The Hunterdon Central Regional High School Board of Education voted to create an ad hoc committee to issue a request for proposals for the district’s legal services and to interview prospective attorneys.

The action matters because the board’s longtime legal firm is being replaced and several residents at the meeting raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest among board members named to the ad hoc committee. Board members defended following standard committee procedures and said interviews of prospective counsel will be held March 12.

Board President Lisa Santangelo moved the item identifying ad hoc committee members as Ellen Halpern, Leslie LaCosta, Rebecca Peterson and the board president; the motion was seconded and carried after roll call. The item was included among organizational items the board approved on the consent motion that also covered the mandated comprehensive equity plan team and the district HIB report.

Members of the public used the meeting’s resident forum to press the board about the legal-counsel process and to ask whether board members who have been parties to litigation against the district should sit on a committee choosing the district’s lawyers. A resident who identified herself as Jessie said she was concerned that a board member who works at a local firm and another board member who has been involved in litigation against the board could present an appearance problem: “I see potentially some conflicts of interest amongst and within the board on being the people deciding on who gets to be the new lawyer,” she said.

Another resident, Susan Toselowski, questioned the timing and motivation of the change, naming the previous firm and asking whether the change was retaliatory. Ed McLaughlin and Scott Cohen, both in the audience, urged more open deliberation and said committee discussions and committee minutes should not be used to avoid public scrutiny.

Board members responded during the vote and in committee reports that the ad hoc selection follows the board’s established process for procurement of professional services and that the committee will conduct interviews and make recommendations to the full board. The board did not adopt any new procurement policy at the meeting; it established the committee and scheduled interviews for March 12.

No bid documents, contract terms, or selection criteria were adopted at the meeting. The record shows the board approved formation of the committee but did not take a final selection or sign a contract at the meeting.

The board’s action distinguishes discussion vs. decision: the decision taken was to form the ad hoc committee and schedule interviews; questions about committee membership, potential recusals, and whether board members with existing litigation should participate were discussed but not resolved by formal policy change. Several public commenters asked the board to address perceived conflicts before interviews proceed.

The board did not announce a timetable for choosing the final legal services vendor, nor did it release redline contract terms. The superintendent and board president said administration will coordinate the interview schedule and provide committee materials in advance.

The board’s motion carried by roll call; minutes record multiple yes votes and some abstentions on related consent items, and the chair declared the motion carried.

Residents seeking further detail were advised to send written questions to the board chair so they can be placed on committee agendas for deliberation.