Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board declines motion to force public forum on outside budget analysis
Loading...
Summary
After a presentation by the WTEA alleging the district had excess audited revenue, the board debated and voted down a proposal to have the analyst and district auditors meet in public to reconcile the figures; supporters pressed for transparency while administrators said the district has no 'hidden money.'
The Washington Township School District board rejected a motion to require an outside analyst and district auditors to present and debate a recent financial analysis in public, following nearly two hours of public comment and board discussion.
Jerry Taraschi, president of the Washington Township Education Association, read an analysis compiled by an NJEA researcher that he said showed the district had $4,747,117 above the statutory 2% cap and other apparent surpluses. "We have asked that Mr. Yorty be given the opportunity to meet with the board but to no avail," Taraschi said as he urged a public review of the figures.
Supporters of Taraschi’s request argued the public deserves transparent explanations. A board member moved to have the analyst, a board member named Wechter and the district auditor meet in public so the numbers could be presented and questioned; that motion was followed by a separate procedural motion to go into executive session to discuss legal implications.
Dr. Hibbs, the superintendent, disputed the implication that money was being hidden. He told the board that the district’s annual audit and routine budget presentations show how surplus and fund-balance figures are recorded, and he warned that some of the figures in the packet had been discussed in prior years. "There is no hidden money," Dr. Hibbs said, noting that surplus is subject to statutory limits and that some surplus amounts must be budgeted and cannot be retained indefinitely.
The board voted on the executive-session motion and later on the request to convene the public meeting; the motion to require the public meeting did not carry. Roll-call responses recorded in the transcript included votes of Yes from Ross, Serrano and Baker and No votes from Hartung, Laliberte, Schechter and Clancy, with Kuzempel and Bloom recorded as abstaining. The board chair declared the motion did not carry.
Board members who opposed the motion cited procedural and legal concerns, noting that similar materials had been discussed in committee and that the district’s independent auditors had reviewed the books. Members who supported the idea said a public forum would let the community hear both the analysis and the district’s explanations. The board did not adopt any new requirement to host a special public hearing with the outside analyst; members said Mr. Yorty could speak during the regular public comment period at an upcoming budget hearing if he chose to attend.
The board moved on to other agenda items after the vote; no further formal action was taken that night on the outside analysis request.
