Board invokes doctrine of necessity so conflicted members can vote on superintendent pay; subsequent merit-pay motion fails

The Washington Township Board of Education voted June 30 to invoke the doctrine of necessity, a legal mechanism the board used to permit otherwise disqualified trustees to cast votes on two items tied to Superintendent Eric Hibbs: authorization of merit-bonus payments tied to 2024–25 goals and carryover of up to 20 unused vacation days into the 2026–27 contract year.

Board counsel read a circulated resolution that cited state law and the School Ethics Commission guidance, saying six of nine board members had conflicts related to the superintendent matters — including litigation naming several members and family employment in district positions — and that the doctrine was needed so the board could act. After the reading, the board adopted the resolution by roll call.

Supporters of invoking the doctrine framed the move as a procedural step needed to let the full board act. Parent Teresa Barani, in public comment before the resolution was read, had urged the board to allow all nine elected members to vote on the superintendent’s contract and related matters, saying "allowing all nine board members to participate would be the most transparent course of action."

Still, invoking the doctrine did not produce unanimous agreement about the substance. When the board subsequently attempted to approve the superintendent’s merit items and the vacation-day carryover, the roll-call votes produced several no votes and abstentions and the motion failed. Board members who opposed or abstained cited the broader public concern over simultaneous program and staff reductions elsewhere in the district.

Superintendent Hibbs, who had earlier described the district’s fiscal difficulties and the painful choices leadership faced, said the budget context shaped his employment compensation discussions. “Sometimes doing the right thing costs more,” he told the meeting, acknowledging both fiscal strain and the difficult choices ahead.

What happened next: with the merit-and-vacation motion unsuccessful, the board left those items unresolved at the end of the June 30 meeting. The doctrine resolution remains part of the public record, and the district said it will follow legal and contractual guidance as it determines next steps. Several board members indicated further committee work and follow-up would be necessary before the board revisits the superintendent compensation items.

Why it matters: The invocation of the doctrine and the failed merit vote highlight a governance standoff in which statutory ethics rules, pending litigation and family employment connections intersect with public concern over budget-driven program and staff cuts. The outcome leaves the superintendent’s merit-pay requests unresolved and raises questions about whether the board will revisit the items at a future public meeting.