Six of nine board members are conflicted out of the superintendent's case

What happened

The board has published resolutions invoking the Doctrine of Necessity - a rarely used legal device - because it cannot otherwise discuss a lawsuit called Hibbs v. Washington Township Board of Education or personnel matters about Superintendent Eric Hibbs. Six of the nine members (Pat Blome, Linda Hartong, Connie Baker, Ralph Ross Sr., Julie Kozempel and Steven Serrano) have identified actual or potential conflicts of interest on anything involving the superintendent. Without them the remaining three are not a quorum, so the board could not even lawfully vote to go into closed session. The resolutions let the conflicted members take part for that narrow purpose only, and state that the conflicts are expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

Why it matters to families

The board's job includes hiring, evaluating and if necessary removing the superintendent. When two thirds of it is conflicted out of that subject and has to suspend the conflict rules to function, the normal check on the district's most senior official is not working in the ordinary way. It also signals unresolved litigation between the superintendent and the board.

The evidence

The published resolution states the board seeks executive session to discuss 'Pending litigation entitled Hibbs v. Washington Township Board of Education, et al.' and 'Personnel matters related to Superintendent Eric Hibbs'; names the six members who identified conflicts under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24; records that 'six (6) of the nine (9) Board members are therefore disqualified'; that the remaining three 'do not constitute a quorum'; that 'absent a quorum, the Board lacks the legal authority to adopt the resolution required by OPMA to enter executive session'; and that 'the identified conflicts are expected to continue in the foreseeable future'. Three such resolutions appear on the district's legal notices page.

The source