Parents deliver no-confidence petition, demand security audit and challenge superintendent contract at Middlesex BOE meeting
Loading...
Summary
At the March 25 board meeting residents submitted a petition with more than 300 signatures, called for a security audit after two weapons incidents, and one commenter said they have filed suit challenging an automatic-renewal clause in the superintendent's contract; the board moved to executive session to discuss attorney-client, student and personnel matters.
At the Middlesex Borough School District Board of Education meeting on March 25, residents pressed the board on security, transparency and the superintendent’s contract. A petition submitted to the record said it contained "over 348 signatures" and asked the board to formally acknowledge community concerns and consider a vote of no confidence in district leadership.
Speakers demanded a security audit and more school officers after two weapons incidents were raised by members of the public. "There should be 5 officers. You approve 3," said Kevin Rudzinski, identifying himself as a resident and parent who detailed long-standing safety concerns and criticized district spending decisions related to a failed referendum and its $275,000 preliminary drawing costs.
One commenter said they have filed suit in Middlesex County Superior Court challenging a clause in Superintendent Roberta Freeman’s contract. The commenter argued that section 8 "provides that a contract shall automatically renew for 4 years, through 06/30/2031 unless the board acts to stop it by 01/20/2027" and said they asked a judge to declare that automatic-renewal clause void so any continuation beyond June 30, 2027 would require a new public negotiation, vote and county-superintendent review.
Board leaders recorded the community submissions and public comments and explained procedural limits on the public-comment period. The meeting later moved into executive session on attorney-client privileged matters, a confidential student matter and confidential personnel matters; the president said the board was not taking action after executive session.
The meeting’s sequence left several outstanding questions the board committed to answer after the public session, including details about the superintendent contract language, the status of the filed complaint, and next steps on any requested reviews. The board did not announce specific dates for follow-up public hearings on those topics during the meeting.
