Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press board on private‑school bus stipend and call for reconsideration of state transgender guidance (policy 57‑56)
Summary
Public commenters raised two sustained concerns: a Sayreville resident said the business office failed to deliver a required form and withheld a private‑school busing stipend; multiple residents urged the board to rescind or amend NJDOE transgender guidance referenced as 'policy 57‑56', while others defended student protections.
Get email alerts on the Public Comments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Christian Mercado, a Sayreville resident, addressed the board during public comment saying his children attend private school and that he is owed a $1,000 busing stipend per child. Mercado said the district failed to provide a required form, that his follow‑up contacts to the business administrator went unanswered, and that the district later told him the fiscal year was closed and the stipend could not be paid. He asked the board not to "penalize families for breakdowns they didn't cause" and said he would follow up individually with board members until the issue is resolved.
Several residents then addressed policy 57‑56, which they described as New Jersey Department of Education guidance related to transgender students. Teresa Focarelli and Joe Campania argued that the guidance infringes parental rights and urged the board to rescind or amend it and to involve parents in tailoring district policy. They cited concerns about confidentiality procedures described in the guidance, questioning whether separate confidential files and limits on disclosure to parents were appropriate.
Other speakers — including Lisa Reback and a series of residents — urged the board to balance parental involvement with students' rights and privacy. Reback asked critics to propose alternatives to the state guidance and said the board and staff do important work beyond this recurring debate. Several commenters expressed emotional appeals about protecting students, opposing secrecy, and seeking clarity in the code of conduct and notification procedures.
Board members did not announce a vote on policy 57‑56 during this meeting; the public record shows multiple speakers on both sides and a call for further review and parental engagement.

