Parents press Glen Ridge school officials for clearer child-protection policies after reports of inappropriate staff communications

Parents and other residents pressed the Glen Ridge Public School District board for clearer, faster action to protect students after they said the district knew about inappropriate communications between a staff member and a child and did not immediately remove him from contact with students.

At the meeting, Felice Bettenbender, a Glen Ridge resident, said the district “knew about the existence of inappropriate communications between Gerald White and this child, in March” and contended that the district allowed White to remain in the school for at least another month while he had contact with children. “We keep being told that district protocols are being followed, but these protocols are evidently flawed,” Bettenbender said.

Rebecca Kim, a parent who gave her address to the board, asked how school staff acted “to protect the children” when administrators first learned of a possible concern. “When Mister Donovan knew about this, the time, the inkling of this, what was done to protect my daughter, Carol’s daughter, all the other children in this district?” Kim asked.

Multiple speakers pressed the board for interim steps while the district’s audit and legal reviews proceed. Jessica Fonts, a Glen Ridge resident, asked whether there were plans for additional staff training before the final audit: “Are there plans in the interim while the audit is being done…for some training to happen for the staff?”

David Middleton, who identified himself as an education consultant, urged more proactive outreach and transparency, saying the district has an “opportunity…to actually make change with the community” and recommending renewed communication with current and past families.

Anunegi (first name given in the record), a parent, asked the board to review photos posted to a school-related Facebook page that she said showed grade‑school girls in bathing suits and were posted by Mister Donovan without clear parental consent. “Posting such images of minors without clear parental consent is highly inappropriate regardless of the context,” she said, asking that the images be removed.

Board members and staff repeatedly said they could not discuss specifics of personnel or student matters in public. One board speaker stated, “When we’re talking about matters related to personnel and students…we cannot discuss those matters in public. It’s just as simple as that. It’s the law.” Another speaker told the audience that when such concerns are brought to administrators’ attention, the district’s focus is on contacting law enforcement and appropriate investigatory authorities.

Speakers and commenters asked for new communication channels that are not tied to regular board meetings. One parent suggested a dedicated parent listening session to gather feedback outside of the formal meeting context; the board said it would consider that idea.

The meeting closed with the board saying it had heard public concerns and announcing it would reconvene in executive session; no additional public action on these items was taken that night.