Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and union leaders press board over cuts, benefits and a proposed six‑figure assistant BA hire
Summary
Multiple public commenters and union representatives criticized the board’s budget choices, citing 43 support‑staff vacancies, cuts to benefits affecting 20‑plus year employees, and a proposed assistant business administrator salary described by one union member as roughly $130,000; superintendent and trustees defended the budgeted role and said it was necessary for fiscal compliance.
A wave of public comment at the Washington Township board meeting focused on the district’s budget and staffing decisions, with union leaders and parents urging the board to restore benefits to long‑service support staff and to explain proposed administrative pay levels.
Shireen Ducasse, a Washington Township Education Association middle‑school officer, told trustees she was "surprised and truly surprised" to see the district considering hiring an assistant business administrator at "about a $130,000" starting salary and questioned that decision while contracts for teachers and principals remained unsettled. "Throwing money at the problem is not the solution," she said.
Angela Terusso, a retiring district employee and union leader, described the cuts as personal and immediate: she told the board there are "43 support staff job openings, 9 assistant resignations, and 2 retirements" and urged trustees to reinstate nine employees and their benefits. Terusso warned that employees who lose employer coverage face unaffordable COBRA rates and pleaded with the board to finalize decisions quickly.
Superintendent Dr. Hibbs responded that the assistant‑BA role is budgeted and that the business office has been operating short staffed for some time. "This one just isn't one of those positions that can be absorbed," he said, adding that the district had limited qualified applicants and needed capacity in accounting, benefits and payroll.
Trustees and community members also questioned where savings and new spending had been allocated: residents referenced roughly $3.1 million in out‑of‑district placements last year and asked whether bringing more services in‑house could free funds to restore benefits.
At least two board members said they voted against specific human resources hires because they thought starting salaries exceeded internal equity expectations. Board discussion included follow‑up requests for data (aggregate counts of students with 1:1 aides, unpaid lunch balances and staffing lists) and a pledge by administrators to provide those numbers to trustees.
The meeting did not finalize a district‑wide restoration of benefits; district staff said they will continue negotiations and produce further fiscal forecasts for the board’s review.
