Correction and OPRA update - October 13, 2026: Reviewing the Library's July OPRA responses changes several conclusions in this article. My earlier postage and marketing figures should not have been presented as actual spending, and my comparison of 2026 funding with 2024 visits did not establish a current cost per visit. I withdraw those claims. The corrected figures and source records are below and on the Research page.

On June 26, 2026, I published a Patch article arguing that Berkeley Heights can support a strong public library and still demand a real spending audit.

I love our library. I also read the budget. Both things can be true - and the records deserve a careful, fair reading.

The Library's 2026 budget proposal, presented February 9, lists a one-third-mill appropriation of $1,737,267.48. A proposal describes planned funding and spending; it does not establish actual expenditures.

The later January-May 2026 usage report lists 49,264 door-count events and 6,374 active cardholders in May. The door total combines front-door and children's-door counters. Door events are not necessarily unique visitors, and cardholders are a different measure. These records show substantial use. A fair cost-per-visit comparison needs spending and usage from the same reporting period and consistent counting definitions.

The June 26 trial balance reports $248.65 in postage expense and $3,318.98 in marketing expense. The postage transaction report independently totals $248.65. The earlier monthly summary's $22,832 postage and $17,447 marketing figures should not have been described as actual spending. The later records do not support the overrun allegation in the original version of this article.

Reserve and capital-planning questions remain. The December 9, 2024 minutes record approval of a $300,000 transfer from operating funds to capital reserve. The December 2025 draft minutes record a unanimous vote on another $250,000 transfer; that copy is marked DRAFT and has a date discrepancy between its header and filename. Together, the records describe transfer votes concerning $550,000. They do not independently prove when each transfer was completed.

The June 26 trial balance reports a $702,996.61 capital-account balance. The Extended Capital Plan 2024-2029 describes building, accessibility, technology and service projects, but does not provide a costed, year-by-year project schedule. Residents should be able to see the project budgets, restrictions on reserves, and the Library's excess-funds calculation. These balances do not by themselves establish legally excess funds or an improper transfer under N.J.S.A. 40:54-15.

The OPRA responses supplied budgets, bill lists, check detail, general ledgers, trial balances and usage records. The January-June 2026 bill lists are available with the other reviewed records. Remaining questions concern particular supporting invoices, reconciliations, reserve restrictions and usage definitions. It would be inaccurate to say that no bill lists or ledgers were provided.

What I am asking for is basic accountability: a public dashboard showing spending, checkouts, active cardholders and program use with clear definitions, plus a plain explanation of the reserves and capital projects. Any return of funds to the Township must follow the applicable excess-funds law and approval process.

A library can be beloved and still need an audit. Berkeley Heights residents should not have to choose between supporting our library and asking fair questions about its budget. We can do both, and we should correct our claims when the records change the answer.

Earlier versions and current source records:

Edmund Tom Maciejewski is a candidate for Berkeley Heights Township Council.

Paid for by Edmund Maciejewski for Council.