The Berkeley Heights School District’s administration is going all-out on presenting the upcoming referendum, which will go to a vote in March. We can appreciate the efforts that are being made to present the town’s residents with information, but we can’t help but notice they are presenting the information in a manner meant to convince residents to vote ‘yes’. BHPS administrative staff has published an article in the town’s online news outlet calling it “vital investment”. However, the information being published by the school district could use some additional information in order for residents to make an informed decision.
The district has debt rolling off. Question One of the referendum would replace this debt. The district is telling residents that this has zero tax impact, which is not quite accurate. Let’s use a mortgage as an analogy. Debt rolling off is similar to a mortgage being paid off. The district wants to renew that debt to finance the items in Question One. This doesn’t mean there is no tax impact, just as when your mortgage ends it doesn’t mean there is no change to your finances. It means that instead of lowering costs, they are keeping the same amount of debt. The end result is that there is no tax increase, but it doesn’t mean “zero impact”. As one resident stated during the November 11 board of education meeting on the referendum, the district should use the term “continued investment” or “continued tax impact”.
Given that we have the highest cost per pupil of any town in our seven-district dashboard, Berkeley Heights residents should take this into consideration as they think about their vote. As NJ21st had noted, security costs have risen from approximately $50,000 to $400,000 in four years. That’s an increase of 700%! One can’t help but wonder why Question One places ‘security’ as a top priority, given this spending, and gives a price tag of $1.6 million on top of the $400,000 per year we already spend. Legal costs have skyrocketed with the district’s use of ethics charges and continued OPRA violations. Our administrative costs are higher than surrounding districts.
We would have an easier time financing repairs to our buildings if we lowered our costs and brought them in line with what other districts spend. The administration has implied that if we don’t renew this debt, we will need to cut programs, yet surrounding districts show equal programming (or better, in some cases) and better standardized scores, while spending less than we do. To quote a resident, “For 50 million dollars, what specific academic achievements does the district expect to get three years from now?” That question was followed by 22 seconds of dead silence.
The district calls this referendum “fiscally responsible”, yet they have placed most critical infrastructure repairs in Question Two, which will not pass if Question One does not pass. (And may still not pass even if Question One does.) For most of us ‘fiscal responsibility’ entails not spending above our means. I remember my kids coming home from elementary school with an assignment asking them to identify ‘wants’ and ‘needs’. Both residents and a student representative used this phrasing while discussing the referendum. The student stated, “We need to be focusing more on the projects that we need, instead of the projects that we want”, while the residents said, “The facilities are an educational need” and “When we look at Question One it looks like there’s a combination of wants and needs. Question two, there’s a combination of wants and needs.” Both residents questioned the distribution of projects between the two parts of the referendum.
Speaking specifically to Governor Livingston, students can tell you that there is a limit on 30 students at any given time in the library. With a typical schedule, most students only have time to utilize the space at lunch, or perhaps study hall if they have one. Why would we spend our tax dollars renovating a space that can’t be widely used? Why would we not prioritize fixing the ceiling in the cafeteria so that water doesn’t pour from it? Why would we not renovate heating, so that the school is not dependent on obsolete heating coils, resulting in kids attending school wrapped in blankets. Why would we not look at expanding the cafeteria space, so that our kids aren’t eating lunch on the floors in the hallways? Yes, that is 100% true. Our kids eat lunch on the floor.
As the student representatives mentioned during the meeting, one had measured the temperature in a classroom at 56 degrees, and has experienced a classroom being shut down after leaking fluid rendered it unusable. They have been unable to complete science labs because the electricity for hot plates wasn’t working and iPads wouldn’t turn on, while one told the board that teachers have been paying for labs out of their own pockets. This certainly sounds like something that is a ‘need’ yet is, according to the split of projects, a lower priority.
Solutions Architecture were the ones who recommended having two interdependent referendum questions, and they were the ones who prioritized projects for the split between Questions One and Two. On the subject of priorities, Solutions Architect founder Frank Messsineo, in answer to comments from board member Bill Dillon, said, “Those priority projects [in Question One] were our priorities for those projects based on the facilities audit”, later stating their aim was “creating a palatable referendum.” This raises concerns about their decisions. In what world does a facilities audit place media center renovations above basic heating, electricity and non-leaking roofs. One hypothesis is that they likely stand to make the most money from renovations (Question One) rather than from infrastructure repairs. In fact, when describing the timeline (should the referendum pass) Messineo tells the board, “…projects that, like the media centers and science labs, where we need to take some time. Roofing doesn’t require a significant amount of design.” Did they really have the best interests of the town in mind with this proposal? Why not leave it to the town’s residents to say how much they were willing to spend on renovations by placing media centers in Question Two?
The district is also using state aid as a tool to manipulate voters, as is the placement of items in Question One and Question Two. Claiming state aid as a savings and using that claim to finance a wishlist is backward thinking, and the opposite of ‘fiscal responsibility’. Spending money you don’t have, while saying that because you get a discount, you are ‘saving’ is disingenuous. It’s a form of blackmail in order for this administration to try and force the residents in town to give them their wishlist, rather than being practical and limiting spending on what is truly needed. We saw how this played out with our last superintendent and the reconfiguration, which she tied to full-day kindergarten. If you didn’t agree with the realignment of the schools, you were against kindergarten children being given a full day. Here, it is clearly set up so that if you don’t agree to spend $50 million and increase your taxes, you are against giving children ‘the best education’, or against “vital investment”.
It’s really unfortunate that this administration relied on their own (leading) survey to shape this referendum. Asking vague questions about what residents thought were the most important areas needing funds, based on the survey selections they chose to include, was NOT an indication that everyone would back this configuration. Add to that, the survey did not reach the necessary number of respondents to give a clear picture of what residents may really want or agree to, and the residents and board members who expressed concerns were ultimately unheard.
Berkeley Heights should stand firm and reject this manipulation. Moving forward from that statement, what happens if the voters reject the referendum questions? Does this mean we will lose programs? No. It means the Berkeley Heights Board of Education, the superintendent, and the business administrator will need to come up with a budget that reduces our costs. With a student population similar to New Providence, Berkeley Heights spends roughly $5,000 more per pupil. That is a significant difference, yet having a larger ‘spend’ doesn’t equal better outcomes.
Berkeley Heights maintains a capital reserve fund and building maintenance funds. These amounts are not enough to replace a $50 million dollar wishlist, but they can start to address the most urgent needs while the district finds a way to curtail spending. At many points during the meeting, Messineo spoke of the projects being a three-year plan. The most critical infrastructure need, according to the projects proposed, is the roof at Woodruff, with a price tag of $1.7 million. The district does have enough in their capital reserves to complete this project. Since the other infrastructure items were all placed in Question Two, and taking into account the timelines we were given during the meeting, this work would not be done immediately even if both questions pass. There is time to make budgetary changes over the next three years that will enable the district to come up with a plan for repairs and improvements. Again quoting Messineo, “Our facilities audit does not list every roof in dire straits. You still have the ability for these roofs to last”, later adding, “We continue to chip away at roofs every year.”
In short, the Berkeley Heights School District NEEDS to address their budget. They need to reassess their priorities, such as placing a $1.6 million increase on top of a $400,000 per year spend on security ahead of replacing a generator so that students can operate a hot plate or turn on an iPad. They need to remember that despite Berkeley Heights being an affluent town, this should not lead to an assumption that spending $50 million, while being unable to readily answer how this will improve academic achievement, is operationally sound. Board member Natasha Joly seems to understand this in her request to realign the projects between the two questions, which can be viewed here. This is your money being spent, Berkeley Heights, and you are the ones who have the power to say what is ‘fiscally responsible’.
Our goal in covering the Berkeley Heights Public School referendum, as with any major local government decision, is to provide a platform for residents to make informed decisions, share their perspective, and be armed with the right questions to ask.
We hope residents attend the 11/20 meeting and avoid either cheerleading or trashing the referendum — the best approach is to ask hard questions and encourage the BOE and Administration to make changes that better serve the needs of our students while also respecting the economic realities families face in our community.
Our Referendum Hub provides a thorough fact-based analysis of what works and what needs to change.
|
Related Articles
Community Voices: Local Scout Brings Holiday Support to YWCA Union County
Community Voices: The Risks of Mixing Personal Platforms With Public Office
