To the Editor:
Did the Township
Hear the Voters?
I read with interest your reporting on the WW-P school budget, which was recently voted down by the taxpayers in West Windsor. I believe many who voted against this year’s budget, to include me, did so to send a message that our town’s educational establishment should be seeking substantially greater efficiencies in how they operate — just as private companies have had to do in the recent recession and as many families in our town are still doing.
The defeat of the $158.5 million budget was a clear message to cut spending. Yet, I was amazed to learn that essentially the same budget was nonetheless passed by our Township Council after a miniscule $503,000 was cut.
This reduction represents well less than one-half of one percent of the total proposed budget. Yes, you read that right — the reduction is only 0.3 percent. Is the Township Council listening to the voters? What message is the Council sending when it passes a $158.0 million budget that the voters rejected when it was $158.5 million?
The answer, in my opinion, is that the Township Council believes that what voters want doesn’t matter. If the Township Council will not represent the will of the voters, then it is time for a new Township Council that will.
David Hepler
Dean Court, Princeton Junction
Budget a Debacle
Cutting the 2012 education budget by 0.31 percent is a clear indication that neither the West Windsor Township Council, the Plainsboro Township Committee, the WW-P school officials, nor the general public understood the mandate of the small group of voters who rejected the original $158,550,000 budget — but not how you may think.
Consider that resident Susan Roy and Council President Kamal Khanna are far from alone in their fears that school budget cuts will decrease their property values and reduce the likelihood of producing world-class students. It is the only way to make sense of the municipal and district agreement on such a minuscule amount to trim from a budget.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that the voters rejected the original school budget not for its 2.5 percent increase, but because it’s not enough. So it’s going to take a lot more than $159 million to protect the desirability of our communities, the interests of our educators, and oh yes, the welfare of our students too.
If the quality of education is proportional to its cost per student, then we should champion raising the amount we spend on each of our children from $13,000 to at least $19,000 before our residents make a mass exodus to Camden, Atlantic City, or Newark, where according to the New Jersey Department of Education, costs approach that amount.
Or, if we contend that a budget trim of 0.31 percent was sufficient to satisfy everyone’s interests from the start, then perhaps it would have been wiser just to trim that amount from every school expense across the board. It’s so little, it wouldn’t even require opening negotiations with the teachers’ union.
Rather, community parents and union president Debbie Baer of the WW-P Education Association could naturally expect each of her “committed educators who are involved in education beyond the classroom” to voluntarily make an average tax-deductible donation to the general education fund of only $173 to cover their portion of the budget cut. And if the school had originally intended to order 100 computers, under this plan they’d still wind up with 99.7 of them, while saving the average property taxpayer a total of $23.36.
Goofy as it may sound, this puts the whole school budget debacle in perspective. Accordingly, future coverage of official school budget pontificating and parental paranoia would be covered more appropriately in the April 1 issue of this paper.
Alfred W. D’Alessio
Princeton Junction
Cut Administrators, Not Athletics
Given the economy I’m not surprised WW-P residents rejected the school budget. Now, West Windsor and Plainsboro township committees have agreed to cut $503,000 from the budget. That’s a welcome break for tax weary residents, but I’m concerned about where the cuts will come from.
One possibility is to cut athletic programs. We all know if that happens we’ll all be taxed indirectly because we’ll have to pay for our kids to play on sports teams. Team sports should be a sacred cow in any school budget. With childhood obesity a serious national health problem the last thing schools should do is discourage exercise. Team sports encourage good health, teamwork, perserverance, sportsmanship, and many other qualities that round out an individual’s education and character. Those qualities are very important to success in the real world too.
Better to cut an excess administrative position (can’t two school officials split one administrative assistant instead of having one each?) which saves salary and a long tailed pension than to cut an athletic program that engenders good health and longevity in our kids. Besides, it’s mind boggling to me that with a $20 million surplus the board can’t dip into that to keep vital programs like team sports from the chopping block. The PTA has five figures in the bank, too, and that should find its way to help keep school team sports at their current funding levels.
Brian P. Reilly
Benford Drive, Princeton Junction
Don’t Spend More, Spend Better
So the WW-P school budget was defeated. The townships listened to the concerns of their residents and approved a $503,000 reduction. Are the people happy? I don’t think so. Looking at the budget vote results, the district has become evenly split. Half the voters want to spend more on our schools and the other half want to slash the spending and cut property taxes.
The district talks a lot about the comparable cost per student. From 2002-2003 through 2008-2009 this grew from $10,534 up to $12,048. This was a moderate increase of 2 percent per year over the six years. In my opinion, the major accolades for that trend should go to Stan Katz. In his time chairing the finance committee he balanced the goal of an excellent education with concern for the taxpayers.
Since Stan’s retirement, the concern for the taxpayers seemed to have been ignored. In 2009-2010 the spending per student grew by $325 or 2.7 percent. In 2010-2011 the spending grew by another $514 or 4.2 percent. This was well above inflation even after the dramatic budget cuts that we keep hearing about. The rejected budget had another $349 or 2.7 percent in spending growth. The Township-approved cuts will reduce that spending by about $50 per student, so the adjusted number will be a $300 increase or 2.2 percent.
It seems to me that the finance committee has not balanced our educational excellence with the fiscal realities that affect our residents.
How do we get the School Board to prepare responsible budgets, so that we can satisfy both groups and avoid embarrassment next year?
Quentin Walsh, CPA
4 Petty Road, Plainsboro
Seek Opportunities To Reduce Costs
So the recently defeated WW-P school budget took a loss for the team? Many within our public school enterprise are being paid regardless of the $503,000 in cuts and few will feel the inconvenience and pain we the taxpayers feel — the real stakeholders — who actually pay the bills. Help identify opportunities to do things better with fewer financial resources.
I am concerned about systems and procedures overseen by the WW-P Board that prevent us, the taxpayers and parents, from participating in the education of our children. No, I am not referencing the PTA/PTO or back-to-school nights.
Our WW-P Board refuses to be videotaped or broadcast live to educate and inform you, its constituency. It believes even “testing” a pilot program for students’ community service pays no dividends despite a highfalutin, one-sentence Mission Statement that specifically excludes the role of parents.
The state cut $7 million in aid last year and the District didn’t even burp with the loss of funds. This year, relatively late in its budget season, the District received a $4 million restoration in funds. However there was no commensurate reduction in costs from last year’s ACTUAL spending before the initial budget vote in late April 2011 — and none which have been fully itemized.
I wouldn’t know what your personal wage increases were over the past three years. However, WW-P is just ending contracted three-year wage increases approved by the Board in May of 2008 AFTER the budget was already passed by voters. It ignored public input and voters had no idea what the Board negotiated on taxpayers’ behalf. These increases were 4.9 percent, (2008-2009), 4.8 percent (2009-2010), and 4.7 percent (2010-2011) respectively. Commencing July 1 of this year, taxpayers enter a 3.38 percent one-year deal. Given the national financial challenges, these increases are out of touch and beyond our control unless you get involved.
Moving forward, let’s get the taxpayers back in charge without damaging education quality. How equitable would it be to have the WW-P Board negotiate three-year reductions of 4.9 percent, 4.8 percent, and 4.7 percent? Why is this suggestion more foolish than the one for which taxpayers have already spent? Where are some of our esteemed teachers and administrators going to depart if they threaten to leave? WW-P is an outstanding district which has consistently underwritten excellence.
Here are three near-term suggestions:
(1). A better way to arrest our runaway property tax costs (driven by our school, county, and municipal budgets) is to effect negotiated health care and pension contributions from our public sector union workers to provide significant relief. Current policies are unsustainable.
(2). I have asked Governor Christie to support a program which would get YOU, the interested parents, back into our schools during the school year. This will assist mutual understanding of the challenges faced by our teachers and administrators and let you see – randomly — what our students see.
(3). In addition, I would ask our teachers to have the option of redirecting their annual union dues (approximately $1,100 per teacher per school year) to their own retirement funds. Your tax dollars are currently funding negative, anti-governor advertising which neither benefits the children nor our teachers.
On West Windsor Township budget matters, the sustained policy of governance via litigation is unacceptable and extraordinarily expensive. Our focus should be on making West Windsor affordable — and less emphasis on importing an artificially mandated program of Affordable Housing within the Transit Village. The decision, unfortunately, is out of our hands and lies with the court. Is our township better with an additional 800 to 1,200 dwelling units within wetlands near the Princeton Junction train station?
In my opinion, the 1992 Mayor-Council form of government is broken. We need to get back to budgeting and governing basics 101. We must arrest the unbridled costs within our police department, fire/safety, and public works — the very arenas in which our non-resident business administrator and invisible mayor refuse to effect reductions. Does WW need to spend $400,000 this year to build a parking lot at Community Park? What you don’t know affects everyone.
We will not have our residents — parents and students — participate in our schools or local government unless, and until, our “leadership” learns to listen. Keep us better informed of our fiscal fitness.
Peter R. Weale
144 Fisher Place, West Windsor
