In the on-­‐going pursuit of reopening safe schools in Montclair, the Montclair Education
Association remains hopeful that an amicable resolution with the best interests of students, staff,
their families, and our community will be reached. Our position has not changed and will not
change.

Upon receiving the statement from the judge, these are some of the points we feel it’s important to share. His responses confirm what we have stated since the beginning.

On the point that we have repeatedly requested proof of building safety and readiness, Judge Paganelli responded:

• “However, Plaintiff has failed to articulate how he has complied with the “health and safety standards, delineated the Department of Education’s ‘Checklist for Re-­‐Opening of School 2020-­‐ 2021’ and detailed Restart and Recovery for Education’”.

Additionally, to this point, in our request to get information specifically on Charles H. Bullock School, the Judge states:

• “Unclear to this court is whether this school is integral to the matter at bar. Moreover, this court is left to guess regarding “should have been designed” and “provided that it has been maintained and service” and “should be in good working order’”

Lastly, one of our most prevalent points is that there has never been any work stoppage by our members. The Judge states:

• “Moreover, Plaintiff fails to explain how continued remote learning would not address the harm to the students. With the required remote learning, there would not be the loss of ‘one days’ education’”.

“After reading the court order from Judge Paganelli, I feel we are vindicated in our stance,” said MEA President Petal Robertson. “He acknowledged that we never stopped working and that the district has not sufficiently proven that the schools are safe. While this has been difficult, we believe we must come to a solution that gets our students and staff back into the buildings as soon as they are ready. At this time, we urge Superintendent Dr. Ponds and the district to drop their case against the MEA and come back to the table ready to collaborate on a plan that facilitates the safe and organized return to in-­‐ person instruction. That’s all we have wanted and all we still want.”

We feel it is important for everyone to understand the process going forward. Here’s what’s next:

The court’s order requires both parties to submit written documentation and arguments in advance of the oral argument date listed as March 9, 2021. The court’s order does not direct teachers to return to in-­‐ person work at any time before March 9, 2021. On March 9, 2021, attorneys for both parties will appear before the judge to make oral arguments and oral presentations about the matter to supplement their written submissions and answer any questions the judge may pose to them. Thereafter, the judge will determine whether to direct teachers to return to in-­‐person work as the district’s original order requested. As the judge declined to direct teachers to return to in-­‐person work immediately, the MEA’s attorneys interpret this to mean that the district’s submitted information was insufficient to convince the judge that the district buildings were safe for in-­‐person return as of February 2, 2021, when the legal action was filed. To date, the MEA attorneys have not been required to respond to the district’s application, and therefore, the denial of the district’s requested order is based entirely on the district’s submissions.

The MEA is an inclusive union representing more than 1,000 educators employed by the Montclair
Board of Education, including teachers, paraprofessionals, custodians, security staff, nurses,
secretaries, buildings, and grounds staff and technical personnel.