Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates timing of RFQ and schedules interviews for district legal services
Summary
Board members debated why the district issued a request for proposals for legal services now, questioned continuity for special-education cases and agreed to schedule candidate interviews; the district extended Schneck, Price, Smith & King’s services for Aug. 1–31 while interviews proceed.
The Hardyston Township School District board spent substantial time debating the timing and rationale for a request for proposals to serve as the district’s legal counsel and agreed to schedule interviews with candidate firms.
A board member (S2) pressed why the district was “shopping” for a new attorney now rather than during the usual cycle, saying the timing and process were unclear. S2 also said the hourly rates noted in the discussion—read from the submitted materials—appeared low in the transcript and raised concerns about continuity for special-education work.
S1, who the transcript records as the member who initiated the RFQ process, told colleagues the RFQ followed concerns raised in executive session about the current legal representation and said the decision was driven by service issues rather than cost. “I was unhappy with several personnel decisions that were affected by legal opinions,” S1 said, describing the RFQ as the outcome of ongoing concerns.
S3 and others emphasized the need to check each candidate’s paperwork before scheduling interviews. S3 said staff had identified three firms that submitted proposals: Skarmency & Hollenbach (Little Falls); Shank, Price, Smith & King (Florham Park); and Cleary, Jacoby, Alfieri & Jacobs (Oakland). The board agreed to attempt to hold candidate interviews in mid-August and asked members to return availability to district staff so a special meeting can be confirmed.
To avoid an immediate service gap, the board voted to extend the current firm’s contract through Aug. 31 so legal services continue while the board completes candidate review and interviews. Board members also discussed options to preserve continuity for ongoing special-education matters if a new firm is selected, including hiring a specialist as an individual contractor or retaining separate firms for general and special-education representation.
The meeting record shows the board will follow up with a formal scheduling email from staff (Sue) and will finalize an interview date and agenda once member availability is confirmed.
