Board approves professional-services list and capital transfers after heated debate over ethics counsel and tax relief

The Hunterdon Central Regional High School Board voted to approve routine organizational and operations items after extended discussion about the professional‑services list and capital-reserve transfers.

Several residents earlier in the meeting had pressed the board about the roster of law firms under the professional‑services agenda item, arguing that some entries were personal attorneys for board members and not selected through the district RFP. Rebecca Peterson (Rariton Township) told the board that "there are three other law firms that are not part of the RFP and are the personal attorneys of Ms. Kellogg and a former board president for their personal ethics cases." Board members and staff said those appointments were recommended by board counsel for specific ethics matters; a motion to remove particular entries from the list failed on roll call. The board then approved items H1 through H8 with several abstentions recorded on specific lines.

Separately, the operations committee brought a package of transportation, invoices and capital items to the table. A motion to redirect up to $5 million that had been proposed for capital reserves into a tax‑relief account was moved and debated at length. Board members questioned the accounting mechanics and long‑term effects of one‑time tax relief; business‑office staff explained that applying unexpended line‑item funds for tax relief affects future-year budgeting and could create volatility. On a roll-call vote the motion to repurpose up to $5 million to tax relief failed.

The board approved the remainder of the operations and personnel bundles (the personnel slate included retirements, summer hires, substitute lists and contract addenda) with recorded exceptions and abstentions on select check numbers and items.

Why it matters: The debate illuminated two transparency issues between some board members and community speakers: first, whether adding law firms tied to individual ethics matters to a district professional‑services list is appropriate and sufficiently specific; second, how the district should treat large, one‑time fund transfers into capital reserves versus using unexpended amounts to reduce future tax levies.

Next steps: The board’s business office will finalize contract paperwork for approved firms and will report on capital‑reserve planning; members who raised removal or reclassification concerns said they will continue to press for clearer specificity about scope and billing terms for any outside counsel used in ethics matters.