Public commenters press board over budget and layoffs; board approves minutes and moves packet after debate over item 28

During the May 13 Paterson Public School District meeting, public commenters pressed the board on the district operating budget and recent staff reductions while the board proceeded through routine business and a packet of resolutions.

Rosie Grant of the Patterson Education Fund read an analysis of the district’s 2026–27 operating budget into the record and said the Fund’s write-up would be posted on its website. Grant said, as read into the record, that “the Patterson board approved an operating budget totaling 851,897,398” and characterized the budget as a decrease of more than $9,100,000 from the current year’s revised budget; she said the district planned to reduce staffing by about 332 total positions including teachers and non‑certified employees. (These are the figures she read into the record.)

Joanne Cardillo and Alexander Cardillo made public comments calling for fair process and for resolution of personnel disputes tied to 2019 staffing actions; Joanne Cardillo specifically requested transparency around prior district decisions and potential follow-up with state offices to obtain written clarifications.

Procedural votes recorded in the transcript: a motion to open the public comment period was moved and approved by roll call (recorded in the transcript as nine affirmative). After the public commenters finished, a motion to close public comments was moved, seconded and approved by roll call (recorded as nine affirmative). The board then approved minutes for several April meetings by roll call (recorded as nine affirmative).

The board moved to vote on Resolutions 1–79 (instruction, programming, operations, fiscal management, personnel and governance, plus added items). Commissioner Simmons asked administrators to clarify whether proposed programming in items IMP 78 and IMP 79 would serve students with IEPs and how the district addresses least restrictive environment under NJAC and federal law; Assistant Coy confirmed these programs would enroll students with IEPs and said “public separate” schools are allowable under code and not private placements. Board members also discussed transportation routing and were told routing is being planned so bids can go out and routing items will be on the June agenda.

Several commissioners expressed opposition specifically to item 28, citing timing and concerns given recent layoffs and facility-use questions. The transcript records multiple individual "no" votes on item 28; the board discussion and roll call show split opinions on that line item during the packet vote.

Why it matters: Public comment highlighted community concern about staff reductions and how the district allocates school-based budgets. The discussion over items tied to special-education programming and a contested facilities item (item 28) shows the board is weighing program placement, transportation logistics and community reaction at the same time it finalizes fiscal and personnel resolutions.

Provenance: Public comments SEG 760–938; procedural motions and votes SEG 716–759 and SEG 940–1013; resolutions discussion SEG 1014–1256.