Superior Court ruling prompts Phillipsburg school board to take caution in allowing sending-district representatives to cast votes

PHILLIPSBURG | Some votes will be off limits for Phillipsburg school board representatives of districts whose students attend Phillipsburg High School.

Board President Paul Rummerfield asked for more clarity on voting by representatives of those sending districts following a December ruling on their eligibility by the New Jersey Superior Court.

Officials say eligibility remains murky. But to avoid conflicts, Rummerfield said sending-district representatives will likely be excluded from votes on board officers and professional services, such as attorneys.

"It was so we can make sure we are operating correctly and don't have any issues with this in the future," Rummerfield said. "Typically the sending districts have always voted on (these matters), and it appears they shouldn't be voting on it."

In the Superior Court case, an Atlantic City school board member claimed state law prohibited sending-district representatives from voting on the board's solicitor.

The court ruled in the board member's favor, pointing to four specific instances where sending-district representatives are eligible to vote as outlined by the state Legislature.

Rummerfield said representatives of sending districts have customarily voted only on matters involving the high school and central office administrators, because those affect pupils from the sending districts.

Five school districts in the area send their high school students to Phillipsburg, but only three are represented on the board. State law allows no more than 12 members on a board.

Lopatcong and Greenwich township, whose districts have 10 percent or higher enrollment in the high school, have permanent board representation: The remaining three districts rotate yearly. Alpha's representative will step aside for Bloomsbury by early May, Rummerfield said. Pohatcong Township is the fifth district.

The state Superior Court's ruling managed to both clarify and confound, according to New Jersey School Board Association spokesman Frank Belluscio.

"The language isn't crystal clear ... so the direction is not as strong as we would have liked," Belluscio said. "I think what boards are going to have to rely upon is the advice of their attorneys on this."

Rummerfield said the relationship between the members of sending districts and the rest of the board has been cooperative, and he does not anticipate problems with more cautious voting.

Rob Edinger, a board representative from Lopatcong Township, said he had no concerns with the more narrow voting rights definition.

"I think we're all being properly represented," he said. "When you get clarification at that level (Superior Court), you learn where you stand."

In Evans v. Atlantic City Board of Education, the New Jersey Superior Court determined sending-district representatives were eligible to vote on the following within a receiving district:

-- Tuition, bill lists, contracts for purchase, operation or maintenance, equipment and instructional materials to be used in education of sending-district's pupils;

-- New capital construction to be used by sending district students;

-- Appointment, transfer or removal of teaching staff providing services to sending-district pupils, including central administrative staff; and

-- Addition or deletion of curricular or extracurricular programs involving sending district pupils.