Washington Township school board declines to reinstate superintendent amid ongoing infighting
The motion came up short of the votes needed to pass adn without discussion by the school board. Hibbs has been suspended since March.
A move to reinstate Washington Township School Superintendent Eric Hibbs has again failed, as the district awaits the outcome of a legal challenge on whether the school board acted properly when it suspended him in March.
A motion by board member Scott Labertie to bring back Hibbs failed without discussion at Tuesday’s board meeting, with members divided along partisan lines. Three members voted yes, three voted no, and three abstained.
The ongoing disagreement about the superintendent’s employment status has caused a growing rift among board members and has led to uncertainty in the South Jersey school system amid recent budget cutbacks.
» READ MORE: Washington Township school board refuses to reinstate its suspended superintendent
Labertie has made the same motion several times in recent months. Five votes would be needed to reinstate Hibbs.
There was no further discussion about Hibbs’ status during the five-hour board meeting. Hibbs was not present.
An assistant superintendent has been serving as the acting schools chief.
“I don’t give a damn if you don’t like him personally; bring him back up here,” said resident Sean Lindsay, a former board member. “We’re paying him to stay home to do nothing.”
The board has not publicly cited a reason for suspending Hibbs, who has been superintendent since 2023. His contract, with an annual salary of $215,000, runs through 2027.
Hibbs’ attorney, Marc Zitomer, has said his client was told that he was suspended because of an ethics complaint against him.
A legal challenge to Hibbs’ removal
The school board is awaiting a Superior Court judge’s ruling on whether it improperly suspended the superintendent.
Resident Randy Ford filed a lawsuit challenging whether the board followed procedures when it took the action against Hibbs.
Ford contends the board violated the state’s Open Public Meetings Act when it voted in executive session to invoke a rarely used “doctrine of necessity” in order to have a quorum to hold a vote.
The board has said it used the doctrine because three members were barred from discussing the superintendent’s employment due to pending ethics complaints; two others have conflicts because relatives are employed by the district.
Ford, a father of three students in the district, said at Tuesday’s meeting that a decision by Superior Court Judge Benjamin Telsey is expected soon. It was not immediately clear what impact a decision could have on Hibbs’ employment status or whether the board could be forced to reinstate him.
The ethics complaint that led to the superintendent’s suspension alleges Hibbs provided preferential treatment to a family member of a board member by changing a failing math grade in September 2023. It also contends that students were improperly admitted to the National Honor Society.
In May, Hibbs filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the board and the district, alleging his suspension was in retaliation for raising questions about a district insurance contract awarded in 2021 before he became superintendent.
The board hired a law firm to investigate the ethics complaint against Hibbs. The matter is also pending before the New Jersey School Ethics Commission.
Ethics complaint ruling
Meanwhile, the ethics commission has reprimanded board president Julie Kozempel for disclosing confidential personnel information in a separate ethics complaint. The commission cleared her on three other charges, citing insufficient evidence.
In a ruling last week, the commission found that Kozempel improperly publicly read a text message in April 2022 from fellow board member Connie Baker about the tenure of a district principal.
Baker, then a new board member, sent the text in December 2021 to Kozempel expressing her opposition to retaining the principal, according to the complaint. Kozempel admonished her for discussing employees in writing.
The commission said that it was unclear why Kozempel then opted to read the text at a later meeting and that doing so “was clearly outside the scope of her duties.” Her actions “harmed the reputation of the board,” the commission said.
The commission rejected claims that Kozempel violated ethics rules when she sent an email advocating for her preferred superintendent candidate. It also said she did not violate any rules when she contacted a resident‘s employer and alleged that his accusations against her thwarted her job application with the same employer.
“It doesn’t mean what she did was right,” said Tom Baldosaro, who filed one of several ethics complaints against Kozempel. “To have a board member call your employer? That should be a no-no for anybody.”
The commission recommended a reprimand for Kozempel, noting that she apologized, recused herself from a superintendent search at that time, and later resigned from the board in 2022. She rejoined the board this year for a one-year term and plans to run for a full term in November.
The recommendation will go to state Education Commissioner Kevin Dehmer.
“I consider myself vindicated,” Kozempel said. “I’m happy that after three years, this issue is finally put to bed. It’s been nothing but a political witch hunt.”