Montgomery BOE Discussion Focuses on Superintendent Contract Process, AP Chinese and Public Comment Timing

Nicholas Mistretta

MONTGOMERY, NJ — Two Montgomery Township Board of Education members are questioning how proposed changes to the superintendent’s employment contract were advanced through the board, focusing on the timing, communication and level of board participation in the process — not on the terms of the proposed agreement itself.

During the Board of Education’s Aug. 25 meeting, Dr. Wang and Board Member Nunez questioned why action on the proposed contract moved forward at an earlier meeting when three of the board’s nine members were absent.

Board President Patrick Todd disputed the suggestion that there had been no indication the contract matter was moving forward, saying there had been discussion about advancing the proposal.

Nunez responded that his concern was more specific. He said there had been no agenda item indicating the board would vote at that meeting to send the proposed contract to the Executive County Superintendent for review.

Both acknowledged during the discussion that the board had the legal authority to act and that required procedures had been followed, but said their concerns centered on whether the internal process provided adequate opportunity for participation and discussion on a matter they considered particularly significant. The issue surfaced near the conclusion of the Aug. 25 meeting, when Wang called attention to a legal notice posted on the school district’s website regarding an upcoming public hearing to “renegotiate, amend, extend or otherwise alter” the superintendent’s employment contract. Wang emphasized that she was questioning the process by which the matter had reached that point, rather than discussing the proposed contract terms. Contract terms were not detailed during the public exchange. She questioned the circumstances under which the proposal had moved forward when three board members were not present. She also asked what information would be available to the public ahead of the scheduled September hearing so residents could provide informed comment.

Contract Submitted for County Review
During the discussion, board attorney Vic LaPira explained that a majority of the board had approved sending the proposed contract to the County Superintendent .

The board was told that any proposed amendment could not move forward until that county-level review occurred. Following that approval, the contract is expected to return to the Board of Education for a public hearing and vote on Sept. 15.

It was also stated that the required public notices had been issued and that the applicable legal procedures had been followed.

Wang acknowledged that distinction. Her concern, she indicated, was not whether the board had the legal authority to proceed with a quorum and majority vote, but whether a matter of that significance should have moved forward when one-third of the board was absent.

“When you have the minimum quorum, you can make that,” Wang said, before adding that the board was dealing with what she characterized as a very important decision for the district.

“I believe everyone’s input is important,” she said.

Nunez Questions ‘Spirit’ of Process
Nunez, who said he had been away when the earlier action occurred, echoed Wang’s concern while also acknowledging that the board had acted within established legal procedures.

Nunez said his issue was with what he described as the “spirit” of how the matter was handled, particularly with three board members absent.

He said a board can emphasize collaboration and inclusion while still complying with all procedural requirements, but questioned whether moving ahead with what he described as one of the board’s most important decisions without all members present was consistent with those principles. “Yes, I understand legally everything was followed procedurally,” Nunez said. “We’re following all the procedures, but … the spirit of it was not collaborative.”

Nunez said he had notified the board in advance that he would be on vacation following a rescheduling of the meeting.

Board President Cites Opportunities for Review
Board President Patrick Todd responded that the matter had been under discussion since April and that all nine board members had been provided with a copy of the proposed contract.

Todd said board members had also been asked twice to submit questions regarding the agreement and indicated that no questions had been submitted through that process.

Nunez responded that his concern was different. He said the opportunity to ask questions about the proposed agreement did not necessarily address his concern about communication surrounding when the matter would actually advance.

“There was no agenda ahead of time saying we are going to be voting on this on this time,” Nunez said, while again acknowledging that he had been out of the country and was not present for the meeting.

The discussion ultimately centered on a distinction acknowledged by both sides: whether the board had complied with the legal requirements governing the proposed contract changes, and whether the board’s internal handling of the matter provided the level of communication and participation Wang and Nunez believed such a significant decision warranted.

Wang concluded that she wanted to make the public aware that, from her perspective, questions remained about that process.

The proposed contract terms themselves were not discussed in detail during the exchange. Based on information provided at the meeting, the matter is scheduled to return for a public hearing and Board of Education vote on Sept. 15. No date was provided for when the contract terms would be released and available for public review.

Wang Asks Board to Reconsider AP Chinese Testing
Wang raised the AP Chinese issue following public comments earlier in the meeting from a Montgomery alumna who advocated for restoring MHS as a testing site.

Wang said she believed decisions should be guided by evidence and pointed to information presented during public comment indicating that 58 Montgomery students had taken the AP Chinese exam elsewhere over the previous six years, averaging roughly nine or 10 students per year.

Wang argued that if a group of Montgomery students consistently demonstrates interest and achievement in a subject, the district should at least consider whether there is a reasonable way to support them.

“For me as an educator, if my student demonstrate that level of excellence, whether it’s AP Chinese or AP another subject, it doesn’t matter,” Wang said. “We should consider to support them.”

She also noted that students seeking AP Chinese testing elsewhere may not always be accommodated by neighboring districts because Montgomery families are not taxpayers in those communities.

In response, the board was reminded that the subject has previously been discussed by the ACI committee. The administration indicated that if the committee wished to revisit the matter, it would be appropriate to do so.

Questions Raised About Courses District Does Not Offer
The discussion also highlighted broader questions that could arise if Montgomery begins administering AP examinations for courses it does not teach.

One concern raised was that Montgomery currently does not offer Chinese language classes. Board members questioned what standards should be applied when deciding whether to host an AP exam for a subject outside the district curriculum and whether the same opportunity would then need to be considered for students seeking testing in other subjects or heritage languages.

Board Vice President Spina raised several practical questions, including what would be required for Montgomery to serve as a testing site, potential insurance or liability considerations, proctoring responsibilities and the technology requirements associated with certain language exams

Board member Worland said the issue also raises a question of equity if students eventually seek locally administered AP exams in additional subjects the district does not offer.

She said the concern was not necessarily an argument against AP Chinese testing, but a need to understand what precedent might be created and what additional demands could follow.

adding whether making additional independent AP examinations more readily available could unintentionally encourage already high-achieving students to take on more academic work than is healthy.

“I’m not suggesting that our AP Chinese students are doing that,” Worland said, but added that the district should remain mindful of the pressure students place on themselves to excel.

The board ultimately agreed that the issue warranted a more detailed discussion through ACI, including input from the district administration.

Wang Renews Proposal to Move Public Comment Earlier
Wang then turned to another issue repeatedly raised at recent board meetings — the timing of general public comment.

She referred to a proposal she emailed to board members on June 18, suggesting changes to the meeting structure based in part on comparisons between board agendas from 2021 and 2026.

Under Wang’s suggested format, executive session would occur before the regular business portion of the meeting. Once the board returned to open session, the meeting would proceed through the superintendent’s report and presentations before moving to new business from the public, allowing residents to address non-agenda issues earlier in the evening.

Wang said moving that portion of public comment earlier could make meetings more accessible for working parents, students and residents who may want to address the board but cannot remain late into the evening.

VP Spina agreed that the timing deserves consideration but raised questions about how a revised agenda should be structured.

One concern was whether moving general public comment ahead of other portions of the meeting could inadvertently suggest that comments about items the board is actually preparing to vote on were less important.

Member Worland noted that school board meetings are meetings held in public, but their primary purpose remains conducting the board’s official business. She suggested the board could also explore additional opportunities for public engagement outside the formal meeting structure.

Board President Patrick Todd said the board may need to take a more flexible approach depending on the length of a particular meeting agenda and executive session.

“If we see it’s going to be a short agenda or short executive session,” Todd said, the board could structure public comment differently than it might on a night when a lengthy executive session is anticipated. He also noted that the district has used town hall-style meetings in the past for issues drawing significant public interest.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/headlinenewsmontgomery.com