| Author | Message | ||
     Dana Longstreet Citizen Username: Dana_longstreet Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2003 |
The Board of Education has passed the Superintendent’s budget and the budget is now before the Board of School Estimate (BOSE), including the piece referred to as the separate proposal. If the separate proposal is not passed or is passed only in part, the future of our schools is at serious risk. The items we could lose in our elementary schools include: Social workers at Seth Boyden and Clinton All enrichment instructors Project Ahead at Tuscan, Marshall/Jefferson and South Mountain All instrumental music programming Live language instruction (teachers would be replaced by videos) All bus service to Marshall/Jefferson and Seth Boyden The separate proposal also contains items targeted for the middle school and high schools. The BOSE will vote on March 30. The tax increase associated with the proposed budget (including the separate proposal) is 7.42% if the entire separate proposal is funded. This comes to about $250 on average for Maplewood households and $300 on average for South Orange households. The way the process works, it is possible for the BOSE to approve only partial funding for the proposal. In other words, they could fund the proposal at a 5% tax increase rather than 7.42%. However, the BOSE cannot stipulate which programs would be funded with that money. The Superintendent has ranked programs in the separate proposal according to their level of importance; for more detail on what would be funded at various levels of tax increase, you can review the details of the proposal here: http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/finance/AnnotatedSeparateProposalAsOf030504.pdf The impact of these losses would be devastating to our kids. Some people are lobbying against the separate proposal as a way to let Dr. Horoschak know they are unhappy with his administration. Whether or not you agree with their complaints, it is grossly unfair and shortsighted to make our children pay the price for their dissatisfaction. These funding cuts would set us back many years and effectively cancel out so much of the work in all the schools that we have done as a community. If you support passage of the separate proposal, which safeguards the programs listed above, it is vitally important to let the BOSE members know how you feel. To date, the BOSE members have only heard from people who want to cut funding for these programs. They must hear from people who want to keep these programs in place. The Maplewood Board of School Estimate members are: Ken Pettis, Mayor Fred Profeta, and Ian Grodman. David Huemer is an alternate. The South Orange Trustees members on the Board of School Estimate are President William Calabrese, Stephen Steglitz, and Allen Rosen, and Patrick Joyce is the alternate. You can contact Ken Pettis, Ian Grodman and David Huemer directly at: Ken Pettis kap07040@yahoo.com Ian Grodman igrodman@grodmanlawoffices.com David Huemer drh23@columbia.edu You can contact Fred Profeta at the Township offices at 574 Valley Street. The South Orange Board of Trustees email addresses are: William R. Calabrese wcfuzzy@aol.com Patrick Joyce pjoyce13@juno.com Dr. Allan J. Rosen ajosrosen@aol.com Arthur Taylor arthur@mec.cuny.edu Mark Rosner markrosner@earthlink.net Mary Theroux mmtheroux@aol.com Steven Steglitz sasteglitz@aol.com You can also email all members of the Board of Education at 'ssommer@somsd.k12.nj.us. Address your email: “To all BOE members”. Finally, you can attend the BOSE meeting on March 24 at 7 p.m. at 525 Academy Street. At this meeting, the BOSE is holding a workshop on the separate proposal. This is an opportunity for everyone who supports the separate proposal to demonstrate that support. The final vote on the proposal will occur at the BOSE meeting on March 30 at 7 p.m. Please take action today! Dana Longstreet Lorraine Gibbons | ||
| Dana Longstreet Citizen Username: Dana_longstreet Post Number: 10 Registered: 10-2003 |
Mayor Profeta can be emailed at FRP713@aol.com | ||
| spw784 Citizen Username: Spw784 Post Number: 471 Registered: 5-2001 |
Just curious - how would the Project Ahead students be serviced at those schools if the program is discontinued? Are these students classified, and thus entitled to remedial services? Also, with the potential replacement of live Spanish language instruction with videos, who will be responsible for actually showing these videos? -- we've already lost most of the tech facilitators (part of their job was maintaining the broadcast facilities in each Elem School). | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 3032 Registered: 10-1999  |
The items now in the separate proposal are not "set in stone". Right now, budget items can be switched, between the separate proposal and the base (or "T & E") budget. The Board of Education has passed their preliminary budget, and submitted it to the County Superintendant. On Monday, March 15, the BOE will continue its discussion of the preliminary budget. After a workshop meeting (open to the public) with the Board of School Estimate on March 24, the BOE will vote on its final budget on March 29. Only after the final budget is voted on, will that budget (including the final version of the separate proposal) be submitted for approval to the Board of School Estimate. In other words, right now the budget, including the items now in the separate proposal, are preliminary. Members of the Board of School Estimate (BOSE), and members of the public, have to be very clear with the BOE about what they will, and will not, accept: If BOSE members have a definite view of the tax impact they will accept, that has to be made clear to the BOE.Above all, don't let anybody tell you that the separate proposal can't be changed now, or that it is an "all or nothing" item right now. In a few weeks, that will be the case. Right now, however, people with concerns ought to let their views be known. | ||
| michael Citizen Username: Michael Post Number: 509 Registered: 1-2002 |
Dana, with all due respect, I don't think you understand the process and are falling for the "Outrage" trap that is and has been a very calculated tactic used by the BOE regarding the budget proccess.. Nohero is correct. Nothing is set in stone. Your list : Social workers at Seth Boyden and Clinton All enrichment instructors Project Ahead at Tuscan, Marshall/Jefferson and South Mountain All instrumental music programming Live language instruction (teachers would be replaced by videos) All bus service to Marshall/Jefferson and Seth Boyden is what the BOE would have you believe will be cut if the special question is voted down or if even reduced. Not so. It's a scare tactic. They do this used every year. The TE budget can easily be used to cover these programs. They are not at all necessarily at risk. I encourage everyone to use the email address to send the message: stop-playing games. Build a budget from zero each year as was suggested by one of the BOE members so the public can see exactly what funding is needed for what. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 331 Registered: 5-2001 |
From the Soapbox section - By June I will leave Maplewood which has been my home since 1942. A number of factors have forced this change on me, not the least of which was the doubling of the property taxes on my home. These days, as I meet others of my generation, almost invariably, they tell me they too are moving. My generation does not have children in a school system whose bloated costs represent much of the taxes we pay. Nothing it seems has made any progress toward reducing these costs and they will remain a burden for all the newcomers. Indeed, a young couple who moved to my street and had a baby decided to move away within the space of three or four year's time. So, both old and young are leaving. Both are penelized for being unable to cope with the high costs of living here. The former whose taxes contributed to this town receive no break whatever. For decades Maplewood was administered by men who paid close attention to maintaining its special qualities, but they were replaced by others who so disrupted this process that the turnover has accelerated to a rate that should be cause for concern for everyone. There is a feeling the town is being divided between east and west, losing its cohesion. There is a feeling that a corosion is creeping in from the Newark and Irvington borders. I saw this happen to East Orange back in the 1960s and 70s. Today, that city no longer resembles the bustling, successful place it once was. I am not happy to leave Maplewood, but I will be happy to not see anything similar happen to this jewel of a town. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4978 Registered: 5-2001 |
I also suggest that you contact your BOSE representatives and tell them to keep the increase in school taxes to no more than 5% and insist that the BOE and Administration do a complete budget revamp and review (zero based budgeting) next year or expect actual cuts in funding!! | ||
| overtaxdalready Citizen Username: Overtaxdalready Post Number: 213 Registered: 6-2001 |
Agreed Bob. I just contacted all of the folks in the above list and requested that the separate proposal be voted down. Enough is enough. | ||
| michael Citizen Username: Michael Post Number: 511 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ditto but... we need more emails sent. let's do this ! | ||
| Colleen Citizen Username: Cbroderick Post Number: 64 Registered: 7-2001  |
This has to be brought under control. How can this happen year after year? I'm all for zero-based budgeting. We implemented it at work, and it was tough at first, but it's a much smoother process now. Good suggestion, Michael. Additionally, I think that the last two items on Dana's list shouldn't be funded. And if the budget is passed, the teaching of Spanish (or whatever language) by video is a complete waste of time. I'd take a deeper look at the enrichment instructors, too. I'll be writing to keep the budget within the 5% target. | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 1020 Registered: 5-2001 |
If that busing isn't funded, is this community ready for another major redistricting (complete with a fair amount of involuntary busing)? I think that is the inevitable result. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1380 Registered: 6-2001 |
If somebody has been living here since 1942 and still blames the schools and not the property tax system for their high taxes, and others can't quite see what's wrong with that reasoning, then property taxes will have doubled again in 8 years even if the TC votes for no more than 5 percent increases in the school portion of the property tax every year. You can't pay for school reform out of local property taxes. You either end up with mediocre schools or depressed property values or both. Pass what's needed in the special question even if it goes above 5 percent and then get busy solving the real problem. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 334 Registered: 5-2001 |
Are the above suggesting that charging parents for the busing of students not mandated by the state will cause the Marshall-Jefferson pairing to split or the Seth Boyden Demonstration School to fold. To others it may be a more accurate measure of the dedication these folks have to the concept being tested. And, how long should we wait for state action? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? What is the advice to those who cannot afford to wait? Might a 5% tax max this year encourage the BOE/administration and their supporters to find a real solution more quickly than another 7.5% tax hike and a "we'll get to it next year" approach that have characterized their actions for the last 5 years. JTL | ||
| naborly Citizen Username: Naborly Post Number: 311 Registered: 7-2001 |
Yes, you will have to wait years for some measurable reform. But are we voting this down to punish the BOE and send a "message" or are we really just punishing the kids in the schools, especially those of lower incomes? Seth Boyden parents paying for the busing to Seth Boyden to show how dedicated they are ?? !! Are you nuts? This is a school developed by elected officials for the good of the whole system. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4990 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think most of the kids being bussed to Seth Boyden are from more affluent areas of town. The kids who live in the neighborhood walk or are taken by their parents. Some BOE members send their kids there as did at least one former member of the Maplewood All-Stars. | ||
| C Bataille Citizen Username: Nakaille Post Number: 1675 Registered: 5-2001 |
Below is a copy of the letter that I sent to the individual BOSE members with a copy to the BOE. At least one person has read and already responded to it. Dear _________, No doubt you are receiving emails, phone calls, etc., urging you to vote down the entire separate proposal. Please do not do this. Sending a "message" to Dr. H and the BOE in this manner is not a responsible approach to the problem of property taxes. Many of us in the community understand that the state's cap on so-called "thorough and efficient" educational costs is arbitrary. We also understand that the quality of our schools impacts directly on the quality of life in our towns and yes, on our real estate values. It is, in fact, costly to live in our two towns. But sacrificing programs wholesale is not the way to improve our schools or our communities' futures. If you feel strongly that the budget is excessive, please vote for a percentage cap on the separate proposal, perhaps 5%. Please continue to advocate with the BOE and with the Superintendent for a more timely and transparent budget process. Thank you for your work on behalf of the communities and the schools. Sincerely, Catherine R. Bataille | ||
| Jon Riecke Citizen Username: Jon_riecke Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2004 |
Why would any rational person be happy about a raise in taxes? Unlike other people who post to this forum, I don't believe anyone---BOE members, school officials, Township Committee members or Village Trustess---wants to raise taxes. It's silly to suggest that. And we can debate whether or not the proposed budget preserves the quality of education. I would certainly be willing to join in that debate, but I won't here. Rather, I want to pose a different, purely selfish economic question: does the proposed budget preserve property values? I believe the rise in property values in Maplewood and South Orange since 1996 can be directly attributed to two factors: proximity to New York City and the Midtown Direct train service, and the quality of our schools. We can endlessly argue whether our schools have maintained their quality, but the fact is that young families continue to choose Maplewood and South Orange as a place to raise their families. I can point to a number of families on my street that have recently moved and have preschoolers or young elementary aged kids. A rational person would not risk moving here if the schools had gone downhill. My experience (admittedly anecdotal) is relevant. My family bought a house in Maplewood in 1993. We considered moving to Indiana in 1996. Housing prices had risen elsewhere in that time (e.g., for colleagues of mine in Berkeley Heights), but not in Maplewood: our house would not have sold for what we paid for it. The stabilization of the school district in the past eight years has benefitted us all in increased property values, including those who will sell their houses and move by June. Clearly one cannot raise taxes exorbitantly, continually, and out-of-line with neighboring communities. Property values will decline in the long run. On the other hand, failing to fund the schools adequately carries the SAME danger. On the particulars. The items that could be cut by failing to fund the separate proposal---most notably Marshall/Jefferson and Seth Boyden busing---will, I think, also be detrimental to property values. Yes, I think fewer parents will choose to send their children across town, and so yes, I think it will force redistricting of the elementary schools. The East/West split---aluded to in this forum---was most notable during the bitter elementary school redistricting debate in 1996-7. I know what would happen were that debate to be reopened: we will simply pick up the downward trend where it left off in 1996, hardly salutory. So, in the short term, I am in favor of the budget and separate proposals on purely selfish grounds. The long term I am less sure. Until New Jersey funds its schools on a more rational basis---or until we get more ratable properties---we will be mired in this problem. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 2063 Registered: 5-2001  |
Thank you Jon. I feel similarly. One thing you said, "Clearly one cannot raise taxes exorbitantly, continually, and out-of-line with neighboring communities." I don't know much about neighboring districts' budgets except for my friend in Short HIlls who is on the equivalent of their Presidents Council, says that their budget which is currently on the table calls for an 8% increase. I believe that is near to what we here in MSO are up against. Anyway, the problems with the budget process seem clear from what Fringe and jln and others have discussed. Is it too late for this for 2004-5? Let's start with the ground up version of budget creation as soon as it is possible. In the meantime, it is foolish to play the game of chicken which could end in a district with no arts or sports or even diversity all of which provide important aspects to our children's well-rounded education. | ||
| Dana Longstreet Citizen Username: Dana_longstreet Post Number: 11 Registered: 10-2003 |
If the BOSE votes against the separate proposal, or only funds it partially, the Superintendent will not be able to juggle the budget to pay for items not covered in the final vote. In other words, if the BOSE chooses not to support the separate proposal, the only way this district will have Social workers at Seth Boyden and Clinton Elementary enrichment instructors Project Ahead at Tuscan, Marshall/Jefferson and South Mountain Elementary instrumental music programming Live language instruction Bus service to Marshall/Jefferson and Seth Boyden and other services contained in the proposal is if the district finds other means to pay for them, such as charging usage fees to families whose children receive the services or applying for (and receiving) grants. | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 1022 Registered: 5-2001 |
The district typically cuts programs rather than charging usage fees. Although I have deplored this when it affected my own children and I thought that I would be willing to pay, I do understand that this creates a situation where certain programs are only available to those able to afford them and that is not consistent with our community values. Even with some form of financial assistance, this is a slippery slope that we do not want to start down. (And any financial assistance program adds yet another layer of potentially costly beaurocracy.) Re busing - It is true that most families already in Seth Boyden will probably not leave due to loss of busing. However, some will, as already happened when those who were less than one mile away lost it a couple of years ago. The more significant issue there is that it will be difficult to attract new families and therefore difficult to perpetuate that program. Marshall-Jeff is not a voluntary transfer situation, but I imagine that there would be significant inconvenience (not to mention increased traffic/safety concerns) at the schools as a result. The congestion/safety issue also applies at Seth Boyden. I can guarantee you that there are very few children currently riding a bus who will be walking to school, so that means even more vehicles added to an already tight and potentially dangerous situation every morning and afternoon. As Jon mentions, many of you posting were not here in the mid-1990s when we had our last redistricting. It was worse than the Maplewood reval for community tension and division and none of us who were here then look forward to a repeat! Also, any such redistricting is likely to trigger other busing (probably less of it voluntary), so there is really no way to eliminate ALL of the busing costs currently labeled as non-mandated. The question is how much will it be reduced and how much will we "pay" in other (nonfinancial) ways as a community if we go that way? I suspect that the end result would not save all that much money and would have significant other "costs". |
