Judge: FRHSD board may
conduct limited business
By dave benjamin
Staff Writer
A federal judge has modified an injunction that had been preventing the Freehold Regional High School District Board of Education from conducting business.
On Dec. 19, U.S. District Court Judge Garrett E. Brown, sitting in Trenton, ruled that the board may conduct certain business while a case filed by the township of Marlboro continues.
At issue in Marlboro’s federal lawsuit is the voting point system used by the nine-member FRHSD board. Marlboro is claiming that, based on the results of the 2000 census, the voting points must be reapportioned among the board members.
The injunction granted by Brown in November has prevented the board from conducting business on everything but a limited agenda and from implementing a redistricting plan that is scheduled to begin in September 2003. Under that plan, some residents of Marlboro would be assigned to attend Colts Neck High School.
Attorney Nathanya Simon, representing the FRHSD, provided a recap of the events that transpired in court on Dec. 19. Simon said she thought she had made some effective arguments before Brown.
"Those arguments finally caught his attention as to what is really happening as a result of the initial temporary restraint that was placed on the board," said Simon. "He seemed very concerned about that."
The attorney said Brown appeared to be very concerned that there is only a remote possibility of reaching a mutual settlement on the vote apportionment issue.
"He seemed to feel that his intent to put in a temporary restraint was for a limited period of time, because he thought a settlement was very possible," said Simon. (However), it was (now) looking like it was not very possible."
According to Simon, attorney Lance Kalik, who represents Marlboro, agreed that his client would consider giving the school board the right to act on additional items of business.
Simon said, "We were working on that list, but we did not quite agree on everything. The judge said he wants us to meet with the magistrate on that issue. He then called all the attorneys into chambers, and basically, he said he understood that this cannot continue for much longer."
A hearing is set for Dec. 30-31 on the continuation of the injunction that prohibits the board from conducting business.
A hearing is set for Jan. 29 on the vote apportionment issue if that matter can not be settled prior to that.
The attorneys in the case were expected to confer again on Dec. 20, she said.
In regard to the school board conducting business while under the injunction, Simon said the attorneys were able to agree on almost all areas of operation with the following exceptions: master contracts of bargaining unit employees; and the appointment of new administrators at the principal level, and higher.
Simon said Kalik agreed to permit the board to appoint acting administrators in certain positions, if needed.
Other items on which the board may not act are: the approval of outside consultants in the area of student enrollment and demographics; any new curriculum other than state mandated curriculum; and anything in furtherance of the redistricting plan.
Simon said, "That is what the real issue is. We can’t transfer staff. We can’t appoint staff. We can’t do anything to implement the redistricting until after the judge has the opportunity to hear this case on Dec. 30."
Under the modified injunction, however, the board can take action on discipline of students, the school calendar, the use of facilities or other personal actions of teachers, she said.
"I believe that at the Dec. 30 (hearing) the judge may have a different view of some of these things. Whether we can get the entire (list of items) lifted, that is what I will be working toward. Whether the judge will grant it, I don’t know. The judge made it clear that he is not going to run the district," Simon said. "We’re making some positive steps and I’m pleased that (the judge) has set a short schedule."