Residents press board on special counsel hire, faith-based contractor, budget increases, parking garage and student safety

During two public-comment periods at the Jan. 27 Belleville Public School District board meeting, residents raised several substantive concerns and requested clarifications from the board and administration.

Michael Sheldon, a resident of 47 Floyd Street, asked for details about agenda item 12.39, a proposed hire of the law firm Schenk Price Smith and King as special counsel. He asked for cost estimates and said the district already works with Bush Law Group. He also raised agenda item 12.33 (which the board later tabled) and asked whether the proposed contract with Chapter Faith Based Recovery LLC—described on the agenda at $600 per week for a minimum of four to eight weeks—would be charged “per student or irrespective of the number of students involved?” Sheldon also raised questions about last year’s 6.4% tax increase and whether the board’s budget process complied with the 2% cap on property-tax increases.

Thomas Egan, the state monitor, responded during the meeting that the district’s auditor would present the completed audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 at the February meeting. The monitor also told the board that he “can certify that there’s a a review of the financial statements, that there’s sufficient funds on record and in the banks, to ensure that, all obligations will be served, through the end of the school year, and there will be no continued deficit.”

When asked about the faith-based contractor and potential constitutional concerns, a district official said they had not yet reviewed the specific agreement and could not comment on whether services as described would raise establishment-clause issues.

Other public concerns included longtime questions about the status of an $11.9 million parking garage bond (Sheldon asked whether there has been progress after two rejected bids) and a request that the board petition the commissioner to end state monitoring once the final state loan payment is made. The board’s administration confirmed the district has established procedures for responding to ICE enforcement actions and said administrators were aware of the protocols.

Another resident, Eric (address listed as 9 North 8 Street), raised safety concerns about school transportation, contending buses were not always deploying stop signs properly and reporting that he has observed enforcement officers double-parked on phones during drop-off. Eric also complained that a colleague in the police department contacted him about an email he had sent to the superintendent and asked how his name had been shared with police. The superintendent and staff denied that anyone in the superintendent’s office had released a parent’s name to police and said they would look into the matter.

Why it matters: public-comment questions seek transparency about district contracts, spending and student safety practices; several of the items mentioned—special counsel hiring, a faith-based vendor using public funds, bond-funded construction and district monitoring—have legal and fiscal implications for district governance.

What’s next: the district tabled agenda item 12.33 for further review; the auditor’s full report will be presented at the February board meeting and will provide additional detail on finances that commenters referenced.