Second opinion
New school board majority votes to hire another lawyer
by Timothy J. Carroll
Reporter staff writer
8 months ago | 1030 views | 29 29 comments | 21 21 recommendations | email to a friend | print
NEW VOTES ON THE BLOCK – The new majority held off contract renewals until they could find themselves a new lawyer.
NEW VOTES ON THE BLOCK – The new majority held off contract renewals until they could find themselves a new lawyer.
slideshow

A month after two new members were voted onto the Hoboken Board of Education, the new five-member majority is already at odds with Superintendent of Schools Jack Raslowsky.

Members of the new faction, considered to be “reformers,” tabled 10 employee contract renewals at their meeting Tuesday night, saying Raslowsky gave them inadequate time to review them.

However, they then voted to hire an additional board attorney without much notice, a move the other members say took them by surprise.

Board president Rosemarie Markle said she had asked Superintendent Jack Raslowsky to remove the 10 new employee contracts, mostly for one year appointments, from his agenda. However, he did not.

Raslowsky said at the meeting that the rehirings were “time-sensitive” since the contracts expire on June 30, and he asked for a “speedy approval.”

Board members complained that the finalized list of contracts was only given to them on Monday night, giving them little time to review and approve the deals. They said they want a new lawyer to review them.

Tit for tat

But by the same token, the minority board members said the five-member majority did not give them much time to review the new law firm they voted to hire Tuesday night.

The board had previously sent out requests for proposals seeking an additional law firm. Newly re-elected board member Theresa Minutillo said that the board received seven responses. The board’s Governance Committee interviewed four of the candidates before making their selection.

Minutillo sits on the Governance Committee with new board members Ruth McAllister and Maureen Sullivan, who were just elected in April.

The committee met Tuesday before the meeting to interview four applicants.

The minority board members claimed they weren’t aware they would be hiring a new lawyer on Tuesday night.

At the meeting, Minutillo introduced to motion to hire the firm of Porzio, Bromberg, and Newman of Morristown and New York City for a six-month period. The contract, she said, should not exceed $75,000 and was effective immediately.

She and her allies said the new counsel will help review meeting agendas, contracts, and other documents for the board, but will not do specialized legal work like bond issuance or worker compensation.

The board will now schedule a special meeting to handle the time-sensitive contract renewals before the existing contracts expire. “It’s a dangerous precedent for us to move ahead without doing our due diligence and sending [the contracts] through committee,” said Sullivan.

The move to hire another lawyer for the board may indicate a lack of trust in board counsel Joseph Morano, who signed a two-year contract last year and can only be replaced if he is fired for cause.
_____________

“Clearly there are trust issues somewhere.” – Jack Raslowsky
________

But Markle said the board has no plans to replace Morano; they just want another opinion.

“I’m not as comfortable as I should be with the board attorney,” she said after the meeting.

At least one member of the public charged that the board majority was hiring a lawyer whom they were somehow connected to. While they did not respond publicly, one board member deflected that argument after the meeting, noting that Morano is from Scarinci and Hollenbeck, one of the most politically connected law firms in North Jersey.

Although Morano has butted heads with Raslowsky in the past, the board majority still sees him as a mouthpiece for the administration.

“Clearly there are trust issues somewhere,” Raslowsky said in an interview afterward. He said he has no big issues with Morano, even though they have had their disagreements.

‘Shoved down my throat’

Board member Phil DeFalco objected to the hiring on two grounds. He said the board didn’t budget for another attorney (DeFalco sits on the Finance Committee) and he didn’t like the seemingly hasty way it was added to the agenda.

He said the measure was being “shoved down my throat.”

However, the majority board members said he could have read the responses to the requests for qualifications the board had sent out.

DeFalco said he hadn’t read the RFQs since he had no idea the measure would be coming to a vote so soon.

Then, former board member Frank Raia, now a member of the public, took the podium. He said the public should have a chance to speak on the issue before it was voted on.

Markle at first denied him the right to speak before the vote. Then, the board majority reconsidered and moved the vote to the “new business” portion of the meeting, after the public speaking portion.

Raia declined to speak later in the meeting.

Before the vote to approve the new attorney, Raslowsky warned that the legal contract could have a “potential programmatic effect;” in other words, it could take money away from programs for children. His attempt to dissuade the board failed.

DeFalco and board members Jim Farina and Frances Rhodes-Kearns opposed hiring the new lawyer. Board member Carmelo Garcia was absent. The five-member majority voted to hire the firm.

Timothy J. Carroll may be reached at tcarroll@hudsonreporter.com.

comments (29)
« bnr4real wrote on Monday, Jun 08 at 12:30 PM »
It is obvious here at the School Board, as it is in the Mayoral election, that there is a huge resistence coming from the "Old Gyard" to protect the shady, questionable activities of the Status-Quo throughout the city. The new Board majority, as they promised, have acted immediately to get a second opinion while keeping to the schedule. This is commendable and shouldn't be criticized as "illegal" (because it is not) or "shoved down our throats" (because the election was a loud signal that questions will be asked).

Instead of desperately scrambling to resist the opening of books and questioning of posts as the Old Guard are doing, they should be running for cover and finding their exit out of the city before the truth of all the corruption and scandals get exposed.

If you are tired of the Status-Quo gravy train and the Old Guard sneaking their best interests through at the cost of taxpayers, then take the next step of action (after electing Kids First) and vote for Dawn Zimmer tomorrow, the woman who has the determination and track record to stand up against the Machine and fight for what is right, rather than what best serves a select group. RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!
« BluePoint wrote on Friday, May 29 at 01:12 PM »
It was transparent to all the Board and admin if they read the backup. I guess the Bd could have held off hiring the lawyer until July but then wouldnt that have delayed the contracts. That seems unfair too. Maybe that was the rush.
« Hobo4545 wrote on Friday, May 29 at 08:19 AM »
The defenses continue to be that a) what the board did was legal. Yes, it was, just not very transparent. The board can ban the public from speaking at the end and it would be 'legal' too. So?

b) Still comparing it with hola and other debacles. If that's what you have to compare it to, clearly there is a problem.

The committee picked a new lawyer and then hours later asked the rest of the board to vote on it, without explaining how he beat out three other candidates. Not one of you has explained why this rushed vote is in line with any new transparency. Your responses continue to be to say that Raslowsky or Raia would have done this or that. Yes, fine, we voted Raia out. The new group is not much better, according to you, just a little better. That doesn't help us.
« HudsonDispatcher wrote on Thursday, May 28 at 10:52 PM »
No one said that...

"« Hobo4545 wrote on Thursday, May 28 at 05:43 PM »

So the excuses is that this transgression is "not as bad as HOLA" or "not as bad as the teachers' contract."

It is still pretty bad, especially from a group that promised transparency.

No more excuses. I don't care if they did it in the past, we voted for a new group to not repeat those mistakes.""

The Board's actions were reasonable and proper.

« BluePoint wrote on Thursday, May 28 at 10:02 PM »
you put "not as bad" in quotes as if anyone actually said that.

I still think this process seems fair and transparent.

You never answered my question about all previous votes waiting a month to go from Comm. to Full Board vote. My guess is that that never happened. It didnt with Hola.
« Hobo4545 wrote on Thursday, May 28 at 07:43 PM »
So the excuses is that this transgression is "not as bad as HOLA" or "not as bad as the teachers' contract."

It is still pretty bad, especially from a group that promised transparency.

No more excuses. I don't care if they did it in the past, we voted for a new group to not repeat those mistakes.
« HudsonDispatcher wrote on Tuesday, May 26 at 07:30 AM »
This is NOT a case like HoLa:

- No RFP even though one was legally required.

- No consideration of alternate vendors

- No actual need.

This is NOT a case like the Memorandums of Agreement on the teacher's cantract:

- Memo negotiated without full Board knowledge.

- Memo signed without full Board knowledge.

- Then they did it again.

This is a case of a Board doing the right thing:

- Acting through an existing RFP Process.

- Acting through an existing committee structure.

- Getting competetant, professional, independant advice BEFORE taking action.
« BluePoint wrote on Monday, May 25 at 09:33 PM »
hobo45. why are you screaming at me? I was going to ask but reformer mentioned it too, I thought the Bd worked on a Committee system.

maybe you know better. Did everything in the past go from Comm to full bd with the vote always at the next meeting? If that was procedure, then maybe you have a case. If not, then it seems it was fair.
« degeorgi wrote on Monday, May 25 at 09:21 PM »
I commend the new BoE members for their action! We (the taxpayers) elected the 3 ladies because we are fed up with the way Rasilowsky and his crew conduct business in Hoboken. My neighbors just lost one income -people are still laid off out there! We need a break from unjustified salaries and illegal students! Pretending to cut the school budget is not what we asked Rasilowsky - I hope he is on his way out. Why wouldn't the board just hire Anthony Petrosino (since he is doing the superintendent's job anyway) and get rid of our incompetent Mr. R?
« HobokenReformer wrote on Monday, May 25 at 09:08 PM »
Hobo4545 wrote "This seems anything but transparent."

You might claim that it happened fast (indeed it did - and that's how I like to see it), but you certainly cannot claim it was not transparent.

It is common procedure for boards to delegate certain issues to subcommittees, let those subcommittees deal with the details, and then report back their findings to the entire board and ask for a vote by the entire board. This is precisely what took place here. It just so happens that the old guard of the BoE was not part of this particular subcommittee, does not like the outcome and now complains about having something rammed down their throats. In reality, they just don't like the fact that the legendary employment agency aka the Hoboken school board might not continue to provide jobs without proper review by independent, outside legal counsel. Too bad they don't like it, but that's the way it's going to be from now on!
« Hobo4545 wrote on Monday, May 25 at 08:08 PM »
Bluepoint, one more time.

The committee interviewed four people just a few hours befor the board meeting.

Then they picked one, for some reason. What reasons?

They certainly didn't have time to share their reasoning with the rest of the board before asking them to take a vote on this very important matter.

THEY DID NOT HAVE TIME TO READ ANYTHING BECAUSE THE BOARD COMMITTEE ONLY DECIDED TO PICK THIS GUY A FEW HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING!!

This seems anything but transparent.

« BluePoint wrote on Monday, May 25 at 06:19 PM »
Only in Hoboken is failure to read you backup constitute "ramming" something down your throat.
« BluePoint wrote on Monday, May 25 at 05:52 PM »
things do take time and effort. why wouldn't the Superintendent comply with the request to postpone the 11 contracts to give the new board time to review?

now they have time and legal assistance in reviewing the million dollar contracts. seem like a good thing.
« Hobo4545 wrote on Monday, May 25 at 05:43 PM »
" Why dwell on the issue for an extended period of time rather than resolving it in a timely fashion.."

I know, democracy takes so much time and effort! Let's just ram things down others throats because its faster!!! Lets interview someone and then expect 7 people to vote hours later!!
« BluePoint wrote on Monday, May 25 at 05:39 PM »
seems to me like the process was out in the open. If the application materials and proposals were sent to the other Board members along the way, why would they say they didn't know? seems weird.

« HobokenReformer wrote on Monday, May 25 at 05:13 PM »
Hobo4545 wrote "Reformer, please answer the question. How is interviewing four people three hours before a meeting, and picking one, and putting it on the agenda hours later for everyone to vote for...transparent or open?"

Based on what Maureen stated below, the position was properly advertised, proper notice was given to the public, the appropriate subcommittee interviewed candidates and provided the application materials to all BoE members, and then they proceeded to place the issue on the agenda of the next board meeting. What exactly is the problem with this approach? In my view, this is how business should be conducted - transparently, expeditiously and in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. Why dwell on the issue for an extended period of time rather than resolving it in a timely fashion and allow for the contract renewals to be completed before their respective expiration dates? I see absolutely nothing wrong with how this matter was dealt with. And there can be no doubt about the fact that this procedure was way more compliant and transparent than awarding the HoLa contract to non-qualified insiders without any RFQ process.

Where exactly do you perceive a problem with this?
« Hobo4545 wrote on Monday, May 25 at 04:11 PM »
HudsonDispatcher and others, you keep avoiding the question. In fact, below, your laughable response below is this: "well, the 4R's would have been fine with other rubberstamps." That is no defense of the Sullivan group's rubber stamps - you are simply saying they are no different then the past group.

Some of us do not like RUBBER STAMPS, whether Raia/Raslowsky or Sullivan/et all.

So I ask again:

"Reformer, please answer the question. How is interviewing four people three hours before a meeting, and picking one, and putting it on the agenda hours later for everyone to vote for...transparent or open? "

Maybe Maureen or you can answer?
« HudsonDispatcher wrote on Monday, May 25 at 01:23 PM »
Bottom Line:

The 4 R's (Raslowsky, Raia, and the Rest of the Rascals)want to slow down competant legal review and speed up everything else. I don't know what bad stuff a full legal review will uncover, but they sure do.
« HudsonDispatcher wrote on Monday, May 25 at 01:21 PM »
You are making no sense

"« Hobo4545 wrote on Monday, May 25 at 10:46 AM »

Reformer, please answer the question. How is interviewing four people three hours before a meeting, and picking one, and putting it on the agenda hours later for everyone to vote for...transparent or open?"

The 4R's would have been fine with approving a dozen contracts with NO interviews, NO backup, and NO attorney review by a competant attorney of the Board,s chosing. They were furious the Board majority refused to rubberstamp Jack's choices that night.

How much louder would they have squeeled had the process been set back two weeks.
« HudsonDispatcher wrote on Monday, May 25 at 01:17 PM »
No actually, you are just wrong.

"« hobokent wrote on Monday, May 25 at 09:43 AM »

Ha. Open and transparent?? Your defense is that it was advertised in the catch-all legal notice? Where was it on the agenda? The AGENDA that notifies the public about the items that will be voted on. The one that is published on the district website. Not There."

The agenda is often held hostage by the Supt. and the Attorney, niether a fan of competant impartial legal review. The Legal Public Notice, shockingly, is what Legally Notices the Public.