‘Improper attack’

The renewal provision in School Superintendent Dr. Roberta Freeman’s contract is legally valid, in the opinion of a Board of Education attorney, who has filed a motion to dismiss a recent lawsuit that contends otherwise.

Attorney Jeffrey Merlino of the legal firm Methfessel & Werbel filed the motion in state Superior Court on Wednesday, April 22. It asks Judge Glenn Slavin to hold a hearing on Friday, May 8 or as soon as possible after that date.

In the motion, Merlino responds to litigation filed in March by Clinton Avenue resident Vincent Pileggi, who contends the renewal wording in Freeman’s contract is contrary to state law. That wording calls for Freeman to automatically receive a four-year contract renewal if the board does not notify her by Jan. 28, 2027 that her services are no longer desired. Freeman’s contract is due to expire on June 30, 2027.

Pileggi’s litigation asserts that superintendent hires or renewals must be done by school boards via public vote.

Merlino’s motion argues that Pileggi has “no standing” to challenge the contract, does not assert that a legal violation has occurred, and asks the court to rule in a matter that is under the jurisdiction of the state’s education commissioner.

The courts recognize a litigant’s standing as a taxpayer only in limited circumstances, according to Merlino’s motion, such as when there are claims that public funds have been expended illegally.

“Here, plaintiff alleges no illegal expenditure, fraud, or statutory violation,” Merlino wrote. “The complaint asserts only a generalized policy disagreement, which is insufficient as a matter of law.”

There is no legal basis for the relief sought by Pileggi, Merlino contends. A contract provision is being challenged that has been reviewed and “deemed lawful” by the Executive County Superintendent.

“Agency-approved contracts are entitled to a strong presumption of validity,” Merlino adds. “The NJ Department of Education has held that automatic renewal provisions in superintendent contracts are lawful and warrants deference.”

“Plaintiff’s attempt to invalidate an approved contract constitutes an improper collateral attack on a regulatory determination,” Merlino wrote.

Merlino also contends that Pileggi did not exhaust potential administrative remedies through the Department of Education before filing his lawsuit. He further argues that the suit Is “untimely” because the plaintiff waited a period of years to challenge Freeman’s contract after she signed it in November 2022.

“Here, plaintiff cannot justify the delay,” the motions reads. “The contract and its terms were known – or readily knowable – at the time of approval in 2022. Allowing a challenge years later would undermine the finality of public contracts and disrupt settled expectations.”

“The board relied upon the validity of the contract, the superintendent has served under its terms, and the agreement has been fully integrated into the district’s operations,” Merlino wrote. “Undoing or re-litigating those terms now would create significant administrative and financial disruption.”

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.