Legal lesson

Note: Results released by the Middlesex County Clerk’s Office after polls closed on Nov. 5, showed roughly 780 write-in votes cast for three-year Board of Education seats. That indicates that the write-in campaign launched by high school student Vincent Pileggi, which is discussed in this post, fell short.

The specter of an election hinging on courtroom motions and arguments has loomed over the Nov. 5 presidential balloting for months. In Middlesex Borough, lawyers may end up arguing a different 2024 political contest, this one for Board of Education seats.

Mix together a write-in candidacy, the 17-year-old age of that candidate, and a school board that’s already come under fire from some community members, and you have the ingredients for potential legal drama in the weeks after the general election.

For the litigious battle to ensue, write-in candidate Vincent Pileggi would need to win one of three, three-year board seats being contested in the general election. Four other candidates – Thomas Thornton and incumbents Danielle Parenti, Sharon Schueler and Jeanette DeJesus – are listed on the ballot.

Pileggi’s summer announcement that he’d run as a write-in, means five candidates for three spots, leaving the potential for two sitting board members to be ousted.

A write-in candidate typically faces an uphill battle. First, voters must be made aware of his or her candidacy. If they are inclined to support them, voters must then be educated on the proper procedure for “writing-in” a candidate.

Pileggi has been an active campaigner. His political signs populate many borough lawns, he’s been active on social media, and is a consistent attendee/questioner at board meetings. If Middlesex’s numerous community Facebook pages are any indication, there are plenty of voters willing to give the Middlesex High School senior a chance at school board service.

“You got spark kid!” one Facebook commenter wrote on Monday, Nov. 4. 

The question remains, however, will he receive more votes via write-in than at least two of the on-ballot candidates? If that occurs, Pileggi is – in theory at least – in line for a board seat. Legal squabbling might ensue.

As a 17-year-old, Pileggi has already registered to vote but is not able to do so until he reaches age 18 next year. According to Pileggi, he’s obtained legal counsel that asserts he’s eligible for board service since he’s already a “registered” voter.

Others see the matter differently. The contrarians claim state law clearly lays out that a school board member must be 18 to serve.

On Monday, Nov. 4, Pileggi publicly presented evidence showing the board has looked into the issue. On a community FB page, he posted a screen shot from a legal invoice, showing the board’s attorney spent a half hour over two days in early September researching the matter. Pileggi obtained the invoice through an Open Public Records Act filing.

The invoice’s Sept. 11 item reads: “Re: BOE Candidate Qualifications – work strategy considerations re: same.”

The Sept. 12 item reads: “Re: Student Eligibility to Serve of Board – Cont. work strategy considerations re: same.”

The FB post spurred a back-and-forth pitting Pileggi and his supporters versus critics who believe he does not qualify for board service.

Pileggi contended the BOE should not have spent time and tax dollars looking into a candidate matter more appropriately reviewed by the Middlesex County Board of Elections. Critics disagreed with his assessment, citing the age question for board service.

“With all due respect the board doesn’t have real jurisdiction over the election until they receive the results, and can choose to challenge then,” Pileggi responded to one comment. “Before that time they have no jurisdiction over then, and I believe the legal billing blurb speaks for itself. Any issues with candidacy are handled by the county division of elections – not by the office being elected.”

Some might question why the sitting board had Pileggi’s eligibility investigated when he’s yet to win a board seat. Recent months’ events might provide the answer.

Pileggi has shown a willingness to question the board on certain decisions and actions. Perhaps, the sitting board and its top administrators fear a non-compliant member joining their ranks.

In the summer, Pileggi inquired about the board’s forgiveness of an outstanding student meal balance of $41,000. It was later revealed that 430 students had unpaid meal balances at the June conclusion of the 2023-24 academic year.

During a September meeting, Pileggi voiced support for the Middlesex Education Association, which is engaged in a contract dispute with the board that is headed to mediation.

Last month, Pileggi pointed it out when a board member mistakenly voted on a resolution related to two family members’ positions. Due to the conflict of interest involved, a second vote was held with the board member in question recusing herself.

Reminder

Subscribe to Inside – Middlesex. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. It is absolutely free.

Visit Inside – Middlesex on our new Facebook page.