The opinion
Justice RIVERA-SOTO,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
To the extent the majority holds that “N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6 does not mandate that [a board of education] indemnify its attorney for the defense of a civil action against him in his capacity as Board solicitor[,]” and that this Board attorney is not entitled to insurance coverage for his actions as Board solicitor, ante at 324, 938 A.2d at 925, I concur with the majority’s reasoning and result.
*328 However, to the extent the majority also holds that “because the Board’s attorney in this case was also sued in his capacity as secretary pro tern to the Board, he is entitled to indemnification for his conduct in that position” and that “he is entitled to insurance coverage as a volunteer in acting as secretary[,]” ibid., I respectfully dissent substantially for the reasons so cogently stated by Judge Payne in her opinion below, Sahli v. Woodbine Bd. of Ed., 386 N.J.Super. 533 , 902 A.2d 296 (App.Div.2006).
For affirmance in part/reversal in part/remandment —Chief Justice RABNER, and Justices LaVECCHIA, WALLACE and HOENS—4.
Concurring in part; dissenting in part III A—Justices LONG and ALBIN—2.
Concurring in part/dissenting in parts IIIB & TV — Justice RIVERA-SOTO — 1.