For the first time since the defeat of the school district’s 2018 referendum, the board discussed how to move forward with a new referendum in 2020.
Almost a month after voters rejected Cherry Hill Public Schools’ three-question, $210 million bond referendum, the board of education began discussions on going back out for a second referendum at last Tuesday’s board work session.
However, it doesn’t appear residents will be going out again to vote on a new referendum this year.
At last Tuesday’s meeting, the board looked at a recommended timeline from school administrators and discussed ways to have board and community discussion on what a future bond would look like.
The proposed timeline for school administrators would target a new bond referendum to take place in September 2020. Board president Eric Goodwin said one of the reasons for the extended timeline was to allow for plenty of public discussion on the bond throughout 2019.
Part of the extended timeline also has the district submitting project applications to the state in January 2020, about eight months prior to a possible vote. In 2018, the district submitted project applications to the state about six months prior to its planned September vote. The vote was later pushed back after the state Department of Education took longer than expected to respond to the applications.
“In order to make sure that we don’t run into that situation again, we thought it would be prudent to build some extra time into the timeline,” Assistant Superintendent for Business Lynn Shugars said. “We would be approving the project applications around this time next year.”
A few board members, including Edward Wang and David Rossi, expressed some concerns about having the vote in September. Rossi questioned having the referendum in September as opposed to the General Election date in 2020. Superintendent Joe Meloche noted there would be a presidential election in 2020 and, said administration doesn’t want the referendum to get lost on the ballot. Meloche stated the same reasons for the district not having its 2018 referendum on the General Election date.
Rossi had a different point of view on holding the election on Election Day.
“Given the fact that 2020 might have historic turnouts at the polls, it might be a way of looking at capitalizing on that … and really put a bond out that a lot of people will come out to vote for,” Rossi said.
After a short discussion on the timeline, all nine board members were given an opportunity to share their vision on how the board and the community’s input could be best received in building a new bond. Many of the board members agreed on a few themes, including getting more public input, forming a committee full of community stakeholders, embracing social media and allowing the full board to have more discussions on the project.
The formation of an ad-hoc committee consisting of both school officials and community members was an idea many board members embraced. A few board members believed the district had to be careful with getting a wide representation of people for the committee. Board vice president Lisa Saidel said the committee needed to consist of stakeholders ranging everywhere from board members and school administrators to teachers, students and community members who were both for and against the previous bond. Board member Laurie Neary added she felt the public should know exactly who is on a committee if it is formed.
A few board members also suggested encouraging more public comment at regular board meetings. Rossi and Wang both suggested changing board bylaws to allow the public to comment on the referendum during the first and second public comment periods at the meetings. Currently, the board only allows the public to comment on action items in its agenda during the first public comment.
“If we have this item on the board meeting agenda, then I think the public can make comments in the first public session so we can get ideas,” Wang said.
“Maybe we look at that and we make a temporary bylaw to allow community members to address the bond issue up front,” Rossi added.
Other board members, such as Jane Scarpellino, expressed concern about allowing additional public comment at board meetings, stating she didn’t feel the structure of the meeting made it the best forum. However, she did suggest having more discussion and updates on the referendum at board meetings.
Board member Carol Matlack was one of a number of board members who felt the board should host town hall meetings specifically on the referendum. Matlack talked of how a town hall meeting would be focused more on gathering public comments and feedback on a bond referendum.
“It would be somewhat of an information session from the board perspective or administrators who are there, but it would mostly be a listening session and an opportunity for the community to share their ideas,” Matlack said.
Rossi said he envisioned having three town halls with three board members at each meeting along with possible committee members also attending. He felt holding the meetings would allow school officials, board members and the public to have a well-rounded discussion on the referendum.
Some board members felt the district needed to make better use of social media for this referendum. Some of the suggestions included forming social media pages specifically for board members where the community could ask questions and converse. Neary suggested simply using social media more to gauge public sentiment on the referendum.
“All we have to do is not even comment, you can just observe what they’re saying,” Neary said.
The board also deliberated on whether to have the board as a whole discuss the referendum or have one of the committees, such as strategic planning or business and facilities, work on it. Most of the board members felt full board discussions were necessary because of the importance of the project. Some members, such as Saidel and Ruth Schultz, also emphasized the importance of a committee structure within the board, saying a committee could focus specifically on the details of the referendum.
“I do think there’s merit with having a discussion with the full board at the beginning, but I also see the value in going back to a committee,” Schultz said.
“I do believe somebody needs to take ownership of it after the board discussion,” she later added.
The discussion last Tuesday did not delve into specific items such as projects, the number of questions or how much the bond would cost. At the conclusion of the board discussion, Goodwin asked district administration to gather feedback on possible town hall meetings, the use of social media and forming an ad-hoc committee. Goodwin added the board would continue its discussion at its January action meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 22.
