Residents fault Lacey School District transparency after $92 million referendum fails; committee hears criticism

Several residents used the Lacey Township Committee’s March 13 public-comment period to criticize the Lacey Township School District over a $92,000,000 bond referendum defeated by voters on March 11 and to call for greater transparency and accountability.

Regina DeCenzo, identified as a Sunset Drive resident, told the committee that 5,544 people voted in the district referendum and that 2,876 voted against the bond. She said the district did not provide a detailed cost breakdown for 19 projects included in the referendum and that an open-records request she filed with the district on Jan. 30 was refused. DeCenzo said she later obtained approval letters and other documents from the New Jersey Department of Education that listed project costs; she said the documents she found did not match the materials the district presented publicly.

A second speaker identified in the record as Mister Bidnick said he was a prominent opponent of the referendum and described organizing informational efforts that he said exposed deficiencies in the district’s presentation to voters. Bidnick told the committee he and others used public-records requests to obtain project cost estimates, and he said the school board spent roughly $130,000 promoting the referendum. He urged greater transparency and said he will attend the Board of Education meeting scheduled for March 18. Bidnick and DeCenzo both said some district communications and decision-making were carried out without adequate public disclosure and called for accountability from school-board leadership.

Committee members responded that liaison meetings and other private communications with the district take place and said committee members attend or watch school-board meetings; they encouraged residents to attend the Board of Education meeting. A committee member described longstanding liaison practices and noted that many township committee members have in the past served on the school board and that liaisons try not to “step on each other’s toes.”

Another member of the public asked for an update on litigation with Holtec related to storage of spent-fuel casks. Committee members replied that the township has prevailed at trial on an assessability issue, that the decision is publicly available, and that Holtec is likely to appeal; committee members said the township remains in litigation and the case is expected to continue.

Speakers repeatedly asked the township committee to monitor and, where appropriate, press for answers from the school board. Committee members urged residents to use the school board’s posted schedule and to attend its meetings; they said liaison communications and informal contacts between the bodies occur but that the school board is an independently elected body.