During the public comment segment, Arthur voiced his dissatisfaction with the lack of detailed information in the meeting agenda. He highlighted the absence of clickable links that could provide further details on personnel matters and other agenda items. Arthur noted the cumbersome nature of the 58-page agenda and questioned why financial decisions were not more transparent to the public. Among his financial concerns was an unspecified $112,000 listed under LMS extra pay. Arthur sought clarification on this amount and whether it was a direct payment by the district or managed by a vendor.

Arthur also questioned the cost discrepancy in the district’s bus leasing arrangements. He pointed out that while the district leased buses to Fort Lee for $125 each, it was paying $21.88 per pupil for busing, asking for an explanation of these figures. Furthermore, he sought details on the operational costs of a missing facility from the facilities report, as well as the substantial savings from a unisex bathroom project that was budgeted at $735,000 but completed for $69,000.

Aside from financial matters, Arthur expressed curiosity about the district goals, which he did not find in the agenda. He also proposed that the board consider a tuition-based arrangement for students attending Bergen Academy, noting the significant cost to the county for the students’ education. His questions extended to purchases such as Garmin watches for the cross-country team and the relocation of the weight room, asking if these were personal expenses or ongoing costs.

In response to Arthur’s extensive inquiries, a board member acknowledged that many of his questions would be better addressed by Mr. Thomasévich, who was not present at the meeting. They assured that the district goals, which Arthur had queried, would be tabled for the next meeting as they were not yet finalized. The board member also recognized the common taxpayer concerns about county tuition payments, explaining that these were regulated by county policies and thus beyond the board’s immediate control.

The meeting also covered the board’s self-evaluation results, derived from a survey conducted to assess its performance and priorities. The survey, which received seven responses, was presented in a histogram format, illustrating the board’s view of its effectiveness across various areas, including planning, policy, and student achievement. A notable observation was the board’s self-rated adequacy in student achievement, with four respondents marking it as such, highlighting the need for increased focus in that area. Furthermore, the board identified a lack of community input in defining the educational mission, linking this gap to the ongoing development of a long-term strategic plan.

The board’s operations were rated favorably, although members acknowledged the need for improvement in community engagement, hampered by low meeting attendance. Board members expressed commitment to refining their understanding of financial reports, which had received an unsatisfactory rating from one respondent.

In other business, administrative reports highlighted the successful completion of the high school gym floor replacement ahead of schedule and preparations for upcoming events such as a third strategic planning session and Spirit Week. The meeting also touched on student achievements in extracurricular activities and acknowledged the efforts of outgoing board members and newly elected officials.