Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves consent agenda and passes proposed 2025–26 consolidated budget 6-0; two members declared family ties to district employees
Summary
The Clarksville-Montgomery County Board of Education approved the consent agenda and voted 6-0 to approve the proposed consolidated budget for 2025–26. Board members Chris Lanier and Kent Gritti declared relatives employed by the district under T.C.A. 49-2-202 and certified they would vote in the district’s best interest.
The Clarksville-Montgomery County Board of Education approved its consent agenda and then voted to advance the proposed consolidated budget for the 2025–26 school year, recording unanimous 6-0 tallies on both items.
At the opening of the vote on the proposed 2025–26 consolidated budget, two board members made statutory disclosures. Chris Lanier said he has a relative employed by the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System and read a certification that the vote he was about to cast was “in the best interest of the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System.” Kent Gritti made a substantially similar declaration, citing T.C.A. 49-2-202 and certifying his upcoming vote would be in the district’s best interest.
Board minutes show the consent agenda passed 6-0 after a motion attributed in the meeting to Mr. Chris (recorded as Chris Lanier) with a second from Mr. Garland. The proposed consolidated budget was then moved by Mr. Garland and seconded by Mr. Chris (Chris Lanier) and passed 6-0.
Board chair and members did not record any recusals; both Lanier and Gritti completed the statutory certification language required by the state statute cited in the meeting. No amendments to the budget motion were recorded in the meeting minutes or the transcript excerpt.
Following the votes, the board proceeded to the remainder of the agenda, including liaison remarks from Fort Campbell and the director of schools’ report on end-of-year testing and upcoming events.
The meeting record provided no additional budget detail in the public portion of the transcript excerpt beyond the vote; the board did not read a line-by-line budget in the excerpt. The full proposed budget documents and any supporting analysis were not part of the transcript and were not specified in the remarks during the vote on the record.
