Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Former Wayne employee alleges Open Public Meetings Act violations; board urged to investigate

Wayne Board of Education · February 25, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A former district employee, Peter Opohory, told the Wayne Board of Education he waived a private session but his employment matter was handled privately; he said records were excluded, alleged an illegal ban on his presence by the superintendent, and said he referred the case to the Passaic County Prosecutor's public integrity unit.

At the Feb. 19 Wayne Board of Education meeting, former employee Peter Opohory accused the board and administration of violating the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act by anonymizing and excluding details of his employment matter despite his written waiver and request for public discussion.

"I waived the right to a private session of the employment matter and requested in writing that the matter be held in public... my OPMA rights were ignored," Opohory said. He asked the board secretary to place on the record which specific exemption the board relied on to end the public hearing and said he provided related documentation, including a doctor's note.

Opohory also alleged that the Superintendent issued a statement prohibiting his presence on board property and said the case had been referred to the Passaic County Prosecutor's Office public integrity unit. He asked the board to initiate an independent review and to preserve meeting minutes and other records.

Howard Bell, who identified himself as Opohory's brother-in-law, echoed the call for transparency and an independent investigation, recounting an alleged incident in which two individuals visited the former employee's residence to serve a letter and calling that behavior intimidating.

Board members did not announce an immediate investigation in response to the public comments on the record. The board president reiterated that the board cannot respond to comments regarding employees or students at that moment and invited follow-up under old business or at a subsequent meeting.