Parents and residents press Belleville board on OPRA costs, tech purchases and a faith-based vendor

Several residents used public comment at the Belleville Board of Education meeting on June 16 to press the board and administration for more transparency about public-records costs and the district’s recent procurement and contracting decisions.

The concerns centered on what speakers described as large OPRA fees for records requests, the details of high-value technology purchases listed on the agenda, and a proposed partnership with a faith-based recovery provider that will receive public funds.

Why it matters: Speakers said unanswered questions about contracts and fees undermine public trust and make it difficult for taxpayers to evaluate how district funds are spent. Board action that night approved a slate of personnel and purchasing resolutions that supporters said were routine but that critics said required clearer public documentation.

Resident Vincent Frantantoni noted the district’s budget growth since the previous superintendent’s tenure and raised OPRA costs, saying in public comment that he had asked for a “simple” answer via OPRA and received a one-sentence response that cost $275 in legal fees. Michael Mignone, a resident, and Michael Sheldon, another resident who identified several specific agenda items, urged the board to provide more information on agenda listings before votes.

Sheldon asked about several specific purchasing items listed in the business services section of the agenda, including: - A $999,749.82 line item for Chromebooks (agenda item 12.62) where he said the agenda did not list quantity or model; - A $165,600 purchase for teacher laptops (agenda item 12.43) with no quantity or model indicated; - A $217,000 purchase from MRA International for about 60 desktop PCs (agenda item 12.36); and - A $182,731 one-year camera license for MindsEye Technology (agenda item 12.32).

Interim Superintendent Nick Peripato and other staff answered questions about the technology purchases during the meeting. Peripato said the Chromebook order covered student devices and identified the student devices as 11.6-inch touchscreen convertible Chromebooks; he said the teacher laptops were HP ProBook models with warranties and that the desktop PCs were replacement units for two STEM labs. Peripato also said some purchases would use Title funds. The district characterized the MindsEye line as an annual license to operate cameras already deployed across the district.

On the agenda was a partnership described as New Chapter Faith Based Recovery LLC, which commenters said is a religious organization. Sheldon asked how the district would ensure compliance with the state’s requirement that publicly funded programs remain secular. In response, a district representative said arrangements and contractual clauses can be used to preserve a secular education and that the district would include monitoring and contractual safeguards; the district noted that for the coming year the program’s expenditure had so far been limited to about $5,000.

Several residents asked whether the superintendent’s final signed contract would be posted online. Peripato said the board was separately approving the contract as a separate agenda item and said the contract presented was the same as the version approved at the prior meeting; he also said citizens could submit an OPRA request for the signed document.

Action taken: the board voted to approve personnel resolutions 9.1–9.46 (with two personnel items tabled), purchasing/business services items 12.1–12.79, curriculum item 10.1, board policy items 11.1–11.13 and finance items 13.1–13.15 (see “Votes at a glance”). Roll-call votes recorded each trustee voting yes on those grouped resolutions.

What the board said about transparency: Board officers and the interim superintendent acknowledged the public’s questions and said they would follow up. The state monitor and legal counsel said some record requests require review before release and that costs can reflect staff time to produce and redact records; the board indicated it would consider posting contracts and policy drafts to make routine documents more accessible.

What remains unresolved: Speakers sought more detailed line-item documentation on high-value purchases in future agendas (models, unit counts and funding sources) and a clear, public monitoring plan for any faith-based provider receiving public funds. The board did not change agenda language that night but said staff would provide follow-up information.

Ending: Several audience members said they would continue to seek copies of contracts and procurement details; the board and administration said they would respond to written requests and review posting practices for key documents.