A Sudden Shift in Process
Just days after suggesting legal interviews be conducted at the next regularly scheduled meeting, the Hardyston Township Board of Education has now called a Special Closed Executive Session for tonight, July 29, 2025, at 7:00 PM at the Middle School.
The stated purpose? To interview law firms for the position of Board Legal Counsel. According to the notice, formal action may be taken-even though the meeting will not be livestreamed or recorded.
The full notice, posted on July 24th, gave the public just five days’ warning-under a week’s notice for a meeting involving one of the most critical advisory roles in the district.
A Reminder of the Words Spoken
What’s especially striking is the contradiction. At the last public meeting, Board President Donna Carey clearly stated that she wanted “everyone to be involved” in the interview process. Yet here we are-on a Tuesday night in the middle of summer-holding a closed-door session that wasn’t even on the calendar until just days ago.
If inclusion and transparency were truly priorities, one has to ask: why the rush?
The Appearance of Due Process?
There’s growing speculation that tonight’s interviews may be little more than a formality-a legal checkbox rather than a sincere evaluation. In fact, many expect the board to ultimately select the law firm of Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri, & Jacobs, regardless of who is interviewed or what questions are asked.
The optics suggest this process may be less about finding the best fit for the district-and more about creating the illusion of fair process to justify a pre-determined outcome.
Ethics and Expectations
It’s worth reminding the public that state ethics regulations for school board members require that decisions of this magnitude be handled with impartiality, transparency, and inclusive consultation. As outlined in the School Ethics Act:
“I will confine my board action to policy making, planning, and appraisal, and I will help to frame policies and plans only after the board has consulted those who will be affected by them.”
In this case, those most affected would include the district’s administration and the special education department-both of whom regularly interact with legal counsel and will feel the day-to-day impact of this decision. Their voices should be heard before any contracts are signed.
Additionally, any board member with personal or professional ties to firms under consideration has an ethical obligation to recuse themselves, and to do so transparently and on the record. Silence or ambiguity is not acceptable when public trust is at stake.
What to watch tonight
- Attendance and recusals: Are all board members present, and do any members with potential conflicts recuse themselves openly?
- Process integrity: Are the interviews substantive and comparable, or simply pro forma?
- Stakeholder inclusion: Has input from administration and the special education department been sought prior to any vote?
- Timing and transparency: If action is taken tonight, is there a clear public rationale and timeline for next steps?
The meeting may be closed, but the public is watching. If trust is to be maintained, the board’s actions must reflect more than procedural compliance. They should demonstrate integrity, openness, and a genuine commitment to serving students, families, and staff - not political convenience.
Let’s hope the outcome is not already written in ink.