A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to addressing confusion surrounding the bond referendum, particularly due to a mistake by the media company involved in promoting it. The architectural firm responsible for the bond plans had engaged a media group to produce promotional content, including videos and drone footage. This expense was clarified as part of the referendum’s overall cost, not drawn from the school’s current budget. However, the media group inadvertently linked some advertisements to local political action committees, causing confusion about the school district’s involvement. Immediate corrective action was taken to redirect the advertisements to the appropriate school district website. A board member emphasized, “Collingswood Public Schools is not connected to any of the political action committees.”

The discussion then moved to the procedural management of the referendum within the school board. An ad hoc committee was created to assess long-term facilities needs, and a plan was developed and presented to the full board. This process follows established protocols for board operations, with issues or suggestions typically funneled through committee chairs before reaching the entire board. The board sought legal counsel regarding their ability to advocate for the referendum after voting in favor of it. The attorney confirmed that while school resources could not be used for campaigning, individual board members, as private citizens, could express their support for the referendum based on their affirmative vote.

The topic of appropriate advocacy was emphasized, noting that board members could not publicly oppose a decision once a vote is taken. An example related to the hiring of a School Liaison Officer was given to illustrate that further public dissent is not permitted after a vote. A resolution on the agenda aimed to clarify the extent to which board members could advocate for a favorable vote on the referendum.

One speaker highlighted the importance of inclusion in educational programs, expressing frustration over perceived assumptions about student capabilities and the lack of appropriate programs for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Another resident criticized the mayor’s opposition to the referendum, emphasizing the need for investment in local schools and pointing to recent incidents of racism within the district.

Further, a parent and PTA member questioned the board’s resolution advocating for the referendum, expressing concern over the district’s hiring practices and high starting salaries for new teachers amidst budget deficits that led to staff reductions. Another speaker voiced concerns over transparency and the need for all viewpoints, both for and against the referendum, to be freely expressed.

The superintendent highlighted the referendum process’s future-oriented implications, noting that it requires “flexibility” and “planning” in accordance with state rules and available resources. The proposal, stemming from community feedback and the Vision 2026 plan, aims to address both minor and significant challenges communicated by community members.

The superintendent’s report announced a special election set for September 17, detailing polling hours and ballot submission options. Community engagement was emphasized with an upcoming event at the Perkins Center for the Arts, aimed at fostering intimate discussions among residents regarding the school district’s future.

In other notable updates, the district office successfully leveraged regional partnerships to secure over $7 million in competitive grants to alleviate budget issues. The board expressed gratitude toward Jefferson Health for donating 250 backpacks filled with school supplies to students in need and CMI Media Group for contributing office supplies and flat-screen monitors. A significant donation involved over 900 slightly used Chromebooks from the local Red Cross, addressing digital accessibility issues for students.

During public comments, several community members voiced their concerns regarding the board’s priorities and actions. One speaker criticized the board for focusing on renovations to the stadium and updates to the elementary school system while neglecting to finalize a union contract for veteran teachers. Another resident raised ethical concerns about the board’s handling of the referendum, pointing to a perceived erosion of trust over the past six months.

In response to public comments, a board member emphasized the importance of clear communication, noting that sometimes it takes multiple repetitions to ensure the public understands the proposed referendum’s details. The board reiterated the need for transparency and ethical responsibility in their communications with the community.