts of the Miller Test" (https://ncac.org/resource/backgrounder-sex-sexuality-thelaw) which is a third special interest or partisan political group called National Coalition Against Censorship that also pushes p*rnography in libraries (see https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/06/ncac-pushes-porn-on-libraries-fifty.html)
6) https://www.fightforthefirst.org/petitions/stop-the-nh-v-book-ban that is an EveryLibrary web site.
7) https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/messages/edit?promo_id=22620 that is an ALA web site.
Here is the sheer volume of @NJASL posts, in reverse chronological order from the 5/7/24 7PM date and time the Board of Education meeting began. Where the tweet is unique, I provide the text, otherwise I indicate it’s repeated, so we can see the flurry of tweets right up to 7 minutes before the meeting began, including tweets not about the meeting, recalling above is detailed the specific links to three different out-of-district special interest or partisan political groups web sites:
[19:00 - 5/7/24 - Board of Ed meeting begins]
18:53 - 5/7/24
Protect the right to read & remind the NHV BOE to follow their own policies! Support students, school libraries, and fREADom! May 7 NH-V BOE meeting at 7 pm: Cafeteria B, North Hunterdon HS, 1445 Route 31, Annandale. Directions & details at http://tinyurl.com/NHV-LetsTalk @NHVfREADom
17:52 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
16:52 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
15:53 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
14:52 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
13:53 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
12:51 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
10:51 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
09:59 - 5/7/24
Hey, Hunterdon County, stand up for the right to read! Stop the NH-V Book Ban! https://www.fightforthefirst.org/petitions/stop-the-nh-v-book-ban
08:51 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
06:51 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
[06:35 - 5/7/24 Literacy Shaming]
05:59 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Hey, Hunterdon County" tweet)
05:09 - 5/7/24 If you are not familiar
[reposts @KerryOCerra]
04:50 - 5/7/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
22:50 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
20:50 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
18:50 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
[18:35 - 5/6/24 Literacy Shaming]
[reposts @melissacorey]
[reposts @joshfunkbooks]
16:49 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
14:49 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
13:57 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Hey, Hunterdon County" tweet)
11:49 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
10:57 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Hey, Hunterdon County" tweet)
10:48 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
08:48 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
[reposts @jenniferlagarde]
[reports @supriyakelkar_]
Retweets @MrsCasieri "Stop the NH-V Book Ban! | Fight For The First" links to EveryLibrary site https://www.fightforthefirst.org/petitions/stop-the-nh-v-book-ban
[reposts @Boss_Librarian]
[reposts @DrTLovesBooks]
[reposts @DrTLovesBooks]
[reposts @DrTLovesBooks]
[reposts @abmack33, Louisiana middle school librarian Amanda Jones who admitted to gr**ming the children of "not modern" parents, see: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/02/poster-girl-for-ala.html]
06:56 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Hey, Hunterdon County" tweet)
06:47 - 5/6/24 (Another tweet about the NHVHS BOE meeting, same as the "Protect the right to read act" tweet)
[reposts @NHVfREADom] MAKES ADMISSION OF HELP FROM SPECIAL INTEREST AND PARTISAN POLITICAL GROUPS ALA AND EVERYLIBRARY!!!!!!! (@UABookBans and @EveryLibrary is ALA). BRAGS ABOUT BEING IN HUFF POST.
We ❤️ this interview w @ALALibrary @edrabinski! We’re the NJ library that got help from @UABookBans & @EveryLibrary. You missed a 0, though. Thanks to those orgs, we encouraged nearly 400 people (not 40) to come to the BOE meeting. Here are a few of us after the meeting. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/american-library-association-emily-drabinski-book-bans_n_66102163e4b083254eac0549
Quote:
We have a campaign, Unite Against Book Bans [https://uniteagainstbookbans.org/]. I urge your readers to check it out. We have all kinds of resources for fighting back against organized censorship in our communities. It advocates taking action when you see things happening.
Recently, a library in New Jersey was being challenged again for having a book about puberty in their high school collection, which is entirely appropriate. That platform activated 40[0] local people to come out. It’s an advocacy platform. ALA was able to mobilize advocates through it for this event. These are people who are very interested in their kids being able to read the books they choose.
We have master’s degrees in building library collections. I don’t cut my own hair. I don’t paint my own house. People don’t think there’s something to selecting books. The idea that [far-right groups] would know better than we would?
[reposts @NHVfREADom]
[reposts @NHVfREADom]
[reposts @NHVfREADom praising @ALALibrary and its president @edrabinski]
[reposts @ashleyckd] - she’s from ALA’s @EveryLibrary
[reposts @ProfFeynman]
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - links ALA https://www.ala.org/news/state-americas-libraries-report-2024
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - The fight starts tonight - reposts EveryLibrary link for astroturf
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - about the book - links to http://tinyurl.com/NHV-LetsTalk
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - about the book
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - about the book
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - announces BOE date and features ALA Prez Emily Drabinski and links to The Advocate site for "How Library Workers are Defending Books, Democracy, and Queer Lives" by Emily Drabinski https://www.advocate.com/voices/emily-drabinski-library-workers
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - about a joke by librarians "Drug Infested S*x Den"
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - about the meeting: "Why do teens need s*x ed books in the school library? For their safety & protection. And bc they can walk into a drug store to buy the pill OTC & s*x toys. Help students stay informed. Show up & speak up at the NH-V BOE mtg 5/7 to protect the right to read “Let’s Talk About It.”"
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - writing directly to "Dear" ALA, NCAC, PENamerica: "Dear @ALALibrary, @ncacensorship & @PENamerica: Do any of you confer awards for outstanding journalism about libraries & censorship? If not, you should. We’d nominate @veronikellymars, @Mike_Hixenbaugh & @frankstrong. All are shining much needed light."
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - about @jimmykimmel and a joke about parents, namely, "American Against Americans Against Librarians"
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - about location change for meeting - links to http://tinyurl.com/NHV-LetsTalk
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - about another astroturf site by ALA’s EveryLibrary https://action.everylibrary.org/nhvboe
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - 17:34 - 4/30/24 - Hey, Hunterdon County
[reposts @NHVfREADom] - about BOE meeting and citing @UABookBans by ALA and now yet another astroturfing link, ACTUALLY RECOMMENDING PEOPLE TO THE ALA’S UNITE AGAINST BOOK BANS SITE—"MAKES IT EASY": "Contact the N Hunterdon BOE before May 7 to protect students’ right to read. @UABookBans makes it easy" https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/messages/edit?promo_id=22620
What the "it" is in "makes it easy" is it makes it easy to overwhelm local communities and local parents who do not want 2C:34-3 obscenity in their school libraries. Indeed the ethics code was written to prevent this very problem, and the school librarian is bragging ALA "makes it easy" to "protect student’s right to read" obscenity. There will never be a clearer case for the application of this ethics code to this library board where its own librarian is repeatedly bragging about and recommending outside interference from special interests and partisan political groups.
Additional evidence that Respondents have violated the law includes that the school web site featured a web page that disparaged school parents who challenged books as "censors" and provided training to librarians nationwide that when parents challenge books, school librarians should immediately report that challenge to that Chicago organization and other special interest or partisan political groups like it. So a web page allowed by NHV BOE actively recommended engaging special interest groups and political organizations. Martha Hickson deleted the page after I first reported it, but there's an archived copy here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230319215109/https://libguides.nhvweb.net/c.php?g=1035323&p=7505173. Imagine allowing your publicly funded web site to be used to advocate for the interests of outside organizations, those interested in targeting children instead of protecting them, no less. That's what NHV BOE has allowed. It has allowed the promotion of the very organizations that violate its ethical code, and right on its own public web site. Remarkable.
The school librarian herself, Martha Hickson, would go to the school board meetings of other towns, like Roxbury, NJ, and hand out colorful cards saying, "Free People Read Freely," that is a registered trademark (US Serial Number 97918479, Principal Register) of special interest group American Library Association; see: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/05/school-librarians-martha-hickson.html. She is literally a walking advertisement for Chicago’s American Library Association. Yet Respondents allowed her to post a web page attacking district parents. And after I reported on her having done this, that web page was deleted after having been there for years. It’s like a tacit admission of guilt by Respondents that it would remove a web page after it was exposed for attacking parents and calling for school librarians to get American Library Association involved in pressuring school boards. I do not know but the removal of that web page might even violate records retention laws. Here again is an archived version of that page: https://web.archive.org/web/20230319215109/https://libguides.nhvweb.net/c.php?g=1035323&p=7505173.
Frankly, that book that had been under consideration for so long could have been removed immediately per Board of Education v. Pico, but Respondents instead chose "to surrender [their] independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups" by instead creating a long, drawn out review process some special interest groups recommend. It is my understanding the school superintendent decided to remove the book but the adults had one excuse after the next for never getting around to it, and here we are, Respondents decided to keep the book in the school library, precisely the goal of the outside groups getting schools to follow their diktat and create a labyrinthine removal process instead of following US Supreme Court law or New Jersey law and removing the book immediately.
Had the Ethics Code been followed, this would not have happened.
Librarians claim the long delays (that they created) waste the time and money of boards of education, when the reality is superintendents can remove these books immediately under the Pico case. That would have saved a lot of time, trouble, and kids repeatedly viewing 2C:34-3 obscenity in Respondents’ schools.
Mind you, this is in an atmosphere where even the school librarian herself admitted she would never remove 2C:34-3 obscenity from a school library because only a judge and jury can determine what’s obscenity: https://twitter.com/d_fantasia/status/1799189362363515033. Watch the video contained therein to hear Martha Hickson testifying how nothing in the school library is ever inappropriate "by definition." Then when asked about the Pico case, Martha Hickson responds that the Miller case means nothing is ever obscenity. So she's promoting the interests of the special interest groups, not the interests protected by the law.
And here is the President of the American Library Association, the Acting Executive Director of the American Library Association, and the Executive Director of EveryLibrary providing deep details on how those two organizations overwhelm local communities and arm interested locals like Martha Hickson with massive money, time, support, and do whatever it takes to lead local communities into accepting the Chicago Way instead of following their own local ethics codes and obscenity statutes, and I include the text of these two transcripts as if incorporated herein:
"ALA Details How It Controls Communities Nationwide: The Quiet Part Out Loud Now In Transcript Form"
https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/06/ala-details-how-it-controls-communities.html
For example, ALA President Emily Drabinski says,
"And so we know that people are battling back and we are using that platform to pull people together. I was at a a conference and uh Martha Hickson was there who some of you may know as school librarian in New Jersey. And when she faced a challenge at her school through that UABB platform, and other forms of organizing, 400 community members came and joined her to sign, to to stand with her in that moment. [00:35:30] So the United Against Book baba Bans platform facilitates that. Our state chapters are using uh OneClickPolitics®, a tool that comes from our Chapter Relations Office and from uh the Washington Office to organize locally. We know that local organizing is what wins the day, that ALA can't come in and save places, but what we can do is provide the tools to the people who are on the ground doing that kind of organizing work."
Parents simply do not stand a chance against such "community organizing." The Code of Ethics for School Board Members is supposedly a bulwark against just such outside pressure. Yet the Code was completely blown away by Respondents, and I am forced to file this Complaint as a near last ditch effort to have some adults somewhere stand up for the law protecting school children rom fbeing s*xualized and indoctrinated against the law, in this case both N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) through (j) and N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3, yet only the former is relevant to the instant Complaint.
Respondents basically took action (approving the book for the school library despite 2C:34-3 and the resultant harm to children) on behalf of, or at the request of, multiple special interest or partisan political groups.
Respondents have a duty to ensure no obscenity per 2C:34-3 is in a school library and they completely tossed that duty aside due to the actions of multiple special interest or partisan political groups, perhaps compounded by the hourly postings on X social media by the New Jersey Association of School Librarians @NJASL right up to minutes before the meeting started of links to the web sites of the multiple special interest or partisan political groups. What school board wants to be seen to be in opposition to the New Jersey Association of School Librarians, right?
Respondents voting to allow N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 obscenity into the school library at the urging of multiple special interest or partisan political groups that has "community organized" over a long period of time to pressure the Board of Education is essentially proof positive that Respondents engaged in action violative of the Ethics Code. Indeed not all members of the board succumbed to the pressure, just the Respondents.
Indeed it is possible that the other phrase in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) may have been violated as well, though I cannot provide direct proof. It states, "I will refuse to … use the schools for personal gain or for the gain of friends." Given the totality of the false claims by the multiple special interest or partisan political groups that blocking 2C:34-3 obscenity from school librarians amounts to censorship, as the school librarian recently said in the 6/6/2024 hearing in Trenton on A3446 (she testified, "Book restrictions are, however, a form of censorship. …. When restrictions artificial, artificial instrictions are imposed, uh that is a form of censorship. …. [O]bscenity, that is uh a definition that can be determined ONLY by a judge and jury. Your personal opinion about obscenity does not make it so." See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKswPHRsmF0&t=95s), Respondents may have acted to assuage their own fear of having contributed to "censorship" and may have indirectly received the approval and/or gratitude of members of the multiple special interest or partisan political groups, including the school librarian herself. Respondents may even have felt relief to finally move onto another topic after years, but I do not really know.
This is not a frivolous ethics complaint as the real victims of Respondents’ violation of the law are the school children who remain exposed to obscenity under New Jersey law. The Respondents will likely argue the Complaint is frivolous. Given the above relevant background information and the below statement of specific facts in support of the allegations, this Compliant is serious and involves direct and continuing harm to school children in school and to school district parents as a direct result of Respondents’ failure to comply with the Code of Ethics for School Board Members.
This is an ethics complaint filed under and seeking relief under the law, specifically, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). It is not a request for anything else such as a finding that any book represents obscenity or an action to remove the Respondents from the Board for violation of the law or to find them in violation of any obscenity law or other laws. Also, this is not a request for any action to be taken against the school librarian herself. I say this to head off any objections based on those spurious grounds.
Statement of specific facts in support of the allegation are interspersed throughout the above text. I asserted above these to be violations of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) through (j)), specifically N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) stating, "I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups…." But I will add here there’s a massive volume of evidence that multiple special interest or partisan political groups have caused Respondents to allow into the school library obscenity as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3. If N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) does not apply here in this case, it will never apply to any case ever more and the Code of Ethics might as well be abolished.
Source of the below conversations come from a 4:53:51 long video on YouTube by "NHV BOE" titled "NHV BOE Meeting - 5/7/2024" located at https://www.youtube.com/live/NzH6aYZItuI. Clicking on "More" will reveal a hyperlink saying, "Show transcript." That transcript is the source of the below quotations. The times are the elapsed time of the video and the actual time of day recorded during the video and as displayed in the video itself. By way of full disclosure, I spoke at that meeting, beginning at 1:42:35 8:43.50, and I spoke in support of the school librarian Martha Hickson.
2:45:35 9:47:00 Daniel Spanton: "[W]e don’t run the district. We hire the professionals who run the district. The book, the book has been vetted. It it’s been found to not be obscene. Uh, it’s been approved by, you know, national organizations to to come to the district, and then it’s reviewed by our administration and our librarian to be part of the library. I I don’t think we can make decisions when we’re not the professionals."
2:47:14 9:48:29 Beth Kotran: "I think an important thing that we need to keep in mind is that the book is supposed to be viewed as a whole. And, the majority of that book has a lot of really good information in it that’s been helpful to students as we’ve been hearing, that it’s a helpful book. Nd, it may not have been something that we would have ever seen in a high school, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not appropriate for students today. Um, the other point is that the book does not meet the terms of the Miller test and that is from the Supreme Court decisions which is the supreme law of the land and supersedes the anything in the state regulations. And based on the, and all of prongs of the Miller test have to be met in order to consider something obscene. And finally, and I think the point is is a very good one, under the um Board of Education v. Pico Supreme Court case, the Board does not have the right to remove a book from a library just because people have an opinion about the material. If it’s a book that passes all requirements, we need to leave it in the libraries. And I think as parents, parents have the ability to make a decisions as to how they want to raise their children and decide what books they read and what materials and whatever else they’re going to read. But we should not be taking the approach that we’re going to restrict what students should have access to. Because on top of it we don’t want to sit here reviewing every book that the librarians select that have been reviewed by different peer reviews and other journals as a matter of course. Otherwise that will become our primary job here. And I don’t believe that’s what we were elected to do" …
Then Board member Nicole Gallo reads 2C:34-3 out loud and points out specific instances of how the book violates 2C:34-3, for which she gets heckled and taunted by the crowd attracted by the special interest or partisan political groups that the librarian brought down upon the community and the Board, saying others books can teach the same ideas, but this one violates 2C:34-3. This prompts another board member to point out that’s only her opinion and the book has been approved by national groups.
2:52:53 9:54:08 "So, what I wanted to comment back, is everything you’re saying is your opinion as a lay person. I would like to take the opinion of the national association that has recommended the book. The professional who went to school and studied and they’re the ones making the recommendations for this book. I apologize but I don’t want to take just your personal opinion. I want to take the national opinion. If 97% of dentists say use this toothpaste, I’m going to use that toothpaste."
The 4 out 5 dentists preferred Dentyne Gum was an advertising campaign. See https://sunvalleypediatricdentistry.com/four-five-truth-fifth-dentist/ and https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/07/06/four-out-of-five-dentists-surveyed/ as well. Similarly, saying 4 out of 5 reviewers prefer for a school library a book containing obscenity under New Jersey law is selective advertising. It is advertising for the special interest or partisan political groups that have their own book ratings services, like ALA Booklist, while leaving out the opinions of others who have reviewed the book, like BookLooks.org. For the BookLooks review of the book that makes it graphically clear the book is obscenity under 2C:34-3, see https://booklooks.org/data/files/Book%20Looks%20Reports/L/Lets%20Talk%20About%20It.pdfwhere the "Summary of Concerns" reads, "This book contains obscene s[]xual illustrations and commentary; obscene s[]xual nudity; profanity; and alternate gender ideologies." Just make sure no children look at that link as it shows the contents of a book that’s obscene under NJ 2C:34-3. Frankly, I could not include the text and graphics from that book into the body of this Complaint for reasons of obscenity for persons under 18, so that link will enable you to see exactly the obscenity under NJ law that Respondents have approved for a school library since they chose to violate the Ethics Code and "surrender[ed their] independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups."
In comparison with the BookLooks review of the book, here, by way of evenhandedness, unlike the actions of Respondents, is the American Library Association’s own review of the same book. It’s like they are polar opposites, and ALA doesn’t even mention the word "obscenity": https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/lets-talk-about-it-the-teens-guide-to-sex-relationships-and-being-a-human/ and https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/wp-content/uploads/Moen_LetsTalkAboutIt_20240404.pdf. Oh, and there’s no graphics in the ALA version. By the way, ALA created its "Book Résumés" database only recently, and as a direct response to so many people using the BookLooks.org site.
Respondents, in "surrender[ing their] independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups," did so in a biased way that excluded opinions of disfavored special interest or partisan political groups like BookLooks. This is bias. This bias is in favor of certain "special interest or partisan political groups." So essentially this is an aggravating factor in Respondents violation of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. They essentially picked which special interest or partisan political groups to follow and which to exclude, and the end result was the s*xualization of school children in precisely the manner proscribed by NJ 2C:34-3.
Even worse, even a larger aggravating factor, is that not only did Respondents surrender to special interest or partisan political groups, but they did so in the face of direct and specific opposition and the reading of the 2C:34-3 obscenity for persons under 18 law by Nicole Gallo, one of their own board members, at that very board meeting, right during deliberation on whether or not to remove the book. Mrs. Gallo was told by Mr. Spanton he would not consider her "lay opinion" and that he would instead "surrender [his] independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups" by specifically stating, "So, what I wanted to comment back, is everything you’re saying is your opinion as a lay person. I would like to take the opinion of the national association that has recommended the book. …. I apologize but I don’t want to take just your personal opinion. I want to take the national opinion."
That right there is an admission against interest that indeed Respondents have "surrender[ed their] independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups" as proscribed by N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). There cannot be a clearer case than when Respondents admit to violating the law, even if they don’t themselves realize they have violated the law. They will admit it to themselves after reading this Complaint, but they still won’t admit it in any response because that would be a second admission of guilt, only this time directly to the School Ethics Commission.
On top of all that, we even have just out and open and obvious defiance of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). Respondents Chapman and McIssac signed a pledge with a "special interest or partisan political group" named Action Together New Jersey, see https://www.atnj.org/. One of the pledge items is to never remove a book from a school. This shows their inability to remain impartial but to do what this special interest organization wants them to do and disregard the taxpayers of the school district and disregard the ethics code. Respondents officially put their pledges into practice when they voted to never remove a book from the North Hunterdon-Voorhees school library.
3:02:08 10:03:23 PM - John Melick - "Staying on the on the on the topic of the book um you know I think uh you know it's it’s concerning, um, very much so, uh I mean that's why we have a complaint, um, however you know hear hearing from our attorney earlier, um, …. [Attorney: so let's not talk about it, Okay? Sorry John.] Sorry. So I don't believe personally that it rises to the level of you know removing the book entirely from the library however you know you look at the report and you you you see concern from some of the people obviously that that voted um to remove and I think we need to do a better job of addressing some of those concerns you know going forward and potentially with with this book. Um. Like I said I don't think it uh rises to that level based upon a lot of the the definitions that we've heard tonight that it it needs an outright ban but I think it needs to be you know be you know uh held with uh special gloves because there are concerns and we and we heard them in in this report. So, um, I think we need a better job to be sensitive and um you know so that uh you know all can be happy um or or happier."
So John Melick voted to keep the obscenity book in the school library. Look at his reasoning. "I don't think it uh rises to that level based upon a lot of the the definitions that we've heard tonight." And who did they hear that night? A few parents who opposed it but dozens of parents, students, educators, librarians, union leaders, New Jersey Library Association leaders, New Jersey School Librarian Association leaders, New Jersey ACLU leaders, and many others brought out by the school librarian’s getting special interest or partisan political groups engaged so much so that an ALA President even used Martha Hickson as an example for the effectiveness of the "community organizing" and "union organizing" and who bragged that ALA got over 400 people to support Martha Hickson. "I don't think it uh rises to that level based upon a lot of the the definitions that we've heard tonight." The definitions heard that night were all based on ALA’s message that the book didn’t violate the Miller Test so it is not obscenity, when under New Jersey law 2C:34-3 it clearly is. Besides, the Miller case doesn't apply to school books--Pico does. John Melick sided with the special interest or partisan political groups in violation of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) through (j)) and admitted that he "surrender[ed his] independent judgment" to them. He was bullied, got bullied, and left the students exposed to obscenity under New Jersey law. But his having been bullied is no excuse for not having a backbone and using his own independent judgment as required by law without being swayed by "a lot of the the definitions that we've heard tonight" from the hundreds the ALA President bragged about getting for Martha Hickson using several ALA platforms.
Now I will show the consequences of the school board's ethical violations. The way the school board got buffaloed by ALA into doing what ALA wants instead of doing what is legally and ethically required is so significant that its current president bragged about it. Even while making it appear ALA had nothing to do with the bullying campaign created by ALA and led by Martha Hickson, ALA President Cindy Hohl brags, "And, you know, we also heard that in New Jersey advocates of the North Hunterdon Voorhees Regional High School District, they were successful in keeping books on the shelf when that report came in for a request for books to be removed...." Say again? "That report came in for a request for books to be removed." Who sent in that report? Martha Hickson without a doubt. Martha Hickson invited in ALA to bully the board into violating its ethical obligations, the board violated its own ethical rules as a result, and here's ALA's President bragging about it. This is the second ALA president using NHV BOE as as example of its power. Hear this for yourselves here: https://x.com/SexHarassed/status/1839869515384963507.
How do we know Martha Hickson invited in ALA? She reports directly and immediately to ALA's top leadership. On October 15, 2024, I attended the NHV BOE meeting and nothing of consequence happened there because of my attendance. However, that night or the next day, Martha Hickson used her @sassy_librarian account to report my presence and concerns about my presence directly to ALA Immediate Past President Emily Drabinski. Martha Hickson is so tied into ALA that she writes immediately to the ALA president who immediately responds. The point here is not a complaint about Martha Hickson, rather it's that the school board, having had Martha Hickson get ALA involved, then followed ALA directives from Chicago, Illinois, rather than New Jersey law and ethical standards. The event was so egregious that ALA is high fiving about it and bragging about its success, over NHV BOE specifically. There's no way this wasn't an ethical violation where the organization to which NHV BOE kowtowed is bragging about its success in the media on a podcast called, "Write About Now with Jonathan Small."
Martha Hickson was even reported to have called in ALA immediately. “When the challenges began in September 2021, Hickson was shocked to hear a parent at a North Hunterdon–Voorhees Board of Education meeting accuse her of gr[–]ming children and promoting p[-]rnography. Right away, Hickson notified her union and groups like ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC). She also reactivated a network of community supporters that she built in 2015, when Fun Home was first challenged.” Source: https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/1123-al.pdf
Again, Martha Hickson is not the issue. The issue is the NHV BOE tossed aside its ethical violations and the law and inserted instead the views of Chicago Illinois's American Library Association, the views ALA has been working for about 60 years to get pushed into communities nationwide. And NHV BOE allowed that to happen as a direct result of its failure to follow N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) stating, "I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups…."
Instead, NHV BOE surrendered its independent judgment to a special interest group from Chicago, Illinois, that has been working for about 60 years to indoctrinate children in schools. See for yourselves: Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing.
Result? ALA's President Cindy Hohl uses NHV BOE as an example of the success in trampling roughshod over the ethical obligations of school boards.
In the past, Martha Hickson is the darling of ALA's first self-proclaimed Marxist President, Emily Drabinski. In a speech to ALA members, Emily Drabinski bragged about Martha Hickson. And specifically she bragged about how ALA provides a platform for local acolytes to astroturf support for ALA's views. Who did she use for that example? Martha Hickson and her effect on the NHV BOE.
NHV BOE has not only violated its ethical violations but it has done so in such an egregious manner that two ALA president's use NHV BOE as the example of a patsy to push its way over.
If you do not determine that NHV BOE violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), then just throw out the law since the law would mean nothing. You have to act to hold NHV BOE in contempt or in violation of its ethical violations.
The school children are reading books that are in direct violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18 as a result of NHV BOE having violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). ALA that NHV BOE held in higher esteem than "the citizens, taxpayers and parents of the community" has multiple presidents gloating. There is no way NHV BOE hasn't violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). To hold otherwise would be to send a message to New Jersey citizens and particularly New Jersey parents that the law doesn't matter and school children will continue to read obscenity despite N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18 and despite N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and there's no way to hold school boards accountable under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
Here's what ALA Immediate Past President Emily Drabinski said while she was still President:
And so we know that people are battling back and we are using that platform [the Unite Against Book Bans campaign] to pull people together. I was at a a conference and uh Martha Hickson was there who some of you may know as school librarian in New Jersey. And when she faced a challenge at her school through that UABB platform, and other forms of organizing, 400 community members came and joined her to sign, to to stand with her in that moment. [00:35:30] So the United Against Book baba Bans platform facilitates that. Our state chapters are using uh OneClickPolitics®, a tool that comes from our Chapter Relations Office and from uh the Washington Office to organize locally. We know that local organizing is what wins the day, that ALA can't come in and save places, but what we can do is provide the tools to the people who are on the ground doing that kind of organizing work. We continue to look for ways to expand our work in uh the Office of Intellectual Freedom.
Source: "ALA Details How It Controls Communities Nationwide: The Quiet Part Out Loud Now In Transcript Form," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 4 June 2024, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/06/ala-details-how-it-controls-communities.html
We even know Martha Hickson ridiculed the school, and this might be another motivation for the NHV BOE to jettison N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). Notice this reveals the school knew the books were problematic, but NHV BOE still defied N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) and N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3: (At 15:47): "The administrators in my building were not supportive, in fact they were actively accusatory and antagonistic asking me things like how can we have books but with language like that in our school as they clutched their little pearls." Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=944s. So NHV BOE knew the books had "language like that" but still chose to defy N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) and N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3.
One can see not only does the NHV BOE know there's a problem with the books, but when it is discussed by a board member who seeks application of New Jersey law instead of ALA diktat, another board member slams her computer lid and interrupts, then the board president states the board member was speaking in her own capacity, not for the board. See the video of this here: https://youtu.be/Gml3VajEip4
There is another major factual matter to consider in determining whether NHV BOE board members have violated the ethics law. There are so many, I'm trying to be thorough.
The board president admitted that he allowed a special interest group to sway the board, admitted he acted in defense of the special interest group, admitted he showed favoritism to the special interest group to the point of ejecting someone not in that group from a public meeting, then he apologized for having done that. He admitted that a book review committee leaked information to the special interest group, then he apologized for having done that.
Apologies are nice, meanwhile he got the special interest group's goal over the hill. Now school children are being exposed to material in the school library that violates N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18. So, after the fact that the special interest group got its way (to the point where two of its presidents are bragging about how the wool was pulled over the NHV school district), he violated the ethics law in a way that harms children, he apologized, and as he put it, "Okay, I got it, let's move on."
No, let's not move on. Children are being harmed as a result of the NHV BOE's ethical violations. That's why this ethics complaint is being made. You have the power to find this board guilty of having violated the law. Once that is done, the board will have learned that New Jersey law controls New Jersey schools, not the wishes of some special interest group fueled by some Chicago, Illinois, based organization that for about sixty years has been working to bully its way nationwide. Allowing this ethical violation to stand is tantamount to allowing that Chicago organization to nullify New Jersey law and ethics.
So basically, NHV BOE members have self admitted to acting in a manner that violated the ethics law, such as by favoring the interests of the special interest group, including by removing from public meetings opposition and by leaking information to that special interest group. They simply want everyone to move on now that the ruling to leave children exposed to harm per the special interest group is in place.
No one is in any position to do anything about this--except you. You can find an ethical violation.
You have a case where multiple board members are speaking out against this ethical violation because they see it happening and they are trying to stop it, "So, those kind of behaviors show that a support for a special interest group, which as board members were really not supposed to do." "No, it's per, it's the perception..." "It's a perception of of of of supporting a special interest group."
You really have no choice but to find NHV BOE has violated the ethical code. You are the body making these determinations. You're it. If this NHV BOE case isn't an ethical violation, then nothing ever will be, and New Jersey law will have been successfully nullified by a special interest group from Chicago, Illinois.
Here is the factual evidence for the above. Here is the transcript of the relevant portion of the June 25, 2024, NHV BOE meeting proving the above beyond the shadow of a doubt. People reading this will get a huge eye opener on how school boards have been subsumed by out-of-state special interests. The relevant portion begins at 3:03:43 and can be viewed at that starting point here https://www.youtube.com/live/GXtyvkApHKg?t=11023:
Board Member Nicole Gallo:
Well, I I think, I think like for new business um in in include, regarding the book scenario, when I was trying to speak and get my thoughts out and have a conversation with the board, the decorum from the um crowd/community was um, un, it was not okay. I did not feel that the decorum was handled well, I did not feel like it was pulled in well, I mean finally Andrew had to step in to say like you had your public comment, this is board discussion, you know, talking to other board members they didn't feel they had a voice to voice their opinion, um we were being heckled, I was being called names, it was, it was pretty, it was really unruly. I sent an email to you in administration I got no response. None.
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
So...
Board Member Nicole Gallo:
So I'm...
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
So I...
Board Member Nicole Gallo:
I'm still speaking. I'm still struggling with the fact of communication because I understand that we're all not going to agree. I I get that. And and that's all right, that's why there's twelve of us on [cough] on this board, but it really was a difficult situation for me to get a lot more information out on other people. And then when I file a grievance it's not, it's not even responded by administration or you.
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
So I guess I have two comments, right? I'm not going to disagree that when we're doing this the public needs to be quiet. I also know at some at some extent, if I keep acknowledging noise, noise gets larger, right? So some extent you try to over overtalk it and let it calm itself down, right? We have a large crowd, so I apologize if you felt the way you did, right?
Board Member Nicole Gallo:
Thank you.
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
But you know sometimes you try to let it just calm itself down, right? I I, you know, do some of this for a living, right? Sometimes let the let the noise calm, but I apologize that you know you felt that way.
Board Member Nicole Gallo:
Well I don't think it was just me, I think it was other board members too.
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
Okay.
Board Member Kimberly Solino:
And I I'm going to tag on that. It was very uncomfortable. It's embarrassing.
Board Member Jessica Viotto:
It's been an uncomfortable situation.
Board Member Kimberly Solino:
And -- I'm speaking Je Jessica, please let me speak. And it was embarrassing and some of us did not get a chance. And then to watch the public engaging. There's two side, there's three sides to every story that. But we had we had public and we and split and they are passionate on both sides. And it seemed like they were they were heckling board members and shutting them down as in Nicole, uh, statement. And then there was there was also public members being shut down and people were screaming, "shut up, sit down" and the the officer had to come over to a gentleman and it it just was it's it's just so inappropriate. And that is when the gavel, the time to to use that gavel and to to make those, to step in there, I agree with you, sometimes you have to learn to pull back, but you have not been doing that, and it spurred out of control.
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
Okay.
Board Member Kimberly Solino:
And we did, there were some of us that do sit here at the board that have, are constantly, are are feeling uncomfortable and we have new board members that are being heckled and uncomfortable, uncomfortability, and it's it's just not right, a lack of decorum and stability.
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
Okay.
Board Member Kimberly Solino:
And I did mention that the last two months.
Board Member Nicole Gallo:
Um, we had an incident in January when we had moved from the, um, Board office to the the bigger cafeteria where there was a very large group of people that wanted to speak and it was great that we extended the public comments cuz I think think it was very nessary necessary to hear everybody. There was a situation where um a public community member was being cut in line routinely um by students to come and speak because I guess they were trying to squeak their way in to make sure we didn't cut off the public comments. After a couple times when he tried to address it, um, it got a little altercation with some of the community members that were sitting there. And then when the cops went and approached them, a thumb came up from one of the board members to you and immediately you stated to leave, for him to leave. Meanwhile there was a mother who was running across the thing, cursing, and she was able to be, she was able to stay. So, those kind of behaviors show that a support for a special interest group, which as board members were really not supposed to do. Now I'm not sure it was a really weird situation, I think a lot of it was getting a little out of control, but on that case, when one board member gave you a thumbs up, that person got thrown out, wasn't able to make a public comment. So, you know, that has been complained to me quite, quite often. Uh, I don't know if they had written to you or to the administration, but you know when you have little things like that or when you're allowing more people on the other side to have that extra minute or 30 seconds to finish and then, you know. So it just shows that there's, um....
Board Member Kimberly Solino:
No, it's per, it's the perception.
Board Member Nicole Gallo:
It's a perception of of of of supporting a special interest group. Um, the other thing that I thought that was, you know, we discussed, that regarding the book review committee, there was a leak. It was never addressed. And and that should have been addressed because that was a very big deal. You know, I mean we don't want to look like that we compromise anything, we don't want to look like the the book review committee compromise anything. I mean obviously some of the people...
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
So like, I've explained to you multiple occasions that that you understand that the committee's formed and you we we you would appreciate that you think the committee knows that there's a degree of confidentiality, okay? A member decided to do, to let it go, alright. It's, you know, I I don't know what to say. Right, going forward, next time, we'll make it very clear you should not be doing that.
Board Member Nicole Gallo:
I meant addressing the community, let the community know about the meeting, sorry.
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
I, at some point it's it's, right, it's not the community it's it's it's our problem, right? You all said it was your problem and so I told I told all of you who called me for the hours at length that it happened, it's not an issue, it shouldn't have happened, but it did and it won't happen again, so we'll make it very clear if they get into that situation it's a confidential document, it should not be released until the board has it. Right? We're rehashing things we've talked about multiple times I, trust me, multiple times. I will handle the gavel harder in the future because you want me to handle gavel harder and at at at people who come to listen to us. I certainly, I will tell you...
Board Member Tara Hintz:
I actually wish you wouldn't have to do that.
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
I will tell you my personal feeling is when people are upset over a heated topic, banging on a gavel when you're standing on a stage, I'm not so sure calms people down but that's my personal opinion, I will handle gavels going forward.
Board Member Kimberly Solino:
You don't have to nec- either to to to the gavel. You could call for, um, a recess
Board Member Glen Farbanish:
Okay, I got it, let's move on.
End of transcript. Source: "NHV BOE Meeting - 6/25/2024," by NHV BOE, YouTube, 25 June 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXtyvkApHKg?t=11023
If this NHV BOE isn't found guilty of violating ethical codes, then no board ever will. They knew there was a problem and still chose to leave students exposed to illegal material, all to follow Chicago's ALA diktat instead of New Jersey interests as required by law.
Lest anyone think the above is not enough evidence, despite the final NHV BOE ruling ignoring NJ law, despite the admissions of guilt, despite the apologies and promises it won't happen again, there is also a longstanding history of favoritism to special interests.
The attached graphics show pledges Mr. McIsaac and Mr. Chapman both signed where they agreed to never remove a school library book: "I Do Not Support Book Banning." So right there they were beholden to a higher power than the "citizens, taxpayers and parents of the community." One can see the requirements for those who signed "The Pledge" in exchange for receiving this special interest group and political organization supporting them and putting the message out there for voters to be swayed.
The pledge was to "progressive partners" named "Action Together New Jersey" [ATNJ], as convicted criminal and disgraced former NJ Senator Robert Menendez put it, as linked below.
Mr. Chapman used the yellow label and apple logo from ATNJ on his lawn signs, showing his allegiance is to this outside special interest group and political activist organization rather than to the "citizens, taxpayers and parents of the community" itself.
Action Together New Jersey claims to not endorse board of education candidates, but the mere fact they have board of education candidates sign a pledge and do what the organization expects from them is in fact an endorsement in itself.
While ATNJ has a disclaimer on its website that it is non-partisan, numerous videos of NJ elected officials, including Governor Murphy, confirm they are a progressive political activist organization as all of these politicians thank them for the work they have done and the "progressive values" they share. ATNJ is in fact very political and is a special interest activist organization, the very kind of organization contemplated and disallowed under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq., the very law over which the School Board Commission holds sway.
Gov. Murphy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVGrKUQr6wA
Andy Kim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkpIH0h_6mU
Congressman Tom Malinowski
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlyxtvohbBw
Congressman Josh Gottheimer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9InCdrJjGE
Congresswoman Mikie Sherill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GR5a_9ozRY
Disgraces US Senator Robert Menendez awaiting sentencing January 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bun2Zc15i4
Congressional Candidate Josh Welle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hilcvZHuaOE
The school librarian's Facebook group called "NH-V Intellectual Freedom Fighters" [NHVIFF] endorsed Ms. Kotran (in the 2022 election) and she welcomed it. NHVIFF is a political group powered by Chicago's ALA, as discussed above. It is a special interest group and political activist organization that is essentially an astroturfed group of ALA itself, and its leader Martha Hickson is now working for ALA. Its goals are to never have any book removed or restricted for minors in the North Hunterdon-Voorhees School District's libraries, regardless of the content, regardless of the law.
And yes, you heard that right, while Martha Hickson remains employed by NHV BOE, she is now also employed by the special interest group ALA! She's on the "ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee"! See it here: https://www.ala.org/aasl/about/coms/ala. And just in case they hide it, a common practice by ALA once exposed, there's an archive here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240831084926/https://www.ala.org/aasl/about/coms/ala. It's like the ultimate in special interest groups that violate the ethics code, to have an ALA employee also working to promote ALA interests in a public school. Truly breathtaking.
Ms. Viotto was also endorsed by the NHVIFF in exchange to never vote to remove a book. Another example of special interest groups and political organizations pressuring NHV BOE members to do what they want them to do, instead of maintaining their own independent judgment and listening to community members of the district they represent.
Sixteen graphics are attached to this Complaint to illustrate the above, and more, such as calling opposing school board candidates a "hate slate" and doing so repeatedly.
And there's even more. Respondent Hintz posted on October 2, 2023, a graphic advertisement for the special interest group from Chicago, Illinois, namely ALA. How can she be impartial and compliant with ethical duties if she's advertising for ALA, and on the very topic of inappropriate books in schools, no less. She posted a graphic to a social media site of hers showing ALA's recommended "Banned Books Week" graphic saying, "I READ BANNED BOOKS; BANNED BOOKS WEEK; CELEBRATING THE FREEDOM TO READ -- ala.org/bbooks." Notably, there was no disclaimer that she was posting it as a citizen, not as a board member. Recall when board member Nicole Gallo spoke during a meeting, Respondent Farbanish stated publicly that she was speaking for herself, not on behalf of the board. So making that distinction is what the board does, but not in the case of Respondent Hintz's openly supporting a special interest from Chicago, Illinois.
In summary, we see political control in violation of the Ethics Code with special interest groups located nationally, statewide, and locally as astroturfed by the national groups. We see influence by multiple organizations comprising a group of librarians in Chicago, Illinois, called ALA. We see ALA providing all the tools needed for a local group to be formed and to pressure the NHV BOE, so much so that two of its presidents use the NHV BOE and school librarian Martha Hickson as the prime example of the effectiveness of ALA's "long-term inoculation" efforts. We see NHV BOE allowing the school librarian to work for the national special interest group getting its way while also working as an employee of the school district, even using public resources including the school's web site to promote ALA interests. All those efforts led to NHV BOE violating N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. and doing so in a sustained and damning way.
The School Board Commission must vote to act appropriately under this Complaint against the Respondents. There will never be a stronger case than this. Now is the time to stand for New Jersey law and ethics over "special interest or partisan political groups." School children need to be protected from harm per New Jersey law, and a favorable decision in this matter may significantly stem the tide of "special interest or partisan political groups" pressuring school boards to act in favor of the special interest or partisan political groups and against the children.
COUNT ONE:
Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) that states, "I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups…."
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a)(6), "Factual evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1.f shall include evidence that the respondent(s) took action on behalf of, or at the request of, a special interest group or persons organized and voluntarily united in opinion and who adhere to a particular political party or cause...."
On May 7, 2024, and/or June 25, 2024, Respondents took action on behalf of, or at the request of, a special interest group or persons organized and voluntarily united in opinion and who adhere to a particular political party or cause in the following ways, the facts of which are disclosed in detail above. At the request of a special interest group or persons organized and voluntarily united in opinion and who adhere to a particular political party or cause as detailed above in the facts section of this Complaint, Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1.f as follows:
- Respondents set aside N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18 and instead approved a book for the school library that satisfies the requirement of the obscenity law pertaining to children.
- Respondents set aside N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18 and instead asserted a special interest group's "Library Bill of Rights" that makes it "age" discrimination to keep any material whatsoever from children.
- Respondents balanced the two sides of the issue of an obscene book in the school library despite the law and sided with the special interest groups against the parents, returning the obscene book to the school library where it remains to this day. Respondents knew or should have know that it was being subjected to undue influence by special interests groups when it accepted about 400 emails in support of ignoring 2C:34-3 and when it allowed parents to be overwhelmed 100-1 by people attending the meeting based on the sustained community organizing efforts of special interest groups. Respondent John Melick indicated how he was swayed by the overwhelming weight of the people in attendance brought out by the special interest groups: "Um. Like I said I don't think it uh rises to that level based upon a lot of the the definitions that we've heard tonight...." The "definitions" were all those of the special interest groups. This massive showing by the special interest groups was so significant to the special interest groups themselves that two of it presidents use what happened at that NHV BOE meeting to force its way onto the community as an example for others of what can be done when multiple special interest groups work together with interested locals to assert the values of the special interest groups instead of those of "the citizens, taxpayers and parents of the community," as New Jersey School Boards Association explains is the role of the school board. So Respondents knew the push was on, it did nothing to stop it, then it ruled in favor of the special interest groups.
- Respondents stopped one citizen from speaking and ejected him from the meeting after he revealed he supported action opposed to the special interest groups. A similar person on the other side was not ejected. Respondents admitted to this in a future meeting and apologized for it. So that's an instance of a tacit admission of evidence pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a)(6).
- Respondents allowed the school librarian to use the school's own web site to call local parents "censors" and to make a list for school librarians nationwide of the many resources available to them from multiple special interest groups to ensure school children retain access to inappropriate material despite the law. Public funds were used to advance the interests of the special interest groups while also smearing local parents who sought the application of 2C:34-3 or of Board of Education v. Pico. Respondents did nothing to stop that. Only my pointing out that the web page existed after it had been online for at least four years caused the school librarian to delete the page. So not only did Respondents approve the promotion of special interest groups on the school's web site, but it also allowed for the smearing of "the citizens, taxpayers and parents of the community."
- The deletion of the web page in support of the special interest groups and smearing the local parents may be a violation of public records retention laws. Respondents have done nothing to restore the page nor determine if records retention laws have been violated. This favors the special interest groups and harms local interests supposedly served by school boards.
- Respondents allowed the school librarian to, while employed by the school, also be employed by one of the special interest groups. Martha Hickson now also works for Chicago's ALA on its "Intellectual Freedom Committee." Taking advice from her is like taking advice directly from a Chicago special interest group in violation of the ethics code. Indeed, the locked window case in the outside wall in the hallway of the library where she works at the school and keeps the shades closed so no one can look in is filled with over a dozen advertising flyers for the American Library Association, and only for ALA. There's nothing else in that display case. She's basically Chicago's expert school librarian working directly in the school and promoting the interests of special interest groups with taxpayer money and services such as a page on the school's web site. There's also a giant picture of her in the library getting an award from a special interest group. I was able to get inside to take pictures only because she was not there to block me out. Private businesses would never allow such conflicts of interest to exist. But Respondents are so beholden to the special interest groups that Martha Hickson can do no wrong. It's a violation of ethical codes. Respondents brought this on themselves, essentially by ignored the ethical laws.
- Respondents accepted the definition of obscenity asserted by the special interest groups, including the Miller v. California case, and ignored the definition in New Jersey law 2C:34-3, and ignored that the Miller case does not apply to school libraries. Special interest groups say Miller applies, but it does not, Pico applies, and under that case pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable books may be removed immediately. Respondents were swayed by the special interest groups, not by the law. By using the false definition of obscenity from the special interest groups, Respondents found nothing is ever obscene in a school library then returned the obscene book as defined by 2C:34-3 to the library shelves.
- Respondents allowed the school librarian to conduct school business from various of her private social media accounts, including on X @sassy_librarian and @NHVfREADom. Those accounts repeatedly promoted and linked to multiple special interest groups while also smearing parents and board members, such as by calling three potential board members a "hate slate." Here's another smear: "Over the last three years, a handful of individuals have attempted to ban books in our school libraries. Their attacks are part of a nationwide fringe movement that has resulted in historic levels of book challenges. In 2023 alone, the American Library Association recorded attempts to censor 4,240 book titles, the highest level ever documented. For North Hunterdon-Voorhees to be included among these numbers is a stain on our district and a blight on our community. As the attendees and speakers at board meetings have demonstrated, local book banners do not represent our community, which has turned out in force time and again to support intellectual freedom." Respondents did nothing to rein in this activity in support of special interest groups and in opposition to the very people the school board is supposed to represent.
- Respondents did nothing when its employee thanked the special interest groups for helping keep the obscenity in the library: "We did it: Let’s Talk About It retained!!! Thank you @NJASL, @NJLA, @UABookBans, @EveryLibrary, loyal community members, and students for proving yet again that NH-V stands up for the freedom to read." NJASL is New Jersey Association of School Librarians, NJLA is New Jersey Library Association, UABookBans is Unite Against Book Bans, and EveryLibrary is EveryLibrary. All four are subgroups of American Library Association. So district employee is openly thanking multiple special interest groups and Respondents did nothing, thereby allowing this in violation of ethical codes.
- Respondents observed special interest group NJASL post dozens of time in the days before the meeting, right up to seven minutes before the meeting, linking to other special interest groups web sites, and it did nothing. Worse, it considered the arguments of this special interest group linking to other special interest groups to be persuasive. "Um. Like I said I don't think it uh rises to that level based upon a lot of the the definitions that we've heard tonight...."
- Newspaper stories wrote about how special interest groups misled Respondents into acting against their own community in defiance of ethic laws. This from Huffington Post: "We have a campaign, Unite Against Book Bans [https://uniteagainstbookbans.org/]. I urge your readers to check it out. We have all kinds of resources for fighting back against organized censorship in our communities. It advocates taking action when you see things happening. Recently, a library in New Jersey was being challenged again for having a book about puberty in their high school collection, which is entirely appropriate. That platform activated 40[0] local people to come out. It’s an advocacy platform. ALA was able to mobilize advocates through it for this event. These are people who are very interested in their kids being able to read the books they choose. We have master’s degrees in building library collections. I don’t cut my own hair. I don’t paint my own house. People don’t think there’s something to selecting books. The idea that [far-right groups] would know better than we would?" Still, even in hindsight, Respondents did nothing even after it become obvious they had been used to promote the interests of special interest groups.
- Respondents could have complied with the law and immediately removed the obscene book under 2C:34-3 or under Board of Education v. Pico, saving the district much time and trouble, but instead it chose to follow the suggestion of the special interest groups to create a long, drawn out process to consider removal of the book, a strategy that ultimately worked in favor of the special interest groups and against the interest of the local community and especially its children. Then, after a debacle it created itself, it complained about the time and money spent on the book review process. So the special interest group devised the means to drag out the process despite the law, Respondents followed that means instead of the law, then complained about the time and money it took to solve the very problem it created by following the advise of the special interest groups in the first place. Respondents surrendered their independent judgment to special interest groups in violation of the ethics code, then complained about the time and cost of having done so. Meanwhile, public school children retain access to obscene material as a direct result of this subterfuge.
- One respondent stated publicly he supports the special interest groups over the local citizens and local law, and he refuses to act as his role requires, deferring instead to the librarian: "[W]e don’t run the district. We hire the professionals who run the district. The book, the book has been vetted. It it’s been found to not be obscene. Uh, it’s been approved by, you know, national organizations to to come to the district, and then it’s reviewed by our administration and our librarian to be part of the library. I I don’t think we can make decisions when we’re not the professionals." So essentially this is an admission of a violation of his ethical code. He just proved it himself.
- Another Respondent shows she follows the views of the special interests groups instead of applicable law by 1) asserting the Miller case "as a whole" standard applies, 2) asserting the Pico case does not apply, and 3) asserting parents can do what they like in their own homes but in schools kids should have access to anything. These are the exact positions of the special interest groups in contravention of the law. And Respondent Beth Kotran says exactly what the special interest groups train them with "long-term inocualtion" to say, "I think an important thing that we need to keep in mind is that the book is supposed to be viewed as a whole. ... Um, the other point is that the book does not meet the terms of the Miller test and that is from the Supreme Court decisions which is the supreme law of the land and supersedes the anything in the state regulations. And based on the, and all of prongs of the Miller test have to be met in order to consider something obscene. And finally, and I think the point is is a very good one, under the um Board of Education v. Pico Supreme Court case, the Board does not have the right to remove a book from a library just because people have an opinion about the material. If it’s a book that passes all requirements, we need to leave it in the libraries. And I think as parents, parents have the ability to make a decisions as to how they want to raise their children and decide what books they read and what materials and whatever else they’re going to read. But we should not be taking the approach that we’re going to restrict what students should have access to. Because on top of it we don’t want to sit here reviewing every book that the librarians select that have been reviewed by different peer reviews and other journals as a matter of course. Otherwise that will become our primary job here. And I don’t believe that’s what we were elected to do." So again, this statement that is substantially and legally false but is the argument of special interest groups, shows a Respondent admitting to considering the views of special interest groups, then concluding this is not her job. So essentially this is an another admission of a violation of the ethical code, this time by another Respondent.
- Respondents let board member Nicole Gallo get heckled and taunted by the special interest groups's massive crowd when she raised the issue of the application of 2C:34-3. When Nicole Gallo pointed out another book could be selected that didn't violate 2C:34-3. another Respondent jumped to the aid of the special interest groups saying that was only Nicole Gallo's opinion and the book had already been approved by national groups. It's a brazen and glorious tacit admission that one of the Respondents has completely tossed aside any pretense whatsoever of following any ethical code. "So, what I wanted to comment back, is everything you’re saying is your opinion as a lay person. I would like to take the opinion of the national association that has recommended the book. The professional who went to school and studied and they’re the ones making the recommendations for this book. I apologize but I don’t want to take just your personal opinion. I want to take the national opinion. If 97% of dentists say use this toothpaste, I’m going to use that toothpaste." She is openly saying she will rely only special interest groups and she will not rely on the local interests she is ostensibly on that board to serve. Her own public assertions damn her. She openly and proudly works for the special interest groups and not for local interests.
- Regarding the heckling and taunted of a fellow board member and Respondent Farbanish having done nothing to stop it, in a future meeting he admits his error, apologizes, then says he wants to move on. So he's admitting he allowed the massive crowd brought on by special interest groups to harass local interests. That helped lead to the decision that night to retain the obscene material in the library. He openly favored the special interest groups over local citizens, even over a fellow board member. This is another astonishing violation of ethical codes. And his apology doesn't erase his violation of the law.
- Respondents Chapman and McIsaac signed a pledge with a special interest group. The pledge was to never agree to remove a book from the school library. In this case, Action Together New Jersey [ATNJ] was the special interest group. They promote progressive political causes throughout New Jersey and even get praised for it by none other than Governor Phil Murphy and disgraced criminal and former NJ Senator Robert Menendez. So before the NHV BOE made its decision that night, two of its members had already pledged allegiance to a special interest group in violation of the ethical code. Then the two fulfilled their pledge that night. People agreeing ahead of time to act in violation of ethical codes is what happened here. Also, they essentially got themselves elected on false pretenses of claiming to act on behalf of the public when the exact opposite is the truth and they acted in blatant violation of the law/ethical code. And in a manner that harms children, no less, with exposure to inappropriate material. This is corruption to the core. I hope the most extreme sanctions are brought against these two.
- Respondent Viotto was endorsed by a different special interest group in exchange for her agreement never to remove a book. The same as I said immediately above regarding Respondents Chapman and McIsaac also applies here. Again, corruption to the core. Again, I hope this person too receives the strictest possible sanctions.
- Respondents leaked the pending results of the book review committee to special interest groups so they and only they could prepare for what was ahead. It gave a strategic advantage to special interests groups in violation of the ethics law and perhaps other laws. It was obviously acting in collusion with the special interest groups in violation of the ethics code. In a future meeting, Respondent Glen Farbanish admitted there was a leak, admitted it was wrong to leak, apologized, then promised it would never happen again. Then he said, "Okay, I got it, let's move on." The leak in violation of the ethical law may have enabled the special interest groups to gain a huge advantage and ultimately prevail in getting the NHV BOE to keep the obscene book in the school. An honest person would have said I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I apologize, it'll never happen again, and since the leak swayed the decision, we will run the meeting again to reconsider the issue in a fair manner. That's not what happened here. Instead, "Okay, I got it, let's move on." So the leaking of the document in violation of ethical codes is compounded by a tricky effort to keep in place the decision that favors the special interest groups so much that two American Library Association presidents are bragging about their success in Annandale, NJ, in keeping the school children exposed to inappropriate material.
- Some Respondents have been endorsed by special interest groups for school board elections. The Respondents accepted the endorsements. This violates the ethical codes.
- Respondent Hintz posted on her social media an advertisement and logo for a special interest group to show support for the group. She didn't disclose if she was doing so as a board member or as a private citizen. She openly promoted "Banned Books Week" by Chicago's ALA, a "Week" based on false information, plagiarism, and harm to the LGBT community that I stopped for a single year after I exposed the hoax list ALA promulgates each year. There is no way Respondent Hintz could be impartial when she voted to return the obscene book to the library shelves. She too is beholden to special interest groups. She too is violating the ethical codes.
COUNT TWO:
On May 7, 2024, Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) that states, "I will hold confidential all matters pertaining to the schools which, if disclosed, would needlessly injure individuals or the schools. ...."
- Respondents leaked the pending results of the book review committee to special interest groups so they and only they could prepare for what was ahead. It gave a strategic advantage to special interests groups and needlessly injured the local community members in violation of the ethics law and perhaps other laws. It was obviously acting in collusion with the special interest groups in violation of the ethics code. In a future meeting, Respondent Glen Farbanish admitted there was a leak, admitted it was wrong to leak, apologized, then promised it would never happen again. Then he said, "Okay, I got it, let's move on." The leak in violation of the ethical law may have enabled the special interest groups to gain a huge advantage and ultimately prevail in getting the NHV BOE to keep the obscene book in the school. So children are a significant portion of those needlessly being harmed as they are being exposed to obscenity. An honest person would have said I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I apologize, it'll never happen again, and since the leak swayed the decision, we will run the meeting again to reconsider the issue in a fair manner. That's not what happened here. Instead, "Okay, I got it, let's move on." So the leaking of the document in violation of ethical codes is compounded by a tricky effort to keep in place the decision that favors the special interest groups so much that two American Library Association presidents are bragging about their success in Annandale, NJ, in keeping the school children exposed to inappropriate material.
COUNT THREE:
On May 7, 2024, Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) that states, "I will recognize that authority rests with the board of education and will make no personal promises nor take any private action that may compromise the board."
- Respondents Chapman and McIsaac signed a pledge with a special interest group. The pledge was to never agree to remove a book from the school library. In this case, Action Together New Jersey [ATNJ] was the special interest group. They promote progressive political causes throughout New Jersey and even get praised for it by none other than Governor Phil Murphy and disgraced criminal and former NJ Senator Robert Menendez. So before the NHV BOE made its decision that night, two of its members had already pledged allegiance to a special interest group in violation of the ethical code. Then the two fulfilled their pledge that night. People agreeing ahead of time to act in violation of ethical codes is what happened here. Also, they essentially got themselves elected on false pretenses of claiming to act on behalf of the public when the exact opposite is the truth and they acted in blatant violation of the law/ethical code. And in a manner that harms children, no less, with exposure to inappropriate material. This is corruption to the core. They made personal promises that compromised the board. I hope the most extreme sanctions are brought against these two.
- Respondent Viotto was endorsed by a different special interest group in exchange for her agreement never to remove a book. The same as I said immediately above regarding Respondents Chapman and McIsaac also applies here. Again, corruption to the core. Again, I hope this person too receives the strictest possible sanctions.
WHEREFORE, I, as Complainant, request that the School Ethics Commission find and determine that the above-named Respondents have violated the School Ethics Act and that Respondents be subject to such penalty as provided by the Act.
Date: 23 October 2024
Dan Kleinman
Signature of the Complainant
CERTIFICATION
I, Dan Kleinman, of full age, hereby certify that the following statements are true:
1. I am the complainant in this matter.
2. I have read the complaint and aver that the facts contained therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I am aware that the statute that created the School Ethics Commission authorizes the School Ethics Commission to impose penalties for filing a frivolous complaint. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(e). I am aware that if the Respondents reply to the Complaint with an allegation that the Complaint is frivolous, I shall have 20 days from receipt of the written statement to only respond to the allegation that the Complaint is frivolous, although I have already explained why it is not, so any claim of frivolousness might itself be considered frivolous or vexatious.
3. The subject matter of this Complaint is not pending in any court of law or administrative agency of this state. I will advise the School Ethics Commission if I subsequently become aware that it is pending elsewhere.
Date: 23 October 2024
Dan Kleinman
Signature of the Complainant
