Washington Township board fails to reinstate Dr. Eric Hibbs; members spar over remote‑participation policy, move to executive session

The Washington Township Board of Education on May 13 failed to reinstate Superintendent Dr. Eric Hibbs from leave after a motion drew four yes votes and five abstentions, leaving the district without the superintendent position filled.

The vote came after board members debated the financial and procedural implications of bringing Dr. Hibbs back. During discussion a board member said, “We have a superintendent. We’re paying him. That’s why I’m pushing them and bring them back,” arguing the district should use the existing hire rather than pay an interim. Other members said cost concerns and unanswered budget questions compelled them to abstain.

The question also raised a recurring governance issue: whether the board properly followed Policy 0164.2, the district rule on electronic participation in board meetings. One board member asked whether the president’s allowance for a member to call in complied with that policy; the president said she had approved the call‑in under precedent and would not discuss the individual's health in open session. The board then voted to split the original combined motion into two separate votes — one on reinstatement and one on the budget — and later recessed to executive session for legal advice. Members announced that action would be taken after the executive session.

Board discussion included specific financial references to the cost of an acting superintendent; one participant described daily pay and monthly totals while questioning whether that funding could instead support extracurriculars and support staff. The record shows repeated attempts to approve a motion to reinstate the superintendent, several failed votes, and a final decision to send the matter into executive session. When public speakers later asked why Dr. Hibbs had not returned after the board approved the budget, board members said administrative follow‑up was pending and noted that personnel and contract details are handled by administration outside the public meeting.

The meeting included roll‑call votes that recorded abstentions and several requests for clarity on Policy 0164.2; one board member requested that the policy be sent to the policy committee for review. The board took a recess and entered executive session for legal advice; minutes indicate no public action during that session and that action would be taken when the board reconvened.

What remains clear from the meeting record is procedural: the reinstatement motion did not pass on the floor of the May 13 meeting because the number of abstentions prevented a majority, and the board moved to obtain legal guidance before any further personnel action.

Board members and the public said they expect administrative follow‑up after the executive session and recommended that the electronic‑participation policy be reviewed by the policy committee to avoid future procedural disputes.