Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Olive board invokes doctrine of necessity and approves settlement-related action amid public objections
Summary
The Mount Olive Township Board of Education on Jan. 6 voted to invoke the doctrine of necessity to consider a proposed settlement in litigation involving the district’s former superintendent, then approved the associated administrative action; the move drew public criticism over the use of district funds and calls for transparency.
The Mount Olive Township Board of Education on Jan. 6 invoked the doctrine of necessity so it could consider and vote on a proposed settlement related to litigation involving the district’s former superintendent, and later approved the administrative action on that matter.
Board attorney read a resolution invoking the doctrine of necessity that cited the School Ethics Act, advisory guidance from the New Jersey School Ethics Commission and the requirement that a board publicly state the reason for invoking the doctrine, post the resolution for 30 days, and provide a copy to the School Ethics Commission. The resolution was read at the public meeting and approved by roll call.
The resolution text, read aloud during the meeting, said the board sought to invoke the doctrine because multiple board members were identified as having possible conflicts of interest — including being named as individual defendants in related litigation or having relatives employed by the district — and that the inability of those members to participate otherwise would leave the board without a quorum to consider the settlement.
After returning from a confidential session, the board took administrative action on items listed on the agenda. The roll-call votes recorded on the transcript show the following votes on the action item tied to the litigation matter: Jennifer Aquino — No on 12.1; Lisa Fenton — Yes; Marisol Figueroa — Yes; Lauren Fitzgerald — No on 12.1; Anthony Giordano — No on 12.1; Luisa Melendez — No on 12.1; Lisa Narcisse — Yes; Jeanne O'Neil — Yes; Michael Orzillo — Yes. The motion passed.
During the public-comment period that focused on the action items, several residents urged the board not to use district funds to supplement any insurance payout. A longtime former district official and multiple residents said on the record that they believed district funds would be used to add to an insurer’s payment; one speaker said that the board was proposing to add $152,000 of taxpayer dollars to the insurer’s settlement, and another said the district’s required insurance deductible was $10,000. The board attorney cautioned speakers that litigation matters are confidential and warned about the risk of defamation for public remarks that repeat or speculate about details outside public records.
The resolution adopted by the board requires that the invocation be read at a regularly scheduled public meeting, posted with other board public notices for 30 days, and forwarded to the School Ethics Commission. The transcript shows the board took those formal votes and recorded them in the meeting minutes.
Public commenters asked the board to explain what budget lines, programs or services would be reduced if district funds were used; the board did not provide a line-item explanation during the meeting. Several speakers also referenced tenure charges and other documents related to the former superintendent; the board attorney repeatedly reminded the public that some documents and details were matters of confidential litigation.
The board did not announce any further public schedule or timeline for releasing additional details about the settlement; the resolution requires the board secretary to forward the adopted resolution to the School Ethics Commission and to post the resolution publicly.
