Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident Jack Levit says contract issue kept him from interviewing; residents call for open process
Summary
During public comment, resident Jack Levit said a longstanding district license or contract prevented him from being permitted to interview for the board vacancy; other residents objected that all candidates should get interviews and questioned the selection process.
During the public-comment period of the East Brunswick Board of Education meeting, resident Jack Levit said he was prevented from interviewing because of a 2014 license related to a fence on his property that he said remained on the record until recently. Levit said measures are being taken to resolve the paperwork but questioned why he was not allowed to participate in the candidate interviews.
"Just makes me wonder though how I was able to interview and run last year with this contract in place. Why didn't the board take action then?" Levit asked, and accused unnamed actors of trying to reduce competition by keeping him off the slate. He said the decision "made me wonder...someone in our midst who clearly doesn't take the oath seriously to do what's best for the district."
A resident who identified only as Domani responded from the floor that "everyone should get an interview" and called it "unacceptable" to exclude candidates over contract or license issues without allowing them to be heard.
The board had explained earlier that deliberations about candidates take place in closed session to protect privacy, but that nominations and all votes must be conducted in public according to board policy 0143 and the Open Public Meeting Law. The transcript records Levit's allegations and the public reaction; the board did not provide a detailed public response to the specific claims during the recorded meeting.
Clarifying detail: Levit said the 2014 license allowing a fence to remain on his property had been the basis for the board's disallowing his interview; he also said steps were being taken to "complete that process" so he could be eligible in the future. The transcript does not record independent confirmation of the status of that license or any formal board determination beyond comments in the public record.
The exchange highlights a procedural tension when eligibility questions are raised: the board followed a process that allows closed-session deliberation on candidate privacy while requiring public votes, but the transcript shows community members seeking more openness about how eligibility determinations are handled.
