In a portion of the meeting, the board deliberated on the timeline for the preliminary budget presentation. The original schedule was set for March 12, but it was proposed to push this back to March 26 to allow for a more review and discussion. This adjustment was suggested to give board members and the community additional time to scrutinize the budget details before its final approval. The board discussed sending a draft to board members by March 6, allowing a window for questions and discussions. This change prompted varied opinions among board members, some of whom expressed concerns that the new schedule might limit their time for review. One member emphasized the importance of having ample time to examine the budget, stating the need for extended review before its approval.

Another member pointed out that the intention behind the adjusted schedule was to provide a more comprehensive examination period. The finance and facilities committee planned to review the budget on March 9, which would facilitate further scrutiny before the broader board meeting. The board members collectively agreed to amend the budget presentation date, aligning on a timeline that allowed for thorough evaluation and engagement with the community.

Community input was an aspect of the meeting, with residents expressing their concerns about the district’s goals and the perceived effectiveness of strategies. John Maguire, a resident, questioned the tangible outcomes of the board’s strategies, particularly in relation to student proficiency. He voiced skepticism about the timeframe for seeing results and suggested that the new budget timeline might limit public review. Board members acknowledged these concerns, clarifying that while increased student learning is the expected outcome, the direct correlation between interventions and proficiency scores within a single academic year is challenging to establish. They emphasized the focus on daily classroom activities and interventions to support struggling students.

The meeting also addressed ethical conduct among board members, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established policies and maintaining transparency while recognizing the necessity of confidentiality in specific situations. The board was reminded that their authority lies within collective governance and that personal promises or actions compromising the board’s integrity should be avoided.

A detailed presentation on ethical responsibilities underscored the importance of governance and adherence to policies, highlighting that members must act collectively rather than individually. The need for maintaining confidentiality in certain situations was stressed, and members were urged to follow the superintendent’s recommendations on personnel matters. The presentation included examples of past ethical violations to illustrate the importance of adhering to the code, reminding members to avoid actions that could compromise the board’s integrity.

Additionally, the board discussed the financial implications of pilot properties that make payments in lieu of taxes, noting that schools do not currently receive revenue from these properties. The estimated district cost due to current enrollment was reported to be approximately $1.6 million.

The board also touched upon operational updates, including the discontinuation of the School Resource Officer service, which was framed positively as a $25,000 savings for the district. There was discussion about the need for new network switches at elementary schools, with a total project cost of $43,919, and the implications of a new law banning internet-enabled devices in classrooms, which takes effect in September 2026.

Personnel matters were addressed, including the hiring of assistant coaches for boys lacrosse and a volunteer position for a girls flag football coach. The board reviewed updates to the nepotism policy and introduced a new policy addressing sexual harassment of staff.