Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates rescinding earlier actions taken under doctrine of necessity after School Ethics Commission advisory
Summary
A Washington Township School Board member moved to rescind actions taken under the "doctrine of necessity" after an advisory opinion from the School Ethics Commission said two members were no longer conflicted; the board tabled substantive legal discussion for executive session and recorded a roll-call about going into executive for legal advice.
A board member moved Monday to rescind actions the Washington Township School District board took under the “doctrine of necessity,” saying an advisory opinion from the New Jersey School Ethics Commission indicated two previously conflicted members were no longer conflicted.
The motion was seconded and followed by discussion about whether the subject required attorney–client advice in executive session rather than public debate.
The motion to rescind was introduced by a board member who said, “I would like to make a motion that we rescind the actions that we took under that doctrine of necessity because the conflicts that we thought there really weren't there.” Elaine (board member) seconded that motion and asked for discussion. The board solicitor, Ari Schneider, told the board he could give legal advice only in executive session: “If you guys want me to respond, we need to go into executive session and have that discussion…any response for me would be solely legal advice at this point.”
Board member Carol Chilla said she had requested and received an advisory opinion from the School Ethics Commission and summarized the document for the board, saying the advisory “says, you do not have an automatic conflict related to matters involving the superintendent,” while also noting it found conflicts related to matters involving the WTEA (Washington Township Education Association). Chilla told the board she asked for the advisory because she had been told on March 18 she was conflicted and wanted clarity.
After discussion and additional procedural motions, the board took a roll-call on whether to go into executive session to discuss the legal advice. The roll call statements recorded on the transcript were: Mrs. Baker: No; Mrs. Blum: Abstain; Mrs. Clancy: Yes; Mrs. Chillo (Carol Chilla): Yes; Mrs. Hartung: Abstain; Mr. LaLiberty: Yes; Mr. Serrano: No; Mr. Ross: No; Miss Chazempo: Abstain. A board member then summarized the tally as “4 abstentions, 3 yes’s, and 2 no’s,” and said, “We will discuss this in executive.”
What the transcript shows and what it does not: the public discussion in the transcript includes quoted attorney guidance that legal advice must be given in executive session; the transcript contains the advisory-opinion excerpt read by Chilla and the roll call on going into executive. The transcript does not contain the contents of any attorney–client advice (Schneider declined to give legal advice in public), nor does it show the outcome of any hypothetical motion to rescind the prior actions; board members moved to table or to take the matter into executive, and the record shows the motion to take up legal discussion in executive was put to a roll call as recorded above.
The board did not take further public action on rescinding or reinstating any specific prior personnel decisions during the public session; officials said they would address legal questions in executive session and that any actionable result would be disclosed later if the board chose to take public action.
Ending: The board chair scheduled an executive session to receive attorney–client advice and directed that any public action following that session would be announced at a later public meeting or at the resumption of this meeting.
