[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6256976,"mediaKeyId","3155150-32e8e3467a3114bb8ba93e24bd007da0","parentId",3155150,"title","Washington Township board rejects tentative budget after hours of public testimony about staff cuts, sports and programs","audioSeconds",4495,"startMs",5160000,"endMs",9655000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3155150-32e8e3467a3114bb8ba93e24bd007da0&start=5160&end=9655","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3155150-32e8e3467a3114bb8ba93e24bd007da0/thumbnail_5160000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6256976/New-Jersey/Washington-Township-board-rejects-tentative-budget-after-hours-of-public-testimony-about-staff-cuts-sports-and-programs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6256976-0d08761f9a5337e4c4ca24ba9ece4436/orig.mp4?Expires=1771017490&Signature=JTKqlIl8Qd1auPaovdgMnaDPnm97c60U-PFlfZCvz6KLc4N1s4PR1X-ExDVID0bUgMppeFiinuvqSj-ksYvvJwj~--Pod25sZ2yi8ob7FyqP~cqoGmj9jWPBvyqXaSqo5vz6kdBkPzpqH7kE5xTEeq~QypKs7qpSX7Cs0xWNT0sELFt1sHpQ6gQQEvA4p0Df7k17734gBrryFbNFEOIKeZJRCugR8CPZu1qJv8aqN-QVJmQowlKelfQ3SXlwTIMCKgqS8llWGNMaG-9F4GUXWU8nvwMck1-~ItvQiih0A9ZP~sEOR6mH8KutqKLahYjzhu0mA0COD7N94M5yH7hyKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington Township School District","date","2025-04-30T04:24:36Z","article","The Washington Township School District board failed to carry its tentative 2025–26 budget (agenda item 27) after a lengthy public hearing in which dozens of parents, staff and residents urged the board to protect support staff and student programs.

The budget was presented as part of a slate of finance and facilities items; board members moved to approve items 1 through 28, including the budget (item 27). Public comment was dominated by concerns about reductions in hours and positions for support staff, possible elimination or fees for middle-school sports, out-of-district special-education tuition, and the process the board used to review the budget.

Employees and parents said cuts will harm students. Angela Teruso, identified in public comment as a district support-staff member, told the board: “Reduction in hours for 75 support staff members. And positions eliminated. So I guess I would like to have clarification on exactly what positions have reduction in hours…because basically that means that you're taking benefits away.” Several commenters said a reduction by as little as 15 minutes per day can cost workers benefits and pension eligibility.

Residents asked for details on proposed pay‑to‑play sports fees and gate revenues; Randy Ford asked where the district’s projected $150,000 in pay‑to‑play revenue came from. Business administrator Janine (last name not specified in transcript) said the district used conservative estimates based on current athlete counts and neighboring districts’ models and that specific sports subject to pay‑to‑play were still being finalized; she also said communications would follow with which sports and fees would apply.

Multiple commenters raised the district’s out‑of‑district tuition line (one speaker referenced “$9,000,000 of tuition” shown in a presentation) and urged shifting resources to keep specialized programs in-district when possible. The assistant superintendent for special education and student services described efforts to bring students back in‑district and to expand specialized programming, but also noted physical space and staffing limits for certain special‑education placements.

Board discussion after public comment addressed process and next steps. The transcript shows the board moved to approve the slate but then voted on item 27 (the budget) by roll call. The public transcript repeatedly records members saying they would vote “no” on item 27; the moderator announced, “Number 27 did not carry.” After the vote the board president and administrators said they would consult the county superintendent and schedule a special meeting; the county superintendent typically requires immediate follow-up if a tentative budget is not adopted.

What the board will do next: administrators said the county superintendent is likely to require the board to hold a special meeting before the New Jersey deadline (noted in the meeting as May 7) to attempt to resolve the budget. Board and district leaders told the public they would meet with staff and the administration to identify next steps, and administrators warned that notices to some staff could be mailed while the board works through a revised budget plan.

Ending: The board did not adopt the tentative budget. The meeting record captures the public testimony, the board’s roll-call vote on item 27, and administrators’ statements that they will work with the county superintendent and schedule follow-up meetings to produce a revised plan for the community’s review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Washington Township Public Schools Board of Education 4/29/25","oneSentenceSummary","The Washington Township School District board failed to pass the district’s tentative 2025–26 budget (agenda item 27) after extensive public comment about cuts to support staff, sports and student programs.","taxTitle","Washington Township School District, School Districts, New Jersey","taxId",38343,"location","New Jersey","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6256980,"Board revisits policy barring same firm from serving as solicitor and negotiator; motion made to undo prior suspension",81,4350000,4431000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3155150-32e8e3467a3114bb8ba93e24bd007da0&start=4350&end=4431","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3155150-32e8e3467a3114bb8ba93e24bd007da0/thumbnail_4350000.jpg","/articles/6256980/New-Jersey/Board-revisits-policy-barring-same-firm-from-serving-as-solicitor-and-negotiator-motion-made-to-undo-prior-suspension","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6256980-abf740323ec799ba5627bfd0ab3938bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771017490&Signature=RJ3GIgfCFqwrV6bwmbNhfVdd2lrZHhd66Y8ZUzz76bI312Kxgd427nycbntj7ukv-qOkT4FmlNSAbAz6fFokazK~j~go1~cnH7nYQ9sWPbyJi24PcwScTgS0bzo6wcV0Q2BZ~r-HcoxKhEz2GXJ-ZIsIvsGM538F0Mlx~VeIdHq~7eNd9THf5o4~6rIC-9G2ExM8HDWI3PIfOOXpLXtavWuWXS0uqtS~2xlPmsClrT~J1SQUH8yxYwnWRmUXxmiRRy--1GQpQSGM2WPVjzpxhL2xiN9AOdQZ061Ozwy08umVmW2MFn4Q74AiImqB7GDiwT1PbnQjTGmoVbmXlJQEcQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A board member moved during the public meeting to undo a prior suspension of Policy 0-1-7-6, the district policy that states the solicitor and the negotiator should not be the same attorney.

The motion to rescind the suspension was introduced by a board member who told the meeting the policy “basically says our solicitor and our negotiator should not be the same attorney” and that they were not comfortable continuing without further advice from conflict counsel. Elaine seconded that motion.

Board solicitor Ari Schneider told the board the policy is not uniformly applied across districts and that the practice of using a single attorney as both solicitor and negotiator is not legally forbidden. He explained there are trade-offs and a risk of perceived conflict: “The key issue is conflict of interest… Their duties as solicitor providing legal advice to the board clashes with the role as negotiator.” Schneider recommended the board consider whether separate counsel is preferable in negotiations to avoid conflicts or the appearance of impropriety.

After discussion, a motion to put the issue back in effect until the board could discuss it further with conflict counsel and to consider the policy in committee was made and seconded. The board took a roll-call vote during the public session; the transcript records the following votes for the motion to reinstate the policy (or to rescind the action suspending it): Mrs. Blum — No; Mrs. Clancy — Yes; Miss Chiller — Yes; Mrs. Hartung — Yes; Mr. LaLiberty — Yes; Mr. Serrano — No; Mr. Ross — No; Mrs. Baker — No. The transcript records these individual votes but does not contain an explicit announcement of the final motion result in the public portion of the transcript immediately afterward.

Board members and multiple public speakers stressed that the policy has historical roots tied to earlier district practice and concerns about perceived conflicts if one attorney represents the board in both roles. One public commenter recounted historical reasons for the policy and cautioned the board that a solicitor might be perceived as defending actions they previously advised on if a subsequent dispute arose.

Ending: The board directed that the policy be discussed further with conflict counsel in executive session or committee; the public transcript documents the motion, the roll-call votes listed above, and the solicitor’s statement on conflict risks but does not contain the closed-session legal advice or any final public vote to change policy.","Board members debated undoing a recent suspension of Policy 0176, which states the board solicitor and labor negotiator should not be the same attorney. A motion to restore the policy was made and seconded and board members voted in a roll-call recorded in the public transcript; the board deferred deeper legal discussion to executive session.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6256985,"Board debates rescinding earlier actions taken under doctrine of necessity after School Ethics Commission advisory",1034,3259000,4293000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3155150-32e8e3467a3114bb8ba93e24bd007da0&start=3259&end=4293","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3155150-32e8e3467a3114bb8ba93e24bd007da0/thumbnail_3259000.jpg","/articles/6256985/New-Jersey/Board-debates-rescinding-earlier-actions-taken-under-doctrine-of-necessity-after-School-Ethics-Commission-advisory","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6256985-865228b915b816464f9a4ea4c551c6af/orig.mp4?Expires=1771017490&Signature=H8SpAQxfaKq-mIAEWRRyJ1vBO1jGlr1opZ7XZcdYZkj1UTgpgunmM1xcIRRvnWtf7zWF7j8n1tpt6N6ep7EgJJxS2-vXnQrjdxd1ttrJZStSDKlg72UWPVGj~jsIHLtZ-G1V4TFta6uuSuzHW8YeaaL641nOqYX96DGVgqDrkwaSi9AFGVB7RcXWf3kME8DfFGebufwricl5b4NKXje2LQXtxKgogKWGd4qEeMTLIG53xIjrKvgRQmBgyNXgQWGG1iYaaKdrXgvjuk57k4g4kt9RJ9pTofnoiqk832vhTpIj3kVGPEwvKpYin5ct2EsX2h~avI6dqTWbs4FhBSAFkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A board member moved Monday to rescind actions the Washington Township School District board took under the “doctrine of necessity,” saying an advisory opinion from the New Jersey School Ethics Commission indicated two previously conflicted members were no longer conflicted.

The motion was seconded and followed by discussion about whether the subject required attorney–client advice in executive session rather than public debate.

The motion to rescind was introduced by a board member who said, “I would like to make a motion that we rescind the actions that we took under that doctrine of necessity because the conflicts that we thought there really weren't there.” Elaine (board member) seconded that motion and asked for discussion. The board solicitor, Ari Schneider, told the board he could give legal advice only in executive session: “If you guys want me to respond, we need to go into executive session and have that discussion…any response for me would be solely legal advice at this point.”

Board member Carol Chilla said she had requested and received an advisory opinion from the School Ethics Commission and summarized the document for the board, saying the advisory “says, you do not have an automatic conflict related to matters involving the superintendent,” while also noting it found conflicts related to matters involving the WTEA (Washington Township Education Association). Chilla told the board she asked for the advisory because she had been told on March 18 she was conflicted and wanted clarity.

After discussion and additional procedural motions, the board took a roll-call on whether to go into executive session to discuss the legal advice. The roll call statements recorded on the transcript were: Mrs. Baker: No; Mrs. Blum: Abstain; Mrs. Clancy: Yes; Mrs. Chillo (Carol Chilla): Yes; Mrs. Hartung: Abstain; Mr. LaLiberty: Yes; Mr. Serrano: No; Mr. Ross: No; Miss Chazempo: Abstain. A board member then summarized the tally as “4 abstentions, 3 yes’s, and 2 no’s,” and said, “We will discuss this in executive.”

What the transcript shows and what it does not: the public discussion in the transcript includes quoted attorney guidance that legal advice must be given in executive session; the transcript contains the advisory-opinion excerpt read by Chilla and the roll call on going into executive. The transcript does not contain the contents of any attorney–client advice (Schneider declined to give legal advice in public), nor does it show the outcome of any hypothetical motion to rescind the prior actions; board members moved to table or to take the matter into executive, and the record shows the motion to take up legal discussion in executive was put to a roll call as recorded above.

The board did not take further public action on rescinding or reinstating any specific prior personnel decisions during the public session; officials said they would address legal questions in executive session and that any actionable result would be disclosed later if the board chose to take public action.

Ending: The board chair scheduled an executive session to receive attorney–client advice and directed that any public action following that session would be announced at a later public meeting or at the resumption of this meeting.","A Washington Township School Board member moved to rescind actions taken under the \"doctrine of necessity\" after an advisory opinion from the School Ethics Commission said two members were no longer conflicted; the board tabled substantive legal discussion for executive session and recorded a roll-call about going into executive for legal advice.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Washington Township board rejects tentative budget after hours of public testimony about staff cuts, sports and programs

Board revisits policy barring same firm from serving as solicitor and negotiator; motion made to undo prior suspension

Board debates rescinding earlier actions taken under doctrine of necessity after School Ethics Commission advisory