Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Removal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses effort to unseat appointed member after solicitor warns of legal risks
Summary
After public comment and legal counsel input, the Pleasantville board moved into executive session and agreed to delay any effort to remove a seated appointee while a superior-court proceeding is pending; counsel warned that premature action could be undone and expose the district to litigation.
The Pleasantville Board of Education moved to pause any immediate action to remove a seated, appointed member after its attorney advised the board that New Jersey law narrowly defines the circumstances under which a board member may be removed.
During public comment, Jonathan Viego argued the board lacked statutory authority to oust a duly appointed member and urged the board to await a judge’s decision scheduled in mid-April. Board solicitor Jenna Cook told the board that state law lists specific grounds for removal — including nonresidency, conviction of a crime, recall or removal by the commissioner of education — and that procedural complaints about the appointment process are a matter for the courts to resolve. "If you were to act now while that is pending before the superior court, any action that you take ... could be undone," she said.
Board members debated whether the board could ethically "fix" an appointment now, noting the judge’s comments that corrective action might be possible. Cook cautioned that discussing disputed factual testimony in public would be improper while litigation is active and recommended moving into executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. The board voted to enter executive session, and later returned to open session, with the chair reporting that legal and personnel matters had been discussed.
The board later tabled further action on the appointment until after the pending court process and referenced an April date for further consideration. The board did not take formal action to remove the appointee during the March 3 meeting.
