Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 14.10 Consultant Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays vote on consultant for HIB and special-education reviews after public concerns
Summary
After multiple public commenters raised conflict-of-interest and fiscal concerns about a proposed consultant agreement (item 14.10) to handle HIB and special-education investigations, the Cherry Hill Board of Education voted to postpone consideration to the Aug. 11 meeting.
The Cherry Hill Board of Education voted on July 28 to postpone action on resolution 14.10, a contract to hire Laquoya Weddington as a consultant for harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) and special-education investigations, after more than a half-dozen public commenters urged delay.
Jim Neary, an online commenter, told the board: "I strongly urge the board to vote no on resolution 14 10," arguing a former district employee could not be sufficiently neutral and citing a prior federal Office for Civil Rights investigation in the 2021-22 school year. Multiple residents raised two recurring concerns: that the candidate is a recent district retiree and therefore could have conflicts in sensitive investigations, and that the contract was open-ended with an administratively cited per-day rate and no clear cap. Anne Einhorn said, "It's a contract that's open ended. It has no cap, no amount of days," and Kim Bridal asked the board to add parameters to show fiscal stewardship.
Parents and educators emphasized alternatives to outside investigations. Tiffany D'Amico, a former teacher and parent of neurodivergent students, said the district should invest in training to prevent bullying rather than "open ended spending at $500 a day with no cap and no end date for administrative oversight," and urged the board to "please vote no on this contract until you can demonstrate how this expense aligns with the austerity measures you've imposed on our schools and taxpayers." Speakers also noted recent budget pressures—speakers cited the elimination of roughly 70 positions and a township property-tax increase the board has discussed—when questioning priorities.
Board discussion produced a motion from Dr. Braddock to postpone consideration of 14.10 to the August 11 meeting; Miss Stern seconded. A roll-call vote carried the postponement with affirmative recorded votes from Dr. Braddock, Mr. Fane, Dr. Dreisen, Mr. Greenbaum, Miss Manzano and Miss Stern. The board did not adopt the consultant contract at the July 28 meeting and will revisit it at its next scheduled meeting.
