| Author |
Message |
    
Alidah
| | Posted on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 10:35 pm: |     |
Nohero, thanks for the nice summary of important issues facing our district. I learned a lot from your posting. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Thursday, April 5, 2001 - 9:46 am: | |
I attended the candidates' debate last night at SOMS. The only candidate that I heard advocate taking legal action against the state on the funding issue was Bill Gold. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, April 5, 2001 - 10:22 am: | |
Shelly Slafkes also spoke in support of that at the BOE candidates night co-sponsored by the Hilton and Richmond(?) Neighborhood Assocs. I believe they're both attorneys so that probably informs their perspectives on available alternatives. (I don't disagree with this approach, I'm just not well-versed in these legal issues and options.)
Bacata |
Nohero
| | Posted on Thursday, April 5, 2001 - 4:26 pm: | |
I thought a while before deciding to comment on Bacata's last remark. Let me start by saying that I am not trying to call into question anybody's professional qualifications or integrity.
Given Bacata's last assumption (which is a not an unreasonable one), candidates who are attorneys have, I believe, a special obligation when it comes to speculating about possible grounds to sue the state. The actual holding in Abbott v. Burke is, by itself, not sufficient to support such a cause of action. That case has a long, tortured history, with several decisions being issued by the State Supreme Court. If anyone's interested, there is a good summary of that history in "Abbott V" online. If anything, the court has moved back from some of the more sweeping implications of the earlier Abbott decisions, especially in its most recent approval of the approach now being used by the state in the "special needs" districts.
The Court in Abbott V describes its earlier decision with respect to the constitutional issue, as follows:
Quote:The Court required that the level of funding "be adequate to provide for the special educational needs of these poorer urban districts" and "address their extreme disadvantages." The Court also determined that special programs and services were required in the special needs districts.
In other words, the determination was actually very narrow, in that the court was strictly addressing the need for additional funding with respect to "special needs" (i.e., poor, urban, with disadvantaged youth) districts.
I think candidates for a public office, such as the BOE, should be careful about claims that we could sue our way out of our difficulties. Candidates who are attorneys should consider even more carefully before making such claims. |
Wharfrat
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 8:14 am: | |
Kathy-
I was also at the LWV forum on Wednesday night. I took copious notes, and when looking at the record I see that three candidates spoke about possible legal remedies. Bill Gold, Shelly Sflakes and Mike Manley all said they would resort to some type of litigation if legislative lobbying did not work. Both Manley and Gold said they would be willing to directly sue the state to get more $$$ for SO/M. Sflakes also said something somewhat similar, but with a slightly different perspective. She said she has been talking to the Education Law Center about the feasibility of instituting a class action suit against the state, working with other municipalities that are in a similar budgetary bind. Personally, I think this "power in numbers" approach is much more desireable because it's a much more constructive than Bill Gold's fighting the wind mills approach.
My own perspective of the forum the other night is that all five candidates are pretty similar, with differences that can be measured in personality and style. On one end of the scale is Bill Gold, abrasive but well-spoken, and Mike Manley, easy to like and plain spoken. While I don't imagine I would vote for him he did make some impressive recommendations. Gagnier, Sflakes and Campbell all made a decent showing, and give the impression that they are all consensus builders.
It is clear all the candidates want what's best for the school system, and honestly there wasn't a significant difference between them. In my estimation, if you want to improve the academic achievement and climate in SO/M you chose people who will make an attempt to work together. By the way, in case you haven't noticed, I've just thrown some bait into these shark infested waters. Go for folks! I love a good controversy! |
Ashear
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 9:17 am: | |
It looks like someone (actually a bunch of towns) are already trying the law suit route. It seems they just lost in the appelate division and are appealing to the State Supreme Court.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/jersey/ledger/12dd6c0.html |
Billgold
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 9:33 am: | |
Wharfrat-- In the very brief time we have at these Candidates Nights, we cannot fully develop or explain our positions. At our off site meeting two years ago, I proposed looking into joining with similarly situated districts to seek relief through the courts. No one-- including Shelly Slafkes who was on the board at the time --agreed to even look into it. I am not an expert in this field of law, so I also suggested at the time that we engage an expert Or even our counsel. Again no takers. I do professionally know several lawyers in education law and have discussed the issue with them. But what is the use if this board won't even discuss the issue. (We did recently get an evaluation from our counsel-- nothing has been done with it, despite positive recommendations.)
I also think we should bring an administrative action against the Commissioner, which is a clearly available remedy under existing State law. No takers on the Board there either.
I hope you picked up the stack of memos which I sent to the Board. I think if you read them, you'll see that I am attempting to bring the board to address thorny issues. But consensus building works only if the rest of the board wants to build consensus with me.
I am surprised that you think there is very little difference among us-- since three of the candidates want to change nothing on the board, that would mean I too am satisfied with this Board, something I clearly am not.
The real question is whether consensus on the wrong decision is better than lack of consensus on the right decision. A subsidiary question is whether consensus which is nothing more than rubber stamping the administration without independent evaluation, thought or discussion is what is best for the district. Look where we are and that should answer those questions. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 10:00 am: | |
Wharfrat- Just curious- why wouldn't you vote for Mike Manley after saying he made some impressive recommendations? |
Ashear
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 10:20 am: | |
Here is the decision denying the challenge to the state's school funding system. I have just skimmed it but it looks bad for any suit. Is there some different legal theory that people advocating legal action would put forth. If not any new action by MSO seems like a redundant waste of money.
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/A3450-99.htm |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 10:45 am: | |
Mr. Gold - I was prevented from asking this question at the Candidates Night "debate" due to its format - no questions to individual candidates - so I'll ask it here:
Q: If re-elected, do you intend to function as a full-fledged Board member by participating in all committee assignments, or will you continue to abstain from those obligations? |
Billgold
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 11:32 am: | |
Curmudgeon- Fair question. First, I am not sure that there is an "obligaion" to serve on a committee-- I don't even know if the board will have committees next year. That is a decision made each year. I would very much like to have my views considered-- when I chaired a committe last year, my opinions were virtually universally rejected. If the new Board behaves in the close-minded way it does now, it would be a waste of my time-- I would of course prefer to be a participating member of any committee, but from my perspective, the ball is not in my court.
I hope that explains my dilemma. |
Wharfrat
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 4:02 pm: | |
Nil-
I live on the east side of town and will have a child attending Clinton, next fall. Clinton has implemented a M.I. oriented curriculum, which is something I am in favor of. Both Sflakes and Gagnier support M.I. programs. Campbell is a candidate who will also have a child at Clinton next year, so I feel he will better understand/represent the interests of our school. I also think Manley's ideas could be adopted by the board if they choose to.
Bill Gold-
Thank you for informing me about some of the your previous initiatives regarding the attempt to wrest more $$ from the state. While I was aware of your position regarding litigation, I did not have specific detals regarding the details of your proposals Often that information is missing in the summaries regularly found in the News-Record.
I did in fact pick-up your packet of memoranda that was on the table outside the small auditorium. Perhaps I'm a bit naive regarding the nature of some of your missives, but they did seem a bit antagonistic. Are you and the other board members even speaking to each other? Are each of your respective positions regarding substantive issues so far apart that some sort of rapprochment isn't possible?
Just curious... |
Greenetree
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 4:02 pm: | |
Mr. Gold- if you are not sure that you will be able to participate, why are you running ? |
Billgold
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 4:34 pm: | |
Wharfrat-- I think memos are the approprite way to communicate ideas among a public body without offending the Sunshine Law. I rarely get a phone call, e-mail, responsive memo, face-to-face, or carrier pigeon response. Some are edgy in that they raise issues that I have raised numerous times before and the lack of reaction has prompted worsening problems. That is extremely frustrating. My point is that the issues which I raise are neither trivial nor off-base.
In point of fact, of course I speak to most of the board members. (Mr. Latz does literally ignore me when I speak to him.)
With respect to your question of rapprochment, the memos frequently ask for seconds or suggestions on how to bring the issues to the fore. While I certainly care about how the issues are resolved, my main beef is that the issues are not even discussed, making rapprochment somewhat problematic. In truth, I don't think my positions are always that far off from the mainstream, but without discussion, how could I know?
Greentree-- The issue of participation is on committees only. I have a thing about not wasting my time. If I am going to be irrelevant to the committee discussion, why should I attend?
As to the main board roles, I fully participate more than most of the rest of the board, many of whom clearly come to the meeting without having read the materials given to us. |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 9:54 pm: | |
"Clinton has implemented a M.I. oriented curriculum, which is something I am in favor"
Wharfrat :
Would you please comment on some of the specifics regarding the Clinton M.I. oriented curriculum you speak of ? |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Sunday, April 8, 2001 - 12:17 pm: | |
The Board's official position is that M.I. is NOT a curriculum. So, what is an "M.I. oriented curriculum"?
Does it have books or assignments that differ from those at Jefferson or South Mountain; how can one compare curricula?
Who voted such an experiment, particularly after the secret-no-more disclosure of Terra Nova at Seth Boyden?
DWM |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Sunday, April 8, 2001 - 3:23 pm: | |
Exactly !!
Yet, Wharfrat is in favor of it AND candidates
Sflakes and Gagnier "support M.I. programs."
The emporer indeed has new clothes.
Wharfrat, I ask again : Would you please be so kind as to give us some particulars regarding the M.I. oriented curriculum Clinton has implemented ? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page