Mount Olive board invokes 'doctrine of necessity' and approves settlement supplement despite public objections

The Mount Olive Township Board of Education on Jan. 6 invoked the “doctrine of necessity” to allow consideration of a proposed settlement in ongoing litigation involving the district’s former superintendent, and later approved an administrative motion that includes a supplemental payment from district funds, drawing objections from several public commenters.

The doctrine of necessity resolution was read aloud by the board attorney and approved by roll call at the Jan. 6 public meeting. The resolution states the board is invoking the doctrine because multiple board members have alleged conflicts of interest related to the litigation and because those conflicts otherwise would leave the board without a quorum to consider the proposed settlement. The board unanimously approved the resolution, and the resolution directs the board secretary to post the resolution for 30 days where public notices are posted and to forward a copy to the New Jersey School Ethics Commission.

Board attorney Mr. Gephardt framed the legal context before the vote, citing the School Ethics Act (NJSA 18A:12-21) and the School Ethics Commission’s guidance that a board invoking the doctrine must state publicly the reason for invoking it and the specific nature of the conflicts. The attorney warned the public that, because the matter involves pending litigation and confidential matters, “the board will be restricted in what they can say.”

After the confidentiality motion and other business, the board took up administrative action items that included the settlement matter on the agenda as item 12.1. The motion to approve items 12.1 and 12.2 passed on roll call. The recorded roll-call votes on item 12.1 were: Jennifer Aquino — No; Lisa Fenton — Yes; (Ms.) Figueroa — Yes; Lauren Fitzgerald — No; Anthony Giordano — No; Luisa Melendez — No; Lisa Narcisse — Yes; Jeanne O'Neil — Yes; (Mr.) Orzillo — Yes. The board attorney had earlier read that the board would post and forward its doctrine-of-necessity resolution as required by the School Ethics Commission.

Public commenters urged the board to reject using district funds to supplement a settlement. Martin Walsmo, identified as a former Mount Olive school district board secretary, said, “there has never been a legal settlement that was supplemented by taxpayer dollars,” and urged rejection of action item 12.1. Walsmo also said the insurance company normally pays settlements and the board pays only a required deductible, which he said is $10,000; he said the board was being asked to add $152,000 in taxpayer dollars to an insurance payout.

Christopher Zier also addressed the board during the public-comment period, raising concerns about board member conduct and possible sharing of district information with parties to the litigation. Zier asked, “when a board member sends a picture of a monitor with proprietary information to someone that's actually suing the district, what kind of investigations would you do in the future?” The board president and attorney responded that complaints may be filed and the board is constrained in what it can disclose while litigation is pending.

Another resident speaking from the audience urged the board not to spend district funds on the settlement and warned that taxpayers would be “infuriated” if money intended for programs or services were used for the payment. Kevin Stansbury, president of the Mount Olive Administrators and Supervisors Association, and other attendees also spoke during the public-comment period; board leaders acknowledged the comments and noted confidentiality limits related to pending litigation.

The board’s resolution invokes procedures outlined by the School Ethics Commission and the School Ethics Act. The resolution as read notes advisory guidance (opinion A-0398, April 1, 1998) and a School Ethics Commission resolution of June 25, 2018, regarding public notification and submission of documentation when the doctrine of necessity is invoked.

The board did not provide additional public detail about the settlement terms during the meeting, citing the confidentiality of pending litigation. Several board members who voted against the administrative action on item 12.1 explained their votes during roll call only (their explanations were not elaborated on the public record during the meeting).