It’s a good thing the HVRSD bond vote was held at the fire department, because that referendum went down in flames, Failing by 65% in each borough and 70% in Hopewell Township.
No one should be celebrating this outcome because everybody loses. The students lose much-needed facility work. The taxpayers lose both the money of a failed election and faith their elected officials have their back. The overall community retreats to separate corners of division in the aftermath.
This school board referendum was a microcosm of our national political climate with both sides believing they hold the moral high ground. Hopefully, the solution for both lies in seeking better outcomes and unity for the future.
Fortunately, our Hopewell issues are a simpler fix than global matters, but still require the discomfort of owning previous mistakes. Quoting Will McAvoy from Newsroom, “The first step in solving any problem is recognizing that there is one.”
Since it is all but certain we’ll see a new referendum attempt, let’s get into the post-mortem.
A quick note on why I’m the right person to examine this situation. First, I have intimate inside knowledge of the inner working of the Board of Education having served for almost a decade. Second, since I have not been on the board, nor followed their finances for over 5 years, I hold a great outside perspective as an objective taxpayer. Finally, the BOE I served with oversaw a referendum that passed with 65% in favor — representing the highest margins in HVRSD history.
I’ll summarize by saying that I thought the public-facing process was the perfect Murphy’s Law storm—Anything that could go wrong, did. So, strap in.
Community Incivility. Let me get the big one off the plate up front. It was simple to figure out that Vanessa Sandom designed and funded the Vote NO sign and card featuring a masked bandit. While Vanessa has done much good for the district, this action was not helpful. I immediately reached out to her to voice my disapproval.
I shared that it is best to assume that everyone comes from a place of good intentions and her broadcasted phrase, “Don’t be fooled” does not offer district staff and board volunteers that courtesy. Instead, it casts aspersions on the integrity of all involved and is an unnecessary low blow.
Why did criticism go viral? Proactive measures could have inoculated or at least minimized HVRSD from much of its troubles. The township committee receives criticism at every turn from other bipartisan former mayors and the public consistently tunes it out. Why did the words of Sandom and Hart strike a nerve?
It boils down to a striking pattern of unforced errors by the administration, and missteps from the school board. This two-part series will review suggestions for implementing a well-planned, successful referendum. Part one examines the administration’s actions, and part two will review the board’s role.
Part 1: The Administration
I have always been a huge supporter of Superintendent Rosetta Treece. Yet, she is not a superhero, and should not be expected to go it alone. Her support system was inadequate. To portray the bond offering in its best light, she needed an administration to provide correct and complete information, and a school board to do basic proactive planning that facilitated an inclusive process.
Report consistent, easy to follow info. The district repeatedly advertised that an approved referendum would fetch $20-20.3 million in state aid, and of $87 million requested, almost $60 million of projects were eligible for 40% state aid.
Calculating 40% of 60 suggests the district qualified for almost $24 million in state aid. So, should taxpayers presume $20 or $24 million in aid? All official district communications advertised the aid as “up to $20.3 million.”
The Final NJDOE Approved referendum submission indicates state aid of $23,861,199. Further, the NJ Globe reported that the failed referendum “would have received $23.9 million in state funding.”
More importantly, the school board resolution passed on July 15, as well as the voting ballot used by all referendum voters, also indicates the higher number.
My best guess for the discrepancy is that the administration understands math, but instead communicated an estimate of what aid might be if the state fails to fund its complete obligation. If so, that estimate is not guaranteed either, since past performance does not guarantee future results. It’s best to stick with the facts. If need be, use an asterisk stating “subject to state funding.”
Recommendation: Advertise critically important numbers that are consistent and easy to understand.
Provide complete info. At the district’s townhall the moderator stated: “We’ve received a number of questions, this is for Mr. Duthie but Mr. Colavita might join, regarding, is it possible to share an itemized list of project costs?”
Mr. Duthie immediately told assistant superintendent Colavita about a known list, and Mr. Colavita said that “there is a list out there,” then did not say how or where to find it or offer to make it available. Instead, he went into a long explanation about not having detailed specifications written for contract bidding after the referendum passes. He added that HVRSD won’t publicly share costs because it would reduce opportunities in a competitive bid process.
In all likelihood, people were requesting the project costs used to determine the referendum’s $87 million, and not itemized lists that have not yet been created.
To research this column, I scanned the BOE website and found a report entitled “Project costs by school and type” by FVHD Architects delivered publicly February 2024 and would likely have satisfied most inquiries.
If the HVRSD townhall was intended to dispel rumors of unnecessary spending lacking transparency, that specific question was simple to anticipate. Yet the info was not shared at the town hall, does not appear either at HVRSD.org/vote, nor in other media. It was easily the district’s best defense.
Recommendation: Listen to paid experts, and err on the side of transparency.
Provide future planning information. Easily, the most frequent concern raised by the public was that HVRSD assembled a Christmas list of all wants and needs, prioritized everything, did not consider alternative funding sources and planned nothing for the future.
I doubt that is true, but the administration should have provided evidence to the contrary.
When the 2016 referendum was presented, the board shared that while the arts and wellness addition did not qualify for state debt service aid, it would receive offsets from alternative funding. For example, HVRSD spent $1.2 million on its first ever dedicated, permanent teaching space for arts, drama, and dance, including the famed Black Box theatre. That addition provided foundational facilities for our newly formed Theatre Arts Magnet Program which, to this day, receives annual state choice subsidies. In contrast, nothing was shared in 2024 about how Township PILOT funding might offset taxpayer burden.
Recommendation: Identify alternative revenue offsets.
The 2016 board advertised that through comprehensive audits of all facilities, they identified $60 million in maintenance and upgrade needs. Facilities leadership classified $35 million as critical and the BOE initiated the referendum bond request.
Advertising the 2016 excluded $25 million demonstrated responsible planning to spend money when it was actually needed. For example, the CHS turf field was in the 4th year of an expected 10-year life; HVAC boilers, tennis courts, and paved roads enjoyed many additional years of extended life. All were staged, planned, and have since been replaced. In the 8 years since the last referendum, it’s likely other roofs still under warranty in 2016 are now due.
Recommendation: Routinely identify and publicize expected future costs to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and capital reserve planning.
Watch for Part 2 Next Month. While administrative issues of incomplete and inconsistent numbers influenced the public’s decision to reject the referendum, the greater contribution to its ultimate demise were the errors of an inexperienced board that failed to anticipate known community concerns and adjust accordingly. Stay tuned.
If future boards can recognize the preparation required to both advance student opportunities while satisfying voter needs, then providing a documented working strategy should help reunite our community.
