Pleasantville Board approves preliminary budget for county review, adopts travel limits

Pleasantville Board of Education members on March 18 unanimously approved a preliminary school budget for submission to Atlantic County and adopted a cap on maximum travel expenditures, motions that the board approved by roll call during a special meeting at the Administration Building.

The votes forward the district's preliminary budget to the county for review; board members said the district will hold a later special meeting to present the budget to the public before final adoption. During public comment, resident John Page urged the board to use a robocall to notify residents when that public presentation is scheduled.

The board approved agenda item 2.1, described in the meeting as the preliminary school budget for submission. The motion to approve 2.1 was made by Miss Akins and seconded by Miss Alberto. A roll-call vote recorded yes votes from Miss Alberto, Mister Gibson, Miss Akins, Miss Mello, Miss Silver, Miss King and Miss Rowland; the motion carried.

A separate motion concerning maximum travel expenditures (agenda item 2.2) was introduced by Mister Gibson with a second from Miss Akins. After a brief procedural clarification and a rescind/recast of an earlier motion, the board voted on a motion to approve items 2.2 and 2.3 together. That combined motion, moved by Mister Gibson and seconded by Miss Akins, passed by roll call with the same recorded yes votes: Miss Alberto, Mister Gibson, Miss Akins, Miss Mello, Miss Silver, Miss King and Miss Rowland.

During public comment, John Page urged the board to notify Pleasantville residents by robocall when the district presents the budget to the public. "Please give a robocall to the citizens of Pleasantville when you have an important meeting like tonight talking about the budget," Page said, adding that parents need to know when the board will present its projection for next year.

Board members responded that the purpose of the March 18 meeting was to approve the budget for submission to the county; they said a subsequent special meeting would allow for public explanation and notification. A member of the public also asked why a newly appointed board member had not been sworn in; a board official said the appointee must complete fingerprinting before being sworn in.

The meeting concluded with routine board comments and a motion to adjourn that carried unanimously. The board did not specify the date of the later public presentation; attendees were told the district will schedule a special meeting after the county review and provide public notice at that time.