Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Legal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board invokes doctrine of necessity; motion to fund superintendent's legal bills fails
Summary
Facing conflicts of interest among members, the Monroe Township Board invoked the doctrine of necessity to permit votes on superintendent‑related matters. A later motion to have the board pay all of the superintendent's outstanding legal bills failed and two outside‑counsel checks did not receive approval during the bill‑list vote.
The Monroe Township Board of Education invoked the "doctrine of necessity" at its March 25 meeting so that conflicted members could participate in votes related to the superintendent, and later declined to authorize payment for two outside‑counsel bills.
Board counsel read a formal resolution invoking the doctrine after identifying multiple conflicts — litigation involving several board members and a teacher relationship for another member — and the board voted to adopt the resolution. The resolution states that it will be posted and a copy provided to the School Ethics Commission.
Shortly after, a motion to have the board pay "any and all" outstanding legal bills for the superintendent was proposed; the motion failed on roll call after a mix of yes, abstain and recusal votes. During the bill‑list roll call two checks for outside attorneys — listed in the meeting as check 14696 (David Rubin) and check 14821 (William Coy) — did not receive sufficient support and did not pass, while other listed bills did.
The votes reflect continuing friction over a multi‑month superintendent investigation and related ethics and legal questions, which members of the public and some board members urged the board to resolve more quickly. "We keep voting no on legal bills," a public commenter said, urging a faster resolution; others said prolonged legal action risks additional costs for taxpayers.
The board's invocation of the doctrine of necessity allows the board to proceed with superintendent‑related votes despite conflicts, but it also requires public posting of the resolution and submission to the School Ethics Commission, as the board's counsel explained during the meeting.
