La Fronz v. Weehawken Bd. of Ed.

• Decision Date: 16 November 1978
• Citation: 395 A.2d 538,164 N.J.Super. 5
• Parties: Thomas LA FRONZ and Weehawken Education Association, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. WEEHAWKEN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 5

164 N.J.Super. 5

395 A.2d 538

Thomas LA FRONZ and Weehawken Education Association Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. WEEHAWKEN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued Oct. 4, 1978.

Decided Nov. 16, 1978.

LeRoy D. Safro, Union City, for appellant.

Theodore M. Simon Clifton, for respondents (Goldberg & Simon, Clifton, attorneys; Louis P. Bucceri, Clifton, on the brief).

A letter in lieu of brief was filed on behalf of the Attorney General, amicus curiae.

Before Judges ALLCORN, SEIDMAN and BOTTER.

PER CURIAM.

Whether the resolutions the validity of which are questioned in this proceeding are treated as having been adopted by the appellant board at its special meeting of June 29, 1976 or at its regularly scheduled meeting of July 13, 1976, we are convinced that they were properly adopted, that their adoption did not violate the Sunshine Law, and that they consequently are valid and operable.

As to the special meeting of June 29, 1976, it is not controverted that adequate notice of the time, place and location of that special meeting was given which complied with the statutory requirements. Moreover, the agenda published for said meeting included among its listed items of business the subject matter "personnel" which, in our view, was good and sufficient notice to cover these resolutions. But, even assuming that such designation was not sufficient for this purpose, the addition of these resolutions to the business encompassed by the published agenda was perfectly proper. Under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d) a public body is restricted to acting upon business set forth in its published agenda only "to the extent known" by it at the time of publication of the agenda. N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d). It is manifest from the record that the need for action on the matters in question was not known to the board until the date of the meeting.

With regard to the meeting of July 13, 1976, such meeting was a scheduled regular meeting of the board held pursuant to the annual notice given by said board. N.J.S.A. 10:4-18. As to such a scheduled regular meeting, "no further notice shall be required for such meeting." N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d). Hence, it was not a prerequisite that the board publish an agenda for that meeting and, despite the circumstance that an agenda may have been prepared and published for said meeting, the addition thereto of these resolutions as supplemental items was not improper. Crifasi v. Oakland Governing Body, 156 N.J.Super. 182, 383 A.2d 736 (App.Div.1978). If "the agenda of the nonregular meetings does not limit the matters to be considered, except to the extent known, it is apparent that an agenda issued prior to a regular meeting does not restrict the scope of that meeting." Crifasi, supra at 186, 383 A.2d at 739. It also should be noted, in passing, that the item of "personnel" was included among the matters of business listed in the published agenda for said regular meeting.

The single circumstance...