North Hunterdon-Voorhees board sparred over proposal to swap lead legal counsel; RFP process recommended

The North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District Board of Education spent much of its Feb. 25 public meeting debating whether to change which law firm serves as the district's lead counsel.

Board members, administrators and public speakers aired competing views about responsibility, cost and process. The board deferred a final selection by directing administration to pursue a formal request-for-proposals process for legal services and by rejecting a motion to immediately switch lead and special counsel roles.

The controversy began after a prior meeting when a resolution to swap the roles of the district's two existing law firms drew criticism from several board members and members of the public who said the proposal had not moved through the board's usual committee review. That item was tabled at the January meeting and then discussed at the Finance, Facilities and Transportation (FFT) committee in February, which recommended going out for RFP.

At the Feb. 25 meeting, several community members used the public-comment period to criticize the way the resolution had been handled and to urge caution about switching counsel in the middle of active matters. Steven Leffley of Lebanon Township told the board he found the president's handling of the January item 'disrespectful to other board members.' Amy Barrett of Highbridge and other speakers warned that short-notice agenda items and outside posting of edited meeting clips had undermined trust.

Board members discussed administrative recommendations and legal ramifications in committee before reporting back to the full board. Administration and the FFT committee advised that an RFP is the standard process for hiring professional services and recommended issuing one now so any new contract could begin after current contracts expire on July 1.

A motion to take the previously tabled resolution back to the meeting for immediate adoption was briefly revived and then brought to a vote. After extended discussion in public session, the board moved instead to pursue an RFP and rejected the immediate role swap.

Board officials also discussed legal spending trends at the meeting. One board member noted higher average monthly legal bills year-to-date compared with prior years and said the board should examine legal invoicing practices and the volume of calls and requests that generate charges.

The meeting record shows the board returned the legal-services question to the RFP process rather than adopt a mid-contract role switch. Administration said it would prepare the RFP timeline, form an ad hoc review committee and return a recommendation to the board for action in May, with a new contract, if any, to begin July 1.