Board and superintendent press for explicit contract language to account for $50,000 deposit for Class 3 officers
Loading...
Summary
Board members, the superintendent and police leadership discussed ongoing negotiations over the memorandum of understanding related to Class 3 officers; speakers said a $50,000 nominal deposit must be accounted for, described proposed uses, and requested contract language to ensure the money “zeros out” and is auditable.
During the public comment portion of the Middlesex Borough School District meeting, board members and the superintendent discussed ongoing negotiations over an MOU that involves funding tied to Class 3 officers.
A speaker said that the earlier description of a “nominal fee” referred to a $50,000 deposit and urged the board to require specificity in the MOU about how the deposit will be used and audited. The speaker said the board’s expectation was that the deposit should “zero out” at the end of the year and be accounted for in a way that protects the district during annual audits.
Officials raised several concerns: the deposit was not proposed to be held in an interest‑bearing account, published descriptions that the deposit could reimburse equipment or uniforms were not reflected in the draft MOU, and the board said the funds should be restricted specifically to salaries for the Class 3 officers unless the MOU explicitly authorizes other uses.
Superintendent Roberta Freeman told the board the district and the police chief have been working on the contract language and that the matter is “with our attorneys at the present moment.” Freeman said she has been proactive in negotiating the language and that inclusion of precise accounting language is necessary before finalizing the agreement. She said legal review — not obstruction — explains the delay and that the board is seeking clear contractual terms to avoid future audit or accounting problems.
Chief Geiss (police chief) and district counsel were identified as participants in the negotiations. Board members said they expect the MOU to specify the deposit’s intended purpose, reporting requirements and an end‑of‑year reconciliation so funds are not left on the borough’s books without explicit authorization.
No formal vote on the MOU was taken at the meeting; participants said they expect the attorneys to negotiate and redraft the agreement for future board action.
