Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy 0176 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances first reading to revise policy barring solicitor from collective-bargaining role
Summary
The Washington Township Board of Education voted to advance a proposed revision on first reading to policy 0176, which now contains a provision barring the board’s solicitor from representing the board in collective‑bargaining negotiations.
The Washington Township Board of Education voted to advance a proposed revision to policy 0176 on a first‑reading basis, a change that would remove a long‑standing restriction barring the board’s solicitor from acting as the board’s representative in collective‑bargaining negotiations.
What happened: Board member Connie Baker moved to amend policy 0176 by keeping the policy’s opening sentence and striking the rest of a paragraph that says the board solicitor “shall not serve as an attorney representing the board in collective bargaining.” The motion was seconded and, after discussion, the board agreed that the vote would serve as a first reading and the amendment would be returned for a second reading at the next meeting.
Why it matters: Policy 0176 governs the board’s use of legal counsel and seeks to separate roles in which a solicitor might represent the board but also be involved in other matters such as student discipline or special‑education hearings. Supporters of the revision argued the district should align with common practice and consider a more flexible approach; opponents cautioned about conflict concerns and urged adherence to best‑practice language from policy providers.
Board attorney guidance and debate: The board attorney recommended treating the meeting vote as a first reading consistent with the board’s policy on policy revisions (policy 131). He explained that a proposed bylaw/policy approved on first reading can be returned for adoption at a subsequent meeting and that revisions may be made prior to final adoption. Public commenters and a board member urged the board to seek outside or conflict counsel to review the change before a final vote, citing potential professional‑conduct considerations.
Vote and next steps: The roll call recorded a majority supporting the motion to move it forward as a first reading; the board scheduled the item for a second reading at the next public meeting. The board asked that the draft revision be circulated in committee materials to allow members and the public to compare the current policy with model language before the second reading.
