Editor’s note: The print version of this article misquoted Larry Shanok’s assessment of the new budget and its impact on taxes. He said the overall budget is expected to increase by 1.9 percent but that the tax levy could remain the same or decrease slightly.
To the relief of almost all of the 50 residents who attended the West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education meeting on Tuesday, February 7, there will be no changes to the public vote on the school district budget or the calendar for school board elections.
Just as Princeton did that same night, WW-P decided to buck the recent statewide trend of moving board elections from spring to November and eliminating the public’s vote on the budget if it adhered to a two percent cap on year-to-year tax increases.
The date remains set: Tuesday, April 17, will still be the annual budget vote as after one hour of comments from the public and board members, no motion was made to adopt a resolution changing elections or the budget vote. The board is now scheduled meet with the governing bodies of West Windsor and Plainsboro townships on Tuesday, March 27, for the public hearing on the 2012-’13 budget.
Candidates for the three available school board seats — two from Plainsboro and one from West Windsor — will still need to file applications by February 27, 10 days after the deadline Governor Christie and the state department of education had set for districts to make changes to their process.
The board’s discussion of the matter on February 7 began with a slide showing that 225 New Jersey school districts had decided in favor of the new state regulation. A total of 239 currently have November election dates.
Board Vice President Bob Johnson started his comments by explaining the value of the current spring election format.
“There was a very good reason school board elections were moved to April. It was part of the good government movement to de-politicize it and to take politics out of school issues which really don’t belong in a partisan arena. I believe, very strongly, that it’s a good reason to keep things this way,” Johnson said.
Johnson said perhaps in a district where “there wasn’t the reverence for what the education system provides,” or one with uninformed voters that “just by Rikki N. Massand
To the relief of almost all of the 50 residents who attended the West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education meeting on Tuesday, February 7, there will be no changes to the public vote on the school district budget or the calendar for school board elections.
Just as Princeton did that same night, WW-P decided to buck the recent statewide trend of moving board elections from spring to November and eliminating the public’s vote on the budget if it adhered to a two percent cap on year-to-year tax increases.
The date remains set: Tuesday, April 17, will still be the annual budget vote as after one hour of comments from the public and board members, no motion was made to adopt a resolution changing elections or the budget vote. The board is now scheduled meet with the governing bodies of West Windsor and Plainsboro townships on Tuesday, March 27, for the public hearing on the 2012-’13 budget.
Candidates for the three available school board seats — two from Plainsboro and one from West Windsor — will still need to file applications by February 27, 10 days after the deadline Governor Christie and the state department of education had set for districts to make changes to their process.
The board’s discussion of the matter on February 7 began with a slide showing that 225 New Jersey school districts had decided in favor of the new state regulation. A total of 239 currently have November election dates.
Board Vice President Bob Johnson started his comments by explaining the value of the current spring election format.
“There was a very good reason school board elections were moved to April. It was part of the good government movement to de-politicize it and to take politics out of school issues which really don’t belong in a partisan arena. I believe, very strongly, that it’s a good reason to keep things this way,” Johnson said.
Johnson said perhaps in a district where “there wasn’t the reverence for what the education system provides,” or one with uninformed voters that “just come to punish the only budget that they could” then moving the board election and cutting the budget vote out would be a reasonable choice — but not in WW-P. Although he was the first board member to speak, Johnson’s sentiments were echoed throughout the meeting by both the board and the public.
Board member Ellen Walsh said “she would never participate in an effort to take away anybody’s right to vote” calling a move the wrong decision because residents have paid a lot of money to live here and have their children attend WW-P schools.
Lisa Chandler-Hochman, the wife of board member Todd Hochman, read a prepared statement from both of them as her husband was not able to attend the meeting.
“We both support keeping the vote in April. As voters we deserve the opportunity to review the budget and as taxpayers we have the obligation to do that. Naysayers who feel it’s an inconvenience to have the elections in spring are right, but it’s a small inconvenience like running to the post office or getting coffee from Starbucks on the way to a meeting. We can all live with it,” she said.
A motive for change was not apparent to Finance Committee Chairman Anthony Fleres, who said that the way the new law is written it is biased toward moving elections to November.
“If we didn’t take any action on this, then because we’re a regional district both of the townships could vote to move it, and one body can override the other,” he said.
To date neither township has indicated an interest in making a change, but Fleres anticipates that as many as two-thirds of the 500 New Jersey school districts that are eligible to move their elections to November will do so. He says that’s not the best choice for WW-P.
“With the election in April when there’s no other background noise, people running for school board and trying to command the community’s attention is a good thing. I’m in favor of keeping the vote as it is, certainly in this first year,” Fleres said.
Several members of the public got up to voice that sentiment during public comments. Genevieve Stiefel of Nassau Place in West Windsor, a former board member, summarized a main drawback of a shift to November: having school elections at the same time as other elections.
“I’m concerned that the board election will become politicized by candidates being supported by political organizations. This does go on in other school districts as we all know. The board of education should remain independent and not under the influence of either political party,” she said.
Fleres tried to dispel that notion, saying that in the six years he has served on the school board he has worked with about a dozen different board members past and present, but he has “no clue” about anyone’s political affiliation.
Another former board member, Diane Hasling of 12 Jacob Drive in West Windsor, brought up the potential for long, expensive school board campaigns — with partisan politics mixed in — if the election was moved because the state mandates that candidates would have to file in June for a November election.
Other residents who spoke included Sean Sheerin of Van Wyck Drive in Princeton Junction. “I don’t see this as a discussion of your budget; I see it as a discussion on how you will spend my money. For the 15 years I’ve lived in this town, you’ve had the decency to ask me for permission to spend my money. I don’t see why that should be subject to change,” he said, before immediately leaving the meeting.
Alok Sharma of 20 Davenport Drive in West Windsor was a key speaker during the AP and honors course overrides mini-controversy late last year. Initially he was opposed to not voting on the budget, but then he did an analysis of WW-P’s costs compared to similar school districts and found that WW-P’s yearly spending was satisfactory.
“We are the biggest among similar economic districts with close to 10,000 kids enrolled. If there is a fixed cost and a variable cost, maybe our per pupil cost should be lower than the rest, but I did not find that. I looked into the data and I could not find a relationship that more students means less per-pupil costs. Our expenses are not extreme or outrageous although the per pupil cost should drop down to maybe $11,500 like Montgomery,” Sharma said.
Joanne Lasky of Hunt Court in West Windsor was one of the only attendees favoring the move to November. Lasky, who has two children who attend Maurice Hawk and one who is not yet school-age, commented on a lack of participation among her demographic in district procedures.
“Voters in spring elections tend to be familiar with the school budget process. Parents of young children aren’t necessarily aware if they haven’t been engaged in the process for school budgets and there tends to be a dropoff in that age group. Parents of young children are also busy putting kids to bed when meetings like this are going on,” she said.
Lasky also said that when the budget is defeated and is brought to municipal government, it can become political too.
“With the idea of not politicizing the process by not moving it to November, people forget that elected officials can look at it politically when there needs to be items trimmed,” she said.
Lasky believes voting on the budget is an opportunity “to talk about whether you like or dislike what the board is doing” and residents should be more engaged in the process of what goes on in the schools.
The Lerners, a senior couple who reside at 67 Rainflower Lane in Village Grande and are a staple at West Windsor Council meetings, both spoke during public comments, offering different takes on the situation.
Alvin Lerner said he was in favor of moving the elections because the history of public participation in April elections is dismal. He says more people would turn out to vote, especially with the presidential election this year. “The more people who participate in an election, the more valid are the results,” he said.
Lerner then asked the board if and how the district can move the elections while retaining a public vote on the budget. Fleres answered that the state had not given the board that option.
Lerner’s wife Janet, however, said things were moving too quickly — and unfairly.
“The rights of the individual should never be bandied about. We’re being told that the district must respond by February 17 when the bill was just signed by Governor Christie on January 17. I feel like I’m being pushed around and bullied. I thought New Jersey had an anti-bullying law signed by our governor! What’s the rush?” she said.
All of the Republican leadership of West Windsor attended the school board meeting to share comments on the budget and election vote. Councilwoman Linda Geevers, speaking only as a resident and taxpayer, said she was “in favor of preserving the decades-long tradition” of school elections being held in April.
“The right to vote is precious and it shouldn’t be done away with after only a single public discussion. The April school budget vote provides for an inclusive democratic process that encourages debate on the merits of the proposed budget. The community is more engaged when it has an opportunity to vote, even if voters don’t always exercise their right to vote,” Geevers said.
Geevers added that the board should not succumb to pressure to move its elections because other local school districts had done so. The night before the board meeting on February 7 South Brunswick had voted to change its election date to November, joining Ewing, Hamilton, Lawrence, and Freehold.
Geevers and Councilman Bryan Maher proposed the idea of having a referendum question put on the ballot for voters to decide, but that option would not be possible, according to Johnson.
“That’s not for the board to decide. We don’t have the authority to do that. We only have the ability to vote to move the election or do nothing,” Johnson said.
James Solloway of 5 Monroe Drive, who spoke on behalf of Councilman Charles Morgan at a recent West Windsor Council meeting, said that due to the economic climate and the constraints facing many working professionals living in the district the public has a right to participate in the budget now more than ever.
“In my opinion an additional level of oversight is a good thing. This is a community that values education very highly and I personally trust our voters to make an informed and responsible decision, although I respect the board’s abilities and dedication. The will of the people could be ignored if the budget is not subject to a vote,” he said.
As evidenced by the board’s comments, Johnson and his peers agreed with that assessment.
“Hearing from them (residents) about where we as a district have fallen short makes for a better budget. I think the budget vote has kept our budget as reasonable as it’s been,” he said.
Some thoughts on why school districts should move their elections were mentioned, and Board President Hemant Marathe said he has doubts over the projected $30,000 in savings that moving the elections would bring.
Like Janet Lerner, Marathe also said he was in no rush to make such a drastic change, re-iterating that WW-P could wait and see how other districts that made the switch fare in the next year and then decide to have a vote on it further down the road. Once a district does decide to move its elections to November and remove the budget vote, it is locked into that position for four full years.
#b#1.9 % Budget Hike?#/b#
At the February 7 meeting Board Secretary Larry Shanok said the district expects a 1.9 percent increase in the 2012-’13 school budget (and said that, assuming WW-P receives the same level of state aid as this year, the school tax levy could remain flat or decrease slightly). While this could have created the chance of eliminating the budget vote, West Windsor Councilman Bryan Maher said there is “too much wiggle room” in the board’s ability to raise taxes above and beyond the two percent cap.
“What’s not talked about is the board’s ability to go over that two percent cap with debt service, healthcare, or enrollment costs, etc. The two percent cap is just a target and you know as well as I do that you can go over that if you are so inclined,” Maher said, addressing the board during public comments.
The board was quick to quell that notion. First finance committee chairman Tony Fleres pointed out that the two percent cap is not a permanent number; whatever the state mandates will stand as the official cap. Then Board Vice President Robert Johnson rebutted what he called “a common misconception.”
“As far as suggesting that the two percent cap is just a target, nothing could be farther from the truth. There are very, very strict controls on that cap. There are some exceptions, but they’re limited in my opinion,” he said.
Johnson said that in the past 10 years, ahead of the state setting the cap number, the board has kept the budget well below two percent. Board President Hemant Marathe backed Johnson up with numbers. He presented tax data from a home in West Windsor over the past decade. The example showed that the property had lower taxes in 2011 than in 2007.
“In four years their taxes had gone down by 11.55 percent. How many people’s perception matches this reality?” he asked.
Since the board’s January 10 meeting where he briefly sparred with Linda Geevers (WW-P News, January 20) Marathe has been determined to show residents that school district taxes were raised by a bare minimum in comparison to township taxes. With his example, Marathe pointed out that due to reassessments, because one property paid less another would pay more.
“But that’s not the doing of the school district — the district’s taxes increased by less than two percent every year, and that’s the true story. The people whose taxes have gone down don’t jump up and down. The people whose taxes have gone up come and complain. That forms the perception that everybody’s taxes have gone up,” Marathe said.
He continued by explaining the viewpoint he often hears from residents, “school taxes are the largest portion of my taxes.” Marathe attempted to dispel that notion by showing his own taxes over the past decade.
“This is the reality: the rest of my taxes have gone up by more than my school taxes in the past ten years. School taxes went up by 50 percent, township taxes by 121 percent and the rest of taxes by 82 percent,” Marathe said, as he presented a PowerPoint slide showing those figures.
Marathe said he encourages residents to go over their taxes as well to find the same trend.
“We do have to make a large payment, and I’ve always said that we raise taxes to the cap but that’s not what limits us. We’re limited by the amount we think we absolutely need to run the school district to support what the community needs and the education that they expect from us,” Marathe said.
In his first few weeks in government Councilman Maher has made scrutiny of finances involving taxpayer funds his number one priority. Maher recently spent an afternoon meeting with West Windsor Business Administrator Robert Hary to review township spending. While he believes the school board has done an excellent job, Maher said there is always room to find ways to save money.
“I’ve looked at the school budget and I think there is waste in there too. A harder line needs to be held when it comes to compensation, particularly this spring as you have contracts coming up for renewal,” Maher said.
He told the board to consider the effects of the economic downturn as national per-family income has gone nowhere in the last ten years, yet public employee wages keep going higher.
