Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Education Audits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Panel backs bill limiting state audit reviews for private special‑education schools

Assembly Education Committee · May 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Assembly Education Committee favorably released A1646, which sets time limits for the Department of Education to issue adverse findings from audits of approved private schools for students with disabilities; supporters said long delays have hampered accountability and driven costs.

Assemblywoman Reynolds Jackson’s Assembly Education Committee on [date not specified] voted to release Assembly Bill A1646 with committee amendments, a measure that would establish windows for the Department of Education to complete audit reviews of approved private schools for students with disabilities (APSSDs).

John Mulholland, chief executive officer of the New Jersey Association of Special Education Partner Schools, told the committee that audit reviews sometimes take “20 years or more,” which undermines accountability and forces schools to reconstruct records and pay costs that ultimately affect sending districts and taxpayers. Mulholland said A1646 would create predictability by establishing a seven‑year window for new audits and a three‑year transition period for audits pending as of the bill’s effective date; if the department takes no action within the window, the audit would be deemed approved.

Kristen Anderson, a partner at a public accounting firm serving APSSDs, said her firm has seen audits dating back to 1992 remain unresolved and noted that audit firms typically retain records for seven years, adding that prolonged reviews impose significant costs on schools and districts. Both witnesses urged the committee to adopt the bill’s amendments to balance oversight with practicality.

Committee members asked whether the three‑year transition period was sufficient and raised concerns about record retention and the ability to resolve earlier audits. Mulholland said predictability was the priority and that a three‑year phase‑in for pending cases was acceptable if it meant the bill would pass.

The committee moved and seconded the motion to amend and release A1646; voting by roll call included affirmative votes from members present and the bill was favorably released with committee amendments.

The committee indicated it will continue oversight of audit practices and record retention policies as the bill moves forward.