Public asks questions on executive search contracting, 26 Kennedy Blvd. lease amendment and access to meeting videos

A public commenter and reporter asked county officials about two items on the agenda — an executive search consulting services contract (agenda item 25‑501) and a lease amendment for 26 Kennedy Boulevard (agenda item 25‑524) — and raised broader concerns about signage, transit access to county facilities and public access to meeting recordings.

Charlie Craddendall, editor of New Brunswick Today, identified himself and said he was recording the meeting. He asked what role the executive search consultant would be hired to fill. A county staff member replied: “this is an added channel for our recruitment process… this would only be for non civil service titles and only used if we can't find a qualified candidate through our local channels.”

On the lease amendment for 26 Kennedy Boulevard — a building Craddendall identified as housing the Board of Elections and the County Clerk’s Elections Division — staff described the item as “a routine amendment for capital problems” and later clarified it updates responsibilities for capital work; the staff reply included a specific note that the change revised installation responsibilities for a fire detection system.

Craddendall also suggested the county add clear signage at 26 Kennedy Boulevard and improve public transportation access to county buildings. Staff and the presiding commissioner engaged briefly but did not commit to a specific signage or transit plan during the public comment period. A county official responded that additional parking had recently been added at the Cancer Institute and that they were not aware of plans for structured parking in Downtown New Brunswick.

Separately, Craddendall raised a request for meeting recordings. He said county clerks initially provided some recordings but later sought payment. Clerk-of-the-board staff present said recordings must be reviewed to remove any closed‑session material before public release and that the county had previously asked the requester to pay for redaction time. The transcript records a change in position: county staff said the requester would not be billed for redaction and that the county would undertake review and provide the redacted public portions in due course, though no calendar date was given.

The exchange did not produce votes; it resulted in staff statements explaining the scope of the executive search consultant’s intended use, the substance of the lease amendment (capital work including a fire detection system), and that the county will perform redaction of recordings without charging the requester.