OCEAN CITY – Controversy continues to embroil the Upper Township Board of Education. This time, it’s the newest member of the board who finds herself in the crosshairs.
Christine Lentz, who won a seat on the Upper board in the November election, is not being welcomed by the Ocean City Board of Education, who she has pending litigation against.
The Upper Township Board of Education named Lentz as one of its three representatives to sit on the Ocean City board, in addition to Fran Newman and Kristie Chisholm. However, Ocean City isn’t interested in working with Lentz and, instead, it was Bill Holmes who was sworn in with Newman and Chisholm earlier this month.
Upper Township gets to send representatives to sit on Ocean City’s board because Upper Township students go to Ocean City High School. The board there blocked Lentz, citing a conflict of interest, and Upper Township asked for their official position in writing, according to Michele Barbieri, the Upper Township board’s president.
Frank P. Cavallo Jr., an attorney for the Upper board, said they received Ocean City’s position in writing, but he would have to review it prior to sharing it with the Herald. The statement was not shared with the Herald prior to the print deadine.
Barbieri told the Herald that Holmes was a “placeholder” for the January Ocean City meeting. When asked if she accepts the Ocean City board’s position, Barbieri turned to the attorney.
“Maybe. Maybe not,” Cavallo said, adding he isn’t in a rush to litigate the issue.
“We’re not looking forward to litigation, given the fact the community is so concerned about the taxpayers’ dollars. As a lawyer, I don’t like to ever spend the taxpayers’ dollars, no matter what community it is. That money is always meant for the kids. Not for lawyers,” Cavallo said.
In 2017, Lentz was acquitted in a criminal case where she stood accused of hacking into former Ocean City Superintendent Kathleen Taylor’s email account for a period of a few months. Lentz said in court filings that she was forced to resign from her position after being confronted by Taylor and two attorneys before the charges were brought in 2015.
Lentz, who is a lesbian, was not able to get her position as the school’s athletic director back after the acquittal and sued Taylor and the district, claiming, among other things, discrimination based on her sexual orientation, breach of and interference with contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution.
That case, in which Lentz and her partner, Lynn Petrozza, are co-plaintiffs, is still pending in the Superior Court’s Civil Part. It was filed there in 2019 and the parties were last in front of Superior Court Judge James H. Pickering Jr. Dec. 12, 2022, litigating a motion to quash a subpoena the plaintiffs wanted sent to a technology company that had been providing IT services for the school district.
The suit names the Ocean City Board of Education and Taylor as defendants, in addition to four other named defendants.
Lentz also made other claims in federal court after the acquittal, filing a complaint in 2017 alleging violations of her 14th Amendment rights, affording her due process.
The complaint’s background was summed up concisely in an opinion from U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler: “This case involves an alleged conspiracy to remove and criminally charge a public-school teacher. [Lentz] claims that her role as a salary negotiator with the school board placed her in the cross-hairs of a vast conspiracy. A group of lawyers, consultants, and school officials – all acting in cahoots – falsely claimed that [Lentz] had illegally accessed the school superintendent’s email. Then, through a fraudulent investigation, these Defendants fabricated and withheld evidence for the sole purpose of removing [Lentz] from her position at the school. [Lentz] not only resigned her position, but subsequently faced criminal charges for theft. After a jury acquitted her in the criminal action, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the superintendent, the school board, and others, alleging various constitutional and state law violations.”
In 2019, Kugler ruled to dismiss Lentz’s case, saying Lentz’s rights to due process were not violated. Lentz appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where Kugler’s decision was affirmed in 2021.
Lentz referred questions from a reporter to two attorneys, who could not be reached immediately.
Thoughts? Questions? Contact the author, Shay Roddy, at sroddy@cmcherald.com or 609-886-8600, ext. 142.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story stated Lentz’s complaint in federal court alleged violation of her Fourth Amendment Rights. In fact, it was her 14th Amendment Rights she claimed were violated. The court dismissed her complaint. The Herald regrets the error.
