A mere nine months ago, West Windsor voters turned down the proposed “tight” school budget. The eggheads (term of affection) on the West Windsor Council side had a brief, rare mandate from voters to effect some meaningful cuts. I guess a $503,000 cut from the proposed $158,503,000 school budget must seem like a lot of money to those who play with a $38 million municipal budget. The municipal budget barely gets passed much before five months into its fiscal year, which starts January 1.
Using fingers and toes, the WW-P School Board and administration’s recommended reduction of $503,000 off $158,503,000 was an insulting if not a whopping .003, or 3/10 of 1 percent. Considering cuts of greater amounts would simply befuddle the assistant superintendent for finance and the District’s controller. Note: what do these people do?
As I have previously written, if the WW-P Board had offered $10 in cuts, Council would have approved it with the same gusto/excuse/explanation that it did not have time to go through the proposed budget. Isn’t this where veteran WW-P Board member, now WW Council member, Linda Geevers should have stepped up to leverage her experience on the Board to educate the Council and Plainsboro Township Committee?
In our representative democracy, voters currently have no say on our municipal, county, state, or federal budgets.
There are more of them than there are of us, so even if we defeat the school budget despite all the exclusions cited, all parties listed below seem to be against the taxpayer. I could be wrong and invite your correction:
1. The teachers’ union, supervisors union, service workers unions;
2. Lawyers representing both the District and NJEA / WWPEA;
3. The WW-P Board of Education to buy labor peace and self-aggrandizement;
4. The school administration that recommends its own pay and benefits raises that then are heartily approved by a complicit Board;
5. The elected representatives for each municipality who feign their ignorance;
6. Ignored recommendation (July 2011) to have ad hoc committee or third-party representation to monitor labor negotiations;
7. Inability to disclose the agreements prior to ratification by both parties –– unions and Board (As the Board says, “increases due to contractual agreements beyond our control which in fact ARE negotiated by the Board”);
8. Blistering defenses and disclaimers by WW-P Board members stating their individual opinions about fiscal restraint yet bully their written opinions in media by stating their opinions are not the position of the Board of Education. If so, what is with the titles?
What group am I leaving out that has any sort of verifiable, quantifiable track record of representing taxpayers? Where have costs been contained and reduced in the past 30 years, excluding outsourced custodial staff ?
The Board and administration must be loving this proposed carte blanche method for passing already bloated budgets. Despite the rhetoric, there will be no more pesky public comments to challenge the Board’s pet projects and empire-building until there is a complete replacement and overhaul of current Board members.
It is easy to see why the Board opposes a nominal community service requirement to educate its high school students –– and future taxpayers –– on the operations and “how-to’s” of schools and municipalities. Our institutions needs critical thinkers who provide options –– not negative thinkers.
So, too, for almost eight years, the Board has rejected suggestions to videotape its monthly meetings to broadcast and share its operations via community access cable channels. The volunteer staff –– with supervision –– would come from those students in the media and broadcasting curriculum.
Pete Weale
Penns Neck
