Tonight, June 4, 2026, at 7:00 PM, the Teaneck Board of Education is holding a special public meeting at the Central Administration Office. It will not be recorded, and it will not be live-streamed.
Under New Jersey’s new public notice framework (P.L. 2025, c. 72), the Board is allowed to post its notices on its website instead of print newspapers. But while the law has modernized, the Board’s tactics have not. A review of the timeline reveals that the Board is using a digital shell game to keep the public completely in the dark about a massive, high-stakes legal crisis.
The Eleventh-Hour Bait-and-Switch
On May 28, 2026, trustees shared an official notice stating that the sole purpose of tonight’s unrecorded meeting was the Superintendent’s Evaluation (documented in “May 28, 2026 post re Superintendent Evaluation as well as on other groups (James Wolff’s screenshot appears below.”)
If you visit the state’s centralized directory and click through the maze of Teaneck’s landing pages, you will find that the text was silently edited. Finally, today—with only hours until the meeting—the official document titled “SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA FOR June 4th 2026 Board Meeting“ was posted.
The Superintendent’s Evaluation has completely vanished from the agenda.
In its place is a single resolution: authorizing a $100,000 contract to a new law firm (Scarinci Hollenbeck) to represent the Board in LaClair v. Teaneck Board of Education.
What is the LaClair Case, and What is the Board Hiding?
Why is the Board pulling an end-run around the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) to pass a legal contract in an unrecorded room? Because the public records of Donald LaClair v. Teaneck Board of Education (Docket No. BER-L-5692-21) reveal a terrifying financial and legal reality for Teaneck taxpayers:
-
Massive Financial Exposure: According to the Complaint and Amended Complaint, the plaintiff is demanding judgment in excess of $50,000,000 for severe injuries resulting from systemic child sexual abuse and grooming by a former middle school teacher in the 1970s.
-
Allegations of a Complicit School Culture: The lawsuit does not just sue the abuser; it targets the Teaneck Board of Education for gross negligence, alleging that other teachers and administrators actively ignored or minimized the behavior, enabling a “sexually hostile educational environment”.
-
The Board’s Legal Defenses are Crumbling: The public needs to know that the Board has spent years trying to get this case thrown out on legal technicalities—and they have failed.
-
In an Order denying the Board’s motion to dismiss the case, the court stripped away their Tort Claims Act immunities.
-
“The Board contends that LaClair has failed to allege that he incurred any medical expenses above $1,000 as a result…” The Court rejects defendant’s argument. (page 7)
-
“Defendant fails to appreciate the strong public policy regarding child sex abuse cases.” (page 9)
-
-
In an Order denying Summary Judgment for Defendants and Another Order denying their Motion to Reconsider, the court ruled that the Board can face “vicarious liability” for the actions of its teachers under agency law.
-
Most recently, on May 8, 2026, the court issued an Order denying Summary Judgment and blocking yet another attempt by the Board to avoid a trial.
-
Why the Sudden Counsel Change?
The Board’s lead defense attorney has changed firms. Because the Board just lost its final pre-trial safety nets last month, they are rushing to transfer a $100,000 contract to retain him as the case barrels toward a high-profile jury trial.
Instead of being upfront with taxpayers about a $50 million liability and the decision to fight this in court rather than settle, the Board chose to hide the resolution under the guise of a “Superintendent Evaluation”.
This Violates a Standing Court Injunction
The Board is currently under a strict court injunction regarding transparency. In BER-L-000121-24 (Kaplan v Teaneck Board of Education, Judge Carol Novey Catuogno ordered the Teaneck BOE to “adhere strictly to all the mandates of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act“. Subsequent orders in late 2024 repeatedly found the Board in violation for failing to properly publish clear agendas. (see additional orders here and here)
OPMA requires public entities to publish an agenda “to the extent known” ahead of time. The Board knew as early as June 1st that this contract was starting. Hiding a $100,000 contract related to a multi-million-dollar lawsuit until the afternoon of an unrecorded meeting violates the spirit of the law and directly tramples on a standing judicial order.
Taxpayers deserve to know what their money is funding. The Board must stop running from transparency.