NJ21st reached out to the Police Athletic League with questions connected to the CMS Lease Agreement Negotiation process between the Township and School District. Mr. Faxon, President of the Berkeley Heights Police Athletics League was kind of enough to respond to our questions promptly.

Initial Questions and Response

NJ21st:

Good Afternoon Mr. Faxon and Ms. Munson,

I hope you’re both doing well. My name is John Migueis, and I am a regular contributor to NJ21st.com. First, I want to express my appreciation for the invaluable work you and your organization do in supporting the youth of our community.

I am currently working on a series related to the CMS lease agreement and would like to provide the community with a clear understanding of PAL’s position. I have a few questions that I’d appreciate your response to.

Context for My Questions:

It appears that an email blast was sent to families involved with PAL regarding this matter. As a nonprofit organization, you have every right to advocate for ballot measures, and I fully support that. However, the public was unaware that this topic would be referenced during the Board of Education (BOE) meeting—it was only briefly mentioned, and it seems that the reason it wasn’t discussed further was due to issues on the Township’s side, not the BOE’s. Now, this matter is set to appear on the Town Council agenda next week.

1. Can you share how PAL became aware that this would be brought before the BOE?
2. Why did PAL encourage only its families to email the BOE and not the Town Council?

Mr. Faxon (PAL):

Hi John,

Thanks for reaching out. The BH PAL is not a political organization in any sense. Our sole goal is to provide and facilitate athletic opportunities for the girls and boys of Berkeley Heights. We are a non-profit non-partisan organization with an all-volunteer board of directors and athletic commissioners. We consider the School District, the BOE, the Town and the Rec Department our partners. We have no agreements or affiliations written or unwritten with any of these groups.

To answer your questions:
– We became aware that this was going to the BOE via the email sent to Dr. Feltre on January 15th. I was copied on the email as the BH PAL is a key stakeholder in both our current fields (which are being impacted) and any future fields.

– We encouraged contact with the BOE as it is our understanding (per the Jan 15th email) that this is their decision.

NJ21st:

The BOE has been restricted by confidentiality agreements defined by the mayor and council, preventing them from speaking to the lease agreement yet the Mayor, Council and Recreation Commission do not appear to be following similar guidelines. Similarly, during the ballot measure process, neither supporters nor opponents had access to what the Township was requesting from the District. There does not appear to be any information pointing to the District receiving any benefit for land that belongs to the District. The District already has a per pupil cost that is well above other districts for athletics and this appears to be another resource advancing that end.

1. Would you join families in requesting that the Township share revenue from the field—or at least PILOT agreements—to support ALL our students, as a way of moving this agreement forward?
2. Will PAL encourage its members to reach out to the mayor, council and recreation chair and request that revenue-sharing or PILOT dollars be included in the agreement, just as they were encouraged to contact the BOE, as a possible way to move this process forward?

Mr. Faxon (PAL):

We have no position on any revenue generated from the field and where it should go. We have no desire to be involved in any conversations about any potential revenue generated. We do hope that this decision is based on what is best for the children of our community.

NJ21st:

Your email noted that 83% of voters supported the measure, which is accurate for those who participated. However, when considering the total population, only 39% of all residents voted in favor. Given this, would you support a new ballot initiative that includes alternative options, providing a more accurate gauge of community preferences regarding the property?

6. Would you support a ballot process that provides for multiple options connected to the use of the land and that that actively involves the BOE in the design and content of the ballot to ensure broader community buy-in as a way to potentially move this process forward?

Mr. Faxon (PAL):

We have no position on ballot initiatives.

Follow Up to Initial Responses

NJ21st:

I very much appreciate your response and for getting back to me.

As it is a negotiation – both sides have to agree to terms- the council provided a proposal and the BOE counters from my understanding. With this in mind, does this shift your response?

Mr. Faxon (PAL):

If the BOE provides a counter proposal we will assess and direct folks to the Town Council if appropriate. We are not aligned with or opposed to either group. They are both our partners and we value both relationships.

If there is a counter proposal we hope that both sides can be mature and reasonable when it comes to the maintenance of the school fields and usage of the tennis courts by the GL teams. We understand that this is a complicated situation, we do not want to see any existing PAL or GL athletes negatively impacted by the negotiation. We do not agree with the ultimatum the town took regarding the elementary school fields and tennis courts. We shared our disagreement on this approach with both the mayor and members of the Rec Commission.

Again we are not on either side. We just want safe, maintained areas for our children to play. If this project does not come to fruition and the Rec Commission carries through on not maintaining the elementary school fields we will seek to partner with the school district on field maintenance. I reached out to several BOE members on this issue and was directed to Dr. Feltre. I have not reached out to Dr. Feltre on this matter as we are still

Holding out hope an agreement can be reached.

NJ21st:

Unfortunately the way it’s set up we understand that the BOE is not allowed to speak to the contract during the negotiations which makes it one sided. Thanks again for your responses! And I also very much appreciate your very reasonable approach.

Mr. Faxon (PAL):

Thanks, I feel like both the town and BOE could have handled this better. Always easy to Monday morning quarterback. But hoping the net result is something positive for our community and especially the kids.

Read More on the Lower Columbia Field Agreement

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free