Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Counsel Rfp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board to interview law firms after RFQ; members debate timing and continuity of counsel
Summary
Board members reviewed three RFP respondents and debated the RFQ timing and whether to extend incumbent counsel. A board member said they initiated the RFQ because of concerns about prior legal service; the clerk's roll call recorded 'F1, F4 yes; no to F5' (the motion to employ Schneck, Price, Smith & King for Aug. 1–31) and members discussed scheduling interviews for August.
The Hardyston Township School District board discussed responses to a request for qualifications for legal counsel and the scheduling of interviews with candidate firms. Board staff reported three RFP responses from firms in Little Falls, Florham Park and Oakland and said the RFP covered general counsel, labor-negotiation counsel and specialists.
A board member questioned why the district was seeking new counsel now rather than during the usual mid-year cycle and said the move to solicit proposals had been initiated after concerns about the incumbent attorney's service in personnel matters: "I was unhappy with several personnel decisions that were affected by legal opinions," the member said, adding that the decision was not driven by cost. The member said they initiated the RFQ because those issues had been ongoing.
Another member raised practical questions about the interview process — whether interviews would be public or held in executive session — and suggested the board vet paperwork and proposals in executive session before public interviews. Staff said the RFP timeline is constrained by legal timelines and that interviews are typically handled in executive session but can be done publicly.
The board moved to accept a slate of finance action items (F1–F5). The transcript includes the clerk calling the roll; an entry in the record notes "F1, F4 yes; no to F5." The motion text discussed in the meeting included a proposal to employ Schneck, Price, Smith & King from Aug. 1–31 as an interim measure while the district completes interviews. The transcript does not provide a complete named tally for every motion item.
Board members discussed scheduling interviews; August 12 was raised as a possible date and staff said they had asked members for availability and would send a formal scheduling email.
Next steps: staff will complete a compliance review of RFP paperwork, distribute candidate details to board members, and schedule interviews; the board will reconvene to interview finalists and then consider a final appointment.
