DY 🙂 Thought someone would say that, though normally it would be PBA.
I read the report online. The report only recommends that the monitor have veto power on additional funds provided by the state to address deficiencies in district funding, caused by the voter not passing needed tax increases to maintain the prior level of services. By their recommendation, the monitor would have no authority over any funds normally provided, such as property taxes.
The Monitors recommend that $12 $15 million dollars be granted to the District. This can be implemented in 2016
-2017 with veto power granted to a fiscal monitor or could be phased – in over three years with an initial $4 million investment from the State. The allocation would grow by $4 million per year until the $12 million level is reached. As the District (board and Superintendent)
demonstrates sufficient fiduciary responsibility and restoration of cuts specifically outlined by the Monitors to public school programming, the additional aid would be received. The Governor and the Legislature must provide the Monitors with more time to provide oversight and must
enhance the oversight authority, including veto power, over any new additional funds provided to the District through this mechanism.
(emphasis added)
This is completely different than the Lakewood situation, where the monitor has veto power over all funds.
That being said, to dis-enfranchise voters by forcing one of the board seat in each election to be held by public school parents, although perhaps good policy for the Orthodox community there, is probably illegal.