Berkeley Heights BOE Passes Preliminary Budget With Sharp Questions Still Unanswered

Laura’s Notes on the 03/26/2026 BHPSNJ BOE Meeting

The public Budget Presentation was the main subject during the 3/26/26 BOE meeting.

Luckily, members of Town Council, escorted by the Mayor and her husband, did not storm the meeting this year.

The Superintendent opened the budget presentation reiterating the District’s commitment to student learning and academic achievement, supporting and retaining high-quality staff, safe and functional facilities, and transparency and fiscal responsibility. The budget was as comprehensive as we have come to expect but felt short – as it usually does, in addressing how the district plans to address student academic achievement and proficiency.

Dillon raised public awareness for the lack of clarity in the budget presentation on the actual budget increase residents will face in the aftermath of the passing of the Referendum. Although the district utilized the state’s 2% cap, there is an additional 1.03% of tax impact due to the referendum making the total increase 3.03%. BOE members seemed interested in keeping this percentage below 3% in the coming years to be more aligned with the state’s max cap even though we are embarking on several capital projects.

The preliminary budget ultimately passed with Dillon and Akiri casting opposing votes, not supporting the current budget.

Dillon commented that while he appreciates the efforts made by the Business Office, the spending at GL in particular has reached exorbitant levels and supporting the budget and current spending is enabling the continuance of this frivolous spending. And similar to JP’s comments later on, there has been no answer as to why the costs continue to skyrocket when enrollment continues to decline. Akiri echoed Dillon’s comments citing the top-heavy administration at GL as compared to other schools.

Stanley raised concerns regarding the annual budget cuts our Principals are required to make each year, and cited school PTOs and BHEF as large reasons programs and supplies have remained steady. While she believes the budget is balanced and fair, she wants the Board to address the ongoing cuts at the building levels that have been consistent over the years. Stanley also warned of a fiscal cliff – which was a manufactured crisis by the former administration to provide rationale for firing program Directors while failing to address continuing to hire a top-heavy administration.

During public comments, JP spoke about the importance of comparing our per pupil costs to other districts in connection to better understanding where our shortcomings may be. He asked, as he has done before, the reasoning and research to support allocating $400,000 on security when we should be cutting back on excessive spending and putting money into areas, like tutoring, that will actually help our student academic success. As per usual, none of his questions or concerns were addressed, but a follow-up was promised. At the time of this publication, JP has not heard from the BOE or District.

Finance Committee reported discussing a letter received from the Town Council and are negotiating terms to require having PILOTs be contractually obligated to allocate funds to school districts. The committee will be meeting with the Referendum bond counsel to discuss tax impacts and the sale of the bonds which is tentatively scheduled for April 30.

Athletics Committee discussed that the life of the turf field is coming to an end (2027-2028) and that conversations need to start happening about the future of the field and make plans. Press Box completion, blue gym floors, and wrestling room floors were all discussed as upcoming projects.

Ms. Akiri questioned a line item in the bill list ($1700) for what appeared to be a new GL logo. It was stated that the athletic director was behind said logo, but no further details were made. If GLHS is getting a new logo, this will mark the second occurrence in which a new Administrator (in the last 2 cases, Principals) are hired and almost immediately a new school logo is introduced. Although I know nothing about this logo or if it’s solely tied to sports, I can say as a current GLHS parent with children in sports, there was no survey or stakeholder conversation about any new or revamping of a logo.

The Board discussed a software subscription (Gaggle) to monitor and flag potential mental health issues relating to self-harm on student- and staff-issued devices. The Board ultimately tabled voting to approve any resolution to acquire the software as several questions remained. During the public comment, JP raised concerns regarding the people filtering students’ private searches and emails, and how they will (or will not) be vetted and who is ultimately gatekeeping the information.

JP also asked, “on a concrete level,” what steps are being taken to help improve student proficiency now that the Referendum has passed. Again, no response during the meeting and nothing to date.

Stanley raised a question about whether the state has a required amount of students present to count towards the 180. No one present knew the answer. Akiri commented that several parents were unhappy with only CMS having to attend a half-day on the first day of Spring Break, especially since the closure occurred so close to spring break. Everyone agreed that the circumstance was unfortunate, but due to the BHEA contract and the adopted calendar, the District had no options.