Board approves special litigation counsel after tense public comments; no-confidence motion dies for lack of second

The Toms River Regional School District Board of Education voted on Dec. 17 to hire Tuscano Law Firm LLC as special litigation and conflict counsel, a move that drew public questions and sharp exchanges among board members and residents.

During the agenda-item public-comment period, resident Krista Whitaker asked for clarity about agenda item 17: “What is this for? Who’s it representing? What’s the cost to the taxpayers? And who is eligible to vote on this appointment?” Board members responded that the firm would represent the superintendent and the board under a retainer agreement that would be available if the appointment was approved.

The appointment passed on a roll call in which Matarazzo voted no and Pascarella voted no; Contessa, Egan, Kidney, Capone and Lamb voted yes. The motion summary recorded the law firm’s role as special litigation/conflict counsel for the superintendent and the board and noted that the retainer would be made available.

The decision followed a contentious period of elected-official comments that included an attempted motion of no confidence in Superintendent Michael Sitta. One board member moved the no-confidence motion, saying the past months had become ‘‘only about Mr. Sitta’’ and questioning the district’s financial direction; the board president read the motion aloud as ‘‘to vote no confidence in our superintendent, Michael Sitta.’’ The motion received no second and therefore died on the floor.

Superintendent Michael Sitta spoke at the meeting and framed his tenure as student-focused, saying the district had ‘‘come up with a plan’’ to address prior fiscal challenges and vowing not to ‘‘cower to the politics that are meddling in this district.’’ Union and community leaders offered strong public support for Sitta during the public-comment period. Scott Campbell, president of the Toms River Education Association, praised Sitta’s focus on students and urged staff to ‘‘close your door and teach’’ amid outside controversy.

Supporters and critics at the meeting also exchanged allegations of political interference. A member of the public alleged that a local political figure was exerting undue influence on the board; another speaker urged that perceived legal or ethical concerns should prompt officials to step aside while matters are resolved. Board members and several residents pushed back against personal attacks and urged the community to focus on students and district operations.

What’s next: the retainer agreement for Tuscano Law Firm was to be made available following the vote; there was no subsequent formal action on the failed no-confidence motion.

(Reporting based on the board meeting transcript; public commenters’ names and board roll-call votes are recorded in the meeting minutes.)