BY VINCENT TODARO
Staff Writer

EAST BRUNSWICK - A resident demanded answers from the Board of Education Sept. 7 in its decision to appeal the court ruling in the Marcus Borden case.

Nora McShane said she was upset to learn about the district's motivations in appealing the case of the high school football coach. In July, a U.S. District Court sided with Borden in a lawsuit in which he claimed the district deprived him of his constitutional rights by not allowing him to take a knee or bow his head during team prayers.

The school district at first expressed satisfaction with the outcome because the court had clarified the law. But weeks later the Board of Education announced it would appeal the case.

McShane said she feels the board has been deceptive in the matter, and she also questions board attorney Martin Pachman's handling of the situation. In a heated discussion during the public session, McShane often cut off Pachman and board President Holly Howard when they tried to respond. After she was done speaking, McShane left the meeting.

McShane said she previously asked the board for a full statement regarding the reasons for its decision to appeal. She said she was told that financial considerations were the motive.

However, the board has said in a public statement that those considerations were only part of the reason. The district contends that the judge's decision ignored the rights of students to be free from religious coercion, and the duty of the school district to regulate the conduct of its students.

The district, after receiving complaints from parents last fall, ordered Borden to stop participating in team prayers before football games and in the locker room. He resigned his job as football coach, but later decided to rescind his resignation and obey the district's policy while he pursued legal action.

Though his attorney, Ronald Riccio, represented him pro bono, it is Riccio's legal bill that is now at the center of attention. The court will award Riccio due to the legal victory, and the board learned prior to its appeal that it would have to foot that bill.

Since Riccio has not submitted his bill to the school district, McShane asked why the district said he was seeking nearly $100,000. Riccio has said that the district simply assumed it would be that amount, and that he told the court to award him what it feels he is entitled to.

But apparently that's more than the $25,000 the district has offered. When Pachman offered that amount, Riccio balked and asked Pachman what he was receiving for his work. According to Riccio, Pachman said he did not know offhand, a claim that McShane said was "hogwash."

McShane also criticized Pachman for reportedly telling Riccio to do what he has to if he's not happy with the $25,000. She said Pachman should have gotten back to the board with Riccio's response. She said that either Pachman or the board should have negotiated.

"I think we need to know why something couldn't be done in a better fashion," she said.

Howard said Pachman is functioning as a liaison between the board and the Americans for the Separation of Church and State, the organization that is handling the appeal for the school district. Both Pachman and the group are working on the case pro bono.