The budgetary issues took center stage as the board assessed the impact of natural increases in salaries and benefits, which alone exceeded the state-mandated 2% cap on tax levy increases. These challenges are compounded by a projected 8% increase in health benefits, a $199,000 increase in transportation costs, a $633,000 increase in resource room costs for Governor Livingston High School (GL), and a $33,000 rise in other budget areas. In response to these financial pressures, the board proposed cuts that include reducing contracted mental health support from two days to one day a week, cutting $101,000 from transportation, and considering staff and benefits reductions.

Additionally, the board discussed a separate proposal to reinstate some of the cuts and enhance existing programs, which would be presented to voters in November. If approved, the proposal would lead to a total 2.3% increase in school tax, equating to an additional $142 a year for an average homeowner, while the separate proposal would add about $272 per year for the same group. The board also considered adding a part-time districtwide curriculum coordinator and a gifted and talented teacher through this separate proposal.

The public hearing on the budget is scheduled for April 30th, with the board vote set for November 5th. The board stressed the importance of public input and the opportunity for residents to vote on the reinstatement of programs and staff. The need for creative solutions in managing transportation costs was also discussed, especially in light of escalating costs due to driver shortages and a 4% administrative fee charged by Union County, which has led to an inflated fund balance of around $20 million.

Amid financial deliberations, the board addressed the rising cost of transportation, criticizing Union County for the lack of service consolidation between school districts, resulting in higher costs for the Mountainside School District. The impact of these increased transportation costs on the budget was a concern, especially given the 2% tax levy cap. The board is also exploring alternative options, including electric bus grants, to alleviate some of the budgetary pressures.

Another topic of discussion was the board’s ethical responsibilities, highlighted by a presentation from Patricia Ree of the New Jersey School Boards Association. Ree focused on the annual ethics training for school officials, emphasizing adherence to the School Ethics Act. The presentation underscored the importance of maintaining confidentiality, proper complaint escalation, and the consequences of violating the code of ethics, which can range from reprimand to removal from board membership or employment.

Discussions further delved into the nuances of social media use by board members, with the School Ethics Commission’s increased focus on adjudicating social media cases. The board members were reminded of the weight their status lends to their public statements and were advised to ensure that discussions of board issues occur at the board table to avoid potential ethics violations.

The upcoming strategic planning process was another focal point, with the board emphasizing a performance-driven approach involving staff and the community. The process will consist of three meetings aimed at identifying the district’s strengths and challenges, establishing a common vision, and defining broad goal areas. The logistics of the strategic planning meetings were debated, including the use of Chromebooks versus traditional methods, such as chart paper for small group discussions.

The board also emphasized the importance of community engagement in the strategic planning process, and outreach efforts were discussed, including sending personalized invitations to stakeholders and enticing attendance with special announcements and snacks.