Citizens United for Safe Passage (CUSP)

Letter to the Editor -- Hopewell Valley News, November 5th, 2009

Lies and Innuendoes

On the evening of Oct. 26, I happened to be at home, and I turned on the Hopewell Township Committee meeting. I was horrified by the spectacle that I was witnessing. [NOTE:  Click here for excerpts from Oct. 26 HTC meeting; ed.] It so inflamed me that I got into my car and drove to the meeting. I know I should have spoken, but I was so angry with the public speakers that I knew I would not be able to be composed or civil. Therefore I bit my tongue and hoped that the committee members realized that my presence there was to support them.

The five members of the Hopewell Township Committee are heroes to me. I am married to a Hopewell Township committeeman [NOTE:  Jim Burd; ed.]. I know the number of hours these representatives spend listening to the public, attending meetings, and reading materials that are important to making Hopewell Township the wonderful community that it is. This does not mean that community members will always be in agreement with their decisions, and that opposing views should not be voiced. There is, however, a line between disagreeing on an issue and personally attacking a representative when you do not agree with his/her decision. Mayor Vanessa Sandom is a dedicated, honest, hardworking public servant. She did not deserve the treatment she suffered at the Oct. 26 committee meeting.

Hopewell Township citizens — if you are a member of this bridge coalition, have given them financial support, or signed their petitions, you should notify your leadership that you do not want your voice affiliated with lies and innuendoes. You should seek out new leadership that will give the bridge issue the same time and consideration that your township officials have. Your new leadership should get educated about the bridge process and particularly about who owns the bridge. This informed leadership could then respectfully address your concerns to the county freeholders.

Debra A. Burd

Letter to the Editor -- Hopewell Valley News, November 5th, 2009

Personal Interest vs. Public Responsibility

Confidence in government is eroded when officials put their personal interests ahead of the public interest. As the manufactured controversy over the Jacobs Creek Bridge hit shrill new heights in the past week, a former official, a current official, and a candidate aspiring to office ignored public safety for their own gain.

The Jacobs Creek Bridge, a 125 year-old structure, is constructed largely of cast iron, a material that becomes more brittle as it ages. Mercer County, which has jurisdiction for the bridge and nearby roadways, was advised earlier this decade of inevitable bridge failure, a potential catastrophe that consulting engineers to the county recently concluded is likely at any time.

The Hopewell Township Committee, which does not have authority for the bridge, asked by resolution that the county modify its replacement plans on a bipartisan vote of 5-0. The historic bridge itself was to be preserved and moved to another location, replaced by a structure appropriate to its surroundings. The replacement would bring speed reductions, traffic calming measures, and a context sensitive design, along with a sound structure.

John Hansbury, a longtime Bear Tavern Road resident who was once chairman of the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and for many years chairman of the Mercer County Republican Party, decided to fight the replacement by demanding access to the detailed analysis of bridge replacement alternatives prepared for Mercer County. Disclosure of engineering details for transportation infrastructure has been restricted since the Sept. 11 tragedy. But Mr. Hansbury pressed his case, dismissing both current and future threats to public safety.

At the Township Committee meeting on Oct. 26, Jacobs Creek area resident Mary Jane Cooper battered the mayor and members of the Township Committee with unsubstantiated accusations of conflict of interest. As the inspector general for the State of New Jersey, Ms. Cooper should know better. If she has evidence of conflict, she is duty-bound to report that information to appropriate prosecutors for action. If she has no actual evidence, she should apologize to Mayor Vanessa Sandom, the other members of the Township Committee and her fellow residents for putting personal interest ahead of public responsibility.  [NOTE:  Click here for excerpts from Oct. 26 meeting in which Ms. Cooper confronts Mayor Sandom; ed.]

Township Committee Candidate Kim Johnson was unable throughout her campaign to demonstrate any positive distinctions — on the basis of experience, skills, knowledge or leadership—between herself and her opponent, David Dafilou. Seeing no advantage in substance, Ms. Johnson turned to the Swift Boat technique of attacking the patriotism of two distinguished leaders, neither of them a candidate for office this year. Not knowing at this writing whether she managed to reach office by this route, I do know that Ms. Johnson has sharply diminished our ability to trust her commitment to the public interest.

The first responsibility of public officials—former, current, or aspiring—is protecting public health and safety. Putting personal and political interests ahead of that responsibility is simply shameful.

 

David Sandahl (former Hopewell Township Committee member)

Letter to the Editor -- Hopewell Valley News, November 5th, 2009

Let's Move Forward

Last week’s Hopewell Township Committee meeting was unfortunate. We all need to take a deep breath and consider the future of our township.  (NOTE:  For excerpts from the October 28 HTC meeting, click here; Ed.)

While public scrutiny and questions are part of public office, it is surely difficult to have them directed at you, no matter the position you hold.

That being said, the citizens of Hopewell Township deserve transparency within the governing process. Residents have voiced concerns about the removal and replacement of Jacobs Creek Bridge, realignment of the road allowing trucks and tractor-trailers to cut directly through this historic site and endanger our children’s safety, asked for disclosure and want to know “why” our county officials are insistent upon this course of action, and “why” our township officials have not answered that question for us. It is not uncommon for citizens to search for their own answers when their leaders do not provide them and confidence is lost.

Respect must go both ways. We must find a way to move forward, recognizing that this is a national historic issue. Together, township officials and citizens must work toward preserving our history, historic landscape, way of life, and security for our families.

Roni Browne Katz

Letter to the Editor -- Hopewell Valley News, November 5th, 2009

Beyond Belief

Recently in a public meeting, Township Deputy Mayor John Murphy labeled a concerned citizen [NOTE:  the citizen in question was Ms. Mary Jane Cooper, Sara Cooper's mother; ed.] ridiculous and pathetic when an opposing view was raised. The level of disrespect to the individual was beyond belief. No words can do it justice. Now Mr. Murphy is conducting a public relations campaign to justify his actions. His allegations are convoluted and disingenuous in an apparent attempt to deflect the attention from his inappropriate behavior.

Elected officials must be held to the standards they are sworn to uphold. Individual citizens must be given the freedom to voice their concerns. If the latter puts elected officials in an uncomfortable position, perhaps it would be appropriate for him or her to step down.

There is no excuse for Mr. Murphy’s behavior. Insults and name-calling are never appropriate. Regardless of Mr. Murphy’s perception of what was being said, he embarrassed himself. Moreover, this demonstration of poor behavior in a public setting embarrassed the very citizens he serves.

The incident makes me wonder about attending and participating in township meetings; to potentially endure public ridicule and disrespect if you raise an issue that an elected official doesn’t like or want to hear. I respectfully request that Mr. Murphy make a public apology without exception.

Sara E.K. Cooper

Safety on Bear Tavern Road (and the Jacobs Creek Bridge)

Well, it's happening again.  Extremists from the Save the Victory Trail and Jacobs Creek Bridge Coaltion are alleging that certain township officials are conspiring with Mercer County officials and certain corporate interests (namely Janssen Pharmaceutica, a Johnson and Johnson company) to replace the Jacobs Creek Bridge, and that such a replacement will eventuate in tractor trailer trucks charging down Bear Tavern Road, thereby endangering our children.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit up front that WE AT CUSP ARE IN FAVOR OF REHABILITATING THE CURRENT JACOBS CREEK BRIDGE, AND NOT REPLACING IT WITH A NEW BRIDGE.

Why?

It may be that General George Washington crossed near the current bridge on his way to the Battle of Trenton, and I certainly don't want to diminish the importance of the so-called Victory Trail.  But the truth is, historians differ on this issue and we don't, and may never know for sure.  But there is enough evidence to support the notion that this is true, and for historical reasons a widening of the road and replacement of the bridge does not seem to be a good idea...at least until a full historical audit, currently being requested by the Hopewell Township Committee (HTC), is complete.

Second, there is a great deal of concern amongst residents of the township that replacing the current bridge with a modern structure will result in unrestricted access along the road.  (The current bridge is both weight- and height-restricted, which prevents trucks in excess of 3 tons and of certain heights from crossing.)  Once again, until the County -- which owns the bridge -- has conducted a more thorough study about such safety issues, it would be imprudent to go ahead with the bridge's replacement.

Now, here is where it gets really interesting.

Turns out that in March of this year, the entire Township Committee (both Democrats and Republicans alike) voted to give provisional approval to the County in its desire to replace the Jacobs Creek Bridge.  When I say provisional, I mean that while they gave a nod in the County's direction, they also insisted that such approval be subject to a thorough historic and safety analysis of the plan.

While it might be satisfying to suggest the Township Committee thumb their nose at the County -- since the Jacobs Creek Bridge is owned by the County, and since whatever changes to the bridge (including its potential removal) must conform to County and State standards -- it's naive to think that the Township could or should dismiss the County's decision to replace the bridge.  Indeed, had the Township Committee done so back in March, in all likelihood, the County would have simply ignored the Township's protests and gone ahead with the bridge's removal.

Like it or not, the County is our partner on this issue.  We have to work with them.  It's their bridge.  This is why the HTC didn't simply lambast the County's decision, and why they are currently working in tandem with the County to resolve the historic and safety issues associated with the bridge and Victory Trail.  After all, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as my grandfather used to say.

It will be months, if not years, before this issue is resolved with the County.  In the meantime, due to fears that trucks exceeding the weight restriction will continue to illegally use the bridge, it's been closed by the Country, which has cited safety reasons.  (Clearly, the Township does not have the resources to maintain a police presence in the area 24/7 in order to ensure that overweight vehicles don't cross the bridge.)

I support the Save the Victory Trail and Jacobs Creek Bridge Coalition.  I believe in what they stand for.  But, much to my dismay, I have seen the organization morph from a group of passionate individuals -- many of whom are dedicated to the historic preservation of our valley, and have been for some time  -- to one that is being compromised by a group of extremists who don't simply have a historic or safety agenda, but a political one.

The group claims to be non-partisan.  Indeed, if you go to the website, you will see this boldy stated in the first line of the group's "About Us" page.  Then, how is it that influential members of this group -- including Beth Kerr and Mary Jane Cooper -- went to last Monday's HTC meeting and actively lobbied for the election of Kim Johnson in this Tuesday's election?  But I guess I should have known this since, if you go to the Coalition's "What the candidates have to say" page, all the candidates are Republicans.

Further, I recently received a postcard (including a photo of the Bear Tavern School) supporting Kim Johnson that uses scare tactics about tractor trailer trucks barreling down Bear Tavern Road, and which states that both the County and Mayor Sandom of the HTC want to put a concrete bridge across Jacobs Creek that would allow unrestricted access to the area.

Even worse, this group of extremists intimated at the October 26th HTC meeting that our mayor has some unethical connection to Janssen Pharmaceutical, and that said relationship is somehow coloring her decisions on this issue.  (Click here for excerpts from the October 26 HTC meeting, and here for the mayor's husband's response to the allegations of his connection to J&J which appeared in the Hopewell Valley News on October 29, 2009.)

Both of these allegations are patently false.  The entire HTC unanimously voted to provide provisional approval to the County to remove the bridge (for the reasons outlined above).  It wasn't a partisan decision.  They did so in order to engage the County in an ongoing dialogue about their historic and safety concerns.  And, it turns out, neither Mayor Sandom nor her husband have any connection whatsoever with Janssen and J&J.

The more one examines this issue, the clearer it becomes that a few extremists in the Coalition are exploiting this group not to raise awareness about the safety or historic issues pertaining to the area, but to help Kim Johnson (a Republican) get elected to the HTC.  They reason that if Ms. Johnson is successful in defeating her Democratic rival, David Dafilou, the majority of the HTC will be Republican, and therefore, they will be able to replace Ms. Sandom (a Democrat) with Mike Markulec (a Republican).

Even more troubling is the fact that the Kerrs, who have been some of the most strident supporters of the Coalition, seem to have their own financial axe to grind.  First, while Beth Kerr has intimated that Mayor Sandom (through her husband, a pharmaceutical consultant) is on the take from Janssen, it turns out that her family has been receiving tens of thousands of dollars a year in fees from Janssen for mowing their property; both properties are adjacent to one another.  So, if anyone is on the take from Janssen, it seems to be the Kerrs.

In addition, the Kerr farm has been for sale for some time now and we've heard it on good authority that they were in discussion with the Toll Brothers -- the mega developer -- to buy their farm in order to develop it as a residential tract, which would have undoubtedly increased traffic in the area and diminished its historic value.  Luckily for the entire community, due to tough economic times, the deal fell through.  Since then, apparently, the Kerrs have been looking to see if the Township might purchase the property for Open Space.  Perhaps this is why they have tried to increase the area's "historic" value, thereby making such a deal more promising. 

Now, before you jump for joy over the prospect of a Republican victory on November 3rd, let me point out that should Kim Johnson win, should Mayor Sandom be forced from office, and should the current leadership be replaced by an intransigent Republican majority -- one which is not interested in negotiating with the County but, rather, in confronting them -- we're convinced it will be a cold day in hell before we're able to preserve the Jacobs Creek Bridge, and ensure that Bear Tavern remains a safe thoroughfare for our children.

We at CUSP are obsessed with the safety of our children.  We don't want to see more big trucks rolling down Bear Tavern Road.  But we also realize that it may not be possible to rehabilitate the existing Jacobs Creek Bridge.  [The Coalition says this can be done, but they don't seem to want to spend the $17K required to develop the plans needed to prove this point, nor have they turned anything over to the HTC or any other body to support their claim.]  We also realize that if the bridge is replaced with County monies, they will have to follow predetermined standards for said bridge; i.e. no height restriction, etc.

It is our view, then, that maintaining a good relationship with the County is essential if we are to resolve this complex problem.  We have to work with them to ensure that our historic and safety concerns are addressed...and addressed in the way we want them addressed.

We have examined Kim Johnson, the tactics she's used to get herself elected by exploiting the Jacobs Creek Bridge issue and the Coalition, the way she's misrepresented the truth in her advertising and speeches, and her preaching of intransigence with the County.  We've examined her and found her lacking.

On the other hand, David Dafilou, her opponent, has shown himself to be an educated and moderate voice on the HTC for the last 7 months.  He has a background in finance, something sorely needed on the Committee.  And he has the inclination to negotiate with the County.

Because of our obsession with safety, and because of our strong desire to see the current Jacobs Creek Bridge remain in place, we've decided to endorse David Dafilou for Hopewell Township Committee.

Don't be fooled by the political rhetoric coming out of the Kim Johnson camp.  Don't succumb to the nasty tactics being foisted upon this community by a few extremists within the Coalition.  Stay true to the course and support the cause to preserve the Jacobs Creek Bridge.  Keep Bear Tavern road safe.  This Tuesday, November 3rd, vote for Dave Dafilou.

 

Letter to the Editor -- Hopewell Valley News, 10/29/09

Like many local issues, the debate over the Jacobs Creek Bridge in Hopewell appropriately elicits passionate debate from all sides.  However, one particular group has resorted to baseless, vicious personal attacks against my wife, Mayor Vanessa Sandom, and against me -- falsely accusing us of a conflict of interest, or outright corruption.

 

The October 26^th Hopewell Township Committee meeting was hijacked by these individuals, who resorted to stealing the podium in order to repeatedly cross-examine the Mayor, and to promote their own political agenda, despite clear instructions from the Township Attorney that such use of the “public comment” was not allowed. Their accusation is that I have had a professional relationship with Johnson & Johnson and, therefore, that Mayor Sandom’s position on Jacobs Creek Bridge favors Janssen Pharmaceutica, which is part of J&J.  As is typical of such mud-slingers, these individuals claim they are innocently “seeking transparency.”  However, the following quote from Ashley Kerr on their website belies this seemingly noble contention:  “I don’t understand why Mayor Sandom is so adamant…  Could it be because her husband… owns a biotech company of which Johnson and Johnson is now manufacturing their new DNA drug?  Hmm…”  This kind of Swift Boat ad hominem attack is hardly an example of “seeking transparency”!

 

Here are the facts.  I have never had any business relationship or interest in J&J whatsoever.  Since February, 2008 I have been a Director of Perlegen Sciences, Inc., not an owner (although Ms. Kerr eventually corrected that element of her accusation).  Since my joining the Perlegen board, the company has had absolutely no business dealings with J&J.   Although Perlegen did do some work with J&J three years prior to my joining the company (as well as with the majority of major pharmaceutical companies, plus 11 of the 12 Institutes of the National Institutes of Health), that line of business for Perlegen ceased prior to my joining the board.  I also work as a consultant to the pharmaceutical industry; however, I have never done any business with, nor solicited any business from J&J.

 

Beth Kerr, in making her public accusation at the Oct. 26 Township Committee meeting, stated that “I know that Ms Sandom has mentioned that her husband hasn’t been involved, but we have this wonderful thing called Google… and a company named Perlegen did pop up… and your husband Carl J. Seiden is on that Board… and in 2005 Perlegen did collaborate with J&J on a project.”  How pathetic is it that opponents on a local issue like the Jacobs Creek Bridge would mine Google with the specific intent to search for dirt on a politician’s family, and then manufacture lies built on that “research” solely to personally attack those they believe oppose them.  Such statements are defamatory, and damaging to my professional reputation.  Perhaps more importantly, they are reflective of the worst in American politics – that is the effort to do anything to personally attack and discredit those perceived to be a political adversary – let the facts be dammed.

 

Those who serve as elected officials and volunteers in our local government dedicate countless hours to what is often a thankless task.  Bless them all, regardless of their party affiliation or position on specific issues.  There is no place in the process for those who are so blinded by their certainty, and so devoid of a moral compass, that they resort to baseless personal attacks rather than focusing on healthy constructive debate on the issues at hand.  Those who enjoy the political support of these individuals are tarnished by the association.  I sincerely hope that the people in this community are more thoughtful and insightful than assumed by those waging this smear campaign.

 

Carl Seiden

Light at the End of the Tunnel

Well, it seems that we were dead wrong!  It's not the same old School Board after all.  Far from it.

At the Board Meeting on October 20th, when Greg Fontaine of Pennington-Lawrenceville Road submitted a petition to reinstate bus stops on this busy county road, the Board elected to allow the petition to be presented at the beginning of public comments.  What a refreshing change from the old Mitchell/Ferguson Board, which always forced people to wait until the end of the session to make comments...when they were tired and worn down, and when all media representatives had gone home.  But not this time.  A motion was made to allow them to speak at the beginning, and the petition was submitted when attendees were fresh, and the press was still present.

What's the beef?  Before the elimination of Hazardous Busing, before bus stops were shuffled about, kids on this busy road were picked up at the end of their driveways.  Now, they are forced to walk down this busy thoroughfare and, in some cases, forced to cross the sidewalkless street to huddle together at new bus stops.  It's bad enough now, but wait until January and February when it's dark.  It's an accident waiting to happen.

Hopefully, this issue of bus stop safety will call into question the safety concerns within the entire system:

• Hazardous busing
• Unsafe bus stops 
• Unsafe buses -- due to both student misbehavior on buses and, in some cases, poor drivers

Hopefully, the Board will finally reach a consensus that the safety of our children is not something we can afford to nickel and dime.  Forget about the lawsuits against the Board and the District which an accident might engender if some tragedy -- God forbid! -- were to occur.  Forget about the fact that we have yet to get an accurate appraisal of the real cost of Hazardous busing.  (After all, many of the buses concerned are already on the road; they'd just have to make a few more stops.)  Forget about the fact that these cuts were largely made in retaliation when citizens of the valley had the audacity to vote down the budget some years ago, it was sent to the Township Committee which cut it, and the Board tried to foist the problem onto the township.  Forget all that.  Hazardous busing needs to be reinstated because it's the right thing to do.  The safety of our children demands it.  And providing a good education begins, first and foremost, with getting our kids to school safely.

We urge all the parents who signed the Pennington-Lawrenceville bus stop safety petition to join us in writing letters to the editor at the Hopewell Valley News AND the Trenton Times.  Let your voices be heard.  While critically important, this issue is bigger than just one street.  It concerns all of us who have children in the District...and not just those living in Hazardous zones, or with dangerous bus stops.

We commend the School Board for being attentive to the concerns of these parents.  The old Board didn't listen to the community.  Indeed, it spurned concerned citizens and stifled dissent.  But this Board, it seems, is different.  Perhaps, with your support, they will make Hazardous busing and transportation safety a priority.  With your help and support, with you writing letters and keeping the pressure on, this long-festering wound in the community may finally heal.

Meet The New Board ... Same as The Old Board

When Linda Mitchell announced her retirement from the School Board, CUSP members cheered.  She was singularly responsible for getting rid of District-sponsored Hazardous Busing for our children, replacing it with a pay-to-play solution that was anything but fair to most parents.

Most recently, a new Board member was selected to take her place . . . although the District's website still features Ms. Mitchell's photograph as the President.  Hello, is anybody there?

Thankfully, old guard candidate Gainsborg -- an obvious shill for the entrenched majority -- was not selected.  And given said entrenched majority's opinion of Kim Robinson (for, among other things, daring to read Adam Finkel's letter in public; see below), Leigh Peterson was chosen as a compromise candidate.

Now, only time will tell if the candidates we've supported in the past will actually make good on their promises to ensure that the children of this valley who live in hazardous zones receive what our considerable tax dollars should be paying for -- AKA busing.

But will they?

Clearly, Bartolino and the Mitchell clone Daniels won't.  They will most probably always remain the puppets of Sally Turner and Melissa Weeks.

O'Connor's a long shot, despite the fact that folks who moved to Pennington over the summer didn't know their kids weren't going to have buses, nor did they get them even when they tried to buy them a space since bus routes have been reduced and there weren't any spots left!

It's too early to tell about Peterson.

But what about the rest of the Board?

Tellier and Wulf, where are you?  Dollard, do you care?  Will Myers finally show some backbone?  And will Lindenberger finally throw off the yoke of those who put her in power and see the light?

Only time will tell.

But we grow impatient.  A new election approaches in the spring.  If those who we've supported fail to bring this issue to the table by year's end, we will work tirelessly to remove them ... as we worked tirelessly to help get them elected.

Be warned!

A Letter to the School Board from Adam Finkel (CUSP Guest Opinion)

PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO ATTEND THE IMPORTANT SCHOOL BOARD MEETING AT 7:00 PM TONIGHT, at the Board Offices located at 425 S. Main Street in Pennington!

Adam M. Finkel, Sc.D. Letter to the School Board on “Strings and Science” -- CUSP GUEST OPINION

May 19, 2008

Dear members of the Board and Dr. Ferguson:

I apologize that despite my great interest in any proposed revisions to the Elementary school curriculum, I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting (I am attending Commencement at Penn Law School, and then at UMDNJ, until very late this evening). I would appreciate if this comment was made part of the official record of tonight’s meeting, despite my inability to read it in person. I have spoken at Board meetings 4 or 5 times in the past, and never received any response, comment, or question from any Board members during the meetings, so it does seem that this method of expressing my views is equivalent to my being with you in person.

Of course, I have no idea what Ms. Napolitano’s presentation this evening will contain, and so I apologize further if this statement is in part made repetitive by her proposal. But I recently heard the rumor that part of what is being proposed will involve returning Primary Strings to next year’s Third graders, as a mandatory part of the school day in the first semester and as an “elective” in the second. If this is accurate, I commend the District for reaching this conclusion, and urge the Board to ratify it.

Given the importance of musical education, motor-skills development, and the foundation that instrumental practice lays for the rest of the District’s music program, it is crucial that the “elective” be available during regular school hours, and I hope this will be the case. Apparently, students will have to rent violins for the “elective,” which seems unfortunate given that the taxpayers have already paid for the instruments and they will not, I am told, be used by First graders next year. A system that provides a refundable deposit for damage would allow students to use the instruments at no financial risk to the District, but if you reject that idea, I urge you to set up a mechanism whereby those of us willing to subsidize rental fees for those who would find it a financial hardship can do so. I would be happy to contribute to such a fund and to help look for other sponsors.

I want to look forward, but I hope it is clear that last year’s decision to reshuffle the Music department staff was unnecessary and harmful both to the students and to relationships between the Board and the voters. Taking Strings away from this year’s 2nd and 3rd graders ignored the expressed wishes of at least several hundred parents, in favor of the very narrow special interests of a few parents who objected to the program for personal reasons or who wished to further expand Band offerings for their older children. Naturally, it saved not a single penny, as all the Strings teachers remain on the payroll, only teaching other instruments. I have been told (and no, Dr. Ferguson, I won’t “give you his/her name”), that at least one of the Strings teachers has been taking night lessons in how to teach Band instruments, at his/her own expense. Even putting aside the harm done to the students, this is no way to run a “company,” let alone a public-sector organization, and I hope our human resources experts will agree and will work to prevent such arbitrary reshuffling in the future.

Looking forward, the single most important question those of us who are interested in education have is “where will the 42 minutes come from?” I have no idea if this was just explained in the presentation, but if the proposal is to reinstate Strings while cutting General Music, I must object. That decision would compound last year’s mistake with a worse mistake. Instrumental performance without a foundation in how music works is like programming a computer to write a novel—it is not education. If instead, the proposal is to end the one-year experiment with “science taught more slowly,” I must also object. The choice should not be between music and a poor science program; we need a good science program first and foremost, and then Strings can be taught in place of something that the District and the community as a whole agrees is less important. I want to briefly recap how we got to this point:

• Last spring, we were promised a “new science curriculum,” and indeed we were eventually told that the “real” reason for cutting Strings was to make room for this material, which supposedly involved use of hands-on demonstration kits that were paid for but not used due to time constraints.
• As the months went by, it became increasingly clear that the 2nd and 3rd grade teachers had been given no new material or new training whatsoever. As early as September 27 of last year, I wrote a letter to the Hopewell Valley News reporting that our teachers had told us publicly that their only option was to “fill the time.” A number of parents addressed the Board as early as
  April 2007, expressing concern that this was exactly what was going to happen; we were rebuffed, and those of you who have not since left the Board should accept this huge “we told you so” graciously.
• Interestingly, not more than 2 hours after that letter appeared online on Sept. 27, Dr. Ferguson sent the following e-mail to the Principals and 2nd-3rd-grade teachers. I received this from someone in the HV school system (and no, Dr. Ferguson, I won’t “give you his/her name”…):

Principals: kindly forward this email to your second and third grade teachers. I have recently heard that a few of the teachers in grades two and three are unclear regarding the expectation for the instructional time gained through the reduction of strings. I was under the impression that the agreements made at the board level had been conveyed to you, but it is possible that with Mr. Bach's departure during the summer this may not have been communicated clearly.

It is the board and administration’s expectation that the additional 42 minutes per week gained from the reduction of strings will be used to increase instruction in our approved inquiry based science curriculum. Should you require support, Mary Yeoman's [sic] remains available to you for the successful implementation of this curriculum.

Thank you for your continued service to our students.

I ask the Board: what message does it send to order teachers to spend 42minutes “increasing instruction in our approved science curriculum” without (to this day!) providing any new material or conducting any training that might make that time worthwhile?

I learned from a meeting in March with Ms. Yeomans and Mr. Umstead that the teachers regard that extra 25 hours a year as a chance “for the children to ask more questions,” which is of course not a bad thing, but it is a far cry from what we were led to believe would happen. At Toll Gate, the unit on the solar system was mostly taken up with memorizing lines for a (well-done) school play, and the only other science for the year (the unit on the human body) just began two weeks ago. Meanwhile, the state mandate that 2nd graders learn some chemistry, some physics, and some earth science has been ignored. This is a bigger problem than just the waste of the extra time, but that problem has now put the larger issue on the table.

I have described what has happened with Strings and Science this year as “theft” and as a “cruel hoax.” Strong words, but no one has explained why this is an incorrect characterization. Of course, the three salaried officials responsible for this have all resigned, so we have no choice but to look forward, mindful that it is always easy to pass the buck to less senior officials, especially when you are on the way out the door.

I respectfully suggest that the Board discuss and approve the appointment of a joint parent-teacher-Board committee to evaluate and improve the Elementary Science curriculum from top to bottom. Rather than return last year’s insult from the Board president—“you parents simply don’t have the expertise we do”—with the retort that among the parents I know are actual working scientists, elementary-school science teachers from other districts, professors of science at places like Princeton and UMDNJ, how about we agree that we ALL have something to bring to this discussion? I would be
happy to be part of a committee with people who don’t have the level of expertise that I do, because expertise alone is only part of the story. I firmly believe that such a committee could do in three months what the District has not been able to do on its own in the last twelve—that is, to improve the Science offerings beginning in September.

I can imagine reasons why the District would reject this idea, but I cannot imagine any good reasons.

Again, I apologize that I could not be here tonight. If anything I’ve presented is inaccurate, I would appreciate an opportunity for actual dialogue, and would be happy to attend the June meeting for that purpose.

Sincerely,
(Dr.) Adam Finkel
Hopewell Township

Important Meeting on May 19th & Strings Instruction

It has come to our attention that there will be a key Board meeting on Monday, May 19th, during which the Elementary Day Schedule, including Strings instruction, will be discussed.

Given how infrequently the agenda of these meetings are published in a timely manner, the fact that we even know about this with some advance notice is a step in the right direction.  And, apparently, we have new Board member Judy Lindenberger to thank.

Ms. Lindenberger was recently contacted by a parent who cares deeply about Strings instruction.  Following an announcement by School District Business Administrator Robert Colavita that around $80K in new savings -- from reduced capital expenditures -- has been "found," this parent urged Ms. Lindenberger to leverage some of these savings for Strings instruction.

In turn, Ms. Lindenberger passed this request onto Dr. Ferguson and promised to follow up.  Well, it looks like she did:  This same parent recently received a note from Dr. Ferguson informing her of the key meeting on May 19th.

Is this a sign of new things to come?  Is Judy Lindenberger showing the kind of community responsiveness that has been missing from the entrenched majority on this School Board for years?  It may be too soon to tell, but it's certainly encouraging.  To be sure, Judy Lindenberger voiced her support for Strings instruction during the Candidates' Forum just prior to the recent election.

The fact that Dr. Ferguson actually emailed this parent about the meeting on May 19th underscores the fact that -- when pushed by a reasonable and responsible Board -- even this Administration can do the right thing.  When the dog wags the tail, all things are possible.

Thank you, Judy.  And thank you concerned parent -- for keeping your eye on the ball about this important issue.

Why Strings Instruction is Important
Numerous studies (cited during the School Board Candidates' Forum just prior to the election) show that Strings instruction can be of immense benefit to young children in their brain development.  It has come to our attention that some current School Board members chose to cut Strings instruction for 2nd and 3rd graders (vs. Band instruction, which can be leveraged for football games and such) because the studies showing the value of Strings instruction presuppose consistent (i.e. many times a week vs. just once a week) instruction.  In other words, they believed the studies were not relevant because the District's historical curriculum only provided Strings instruction once a week.

Frankly, while delivering Strings instruction several days a week may indeed be preferable to providing it only once a week, it is clear that some Strings instruction is better for brain development than NO Strings instruction.  This is like saying:  Since, in many parts of the world, kids only have one meal a day, and since one meal a day is not as good as three meals a day in delivering nutrition to children, it makes sense to get rid of that one meal a day.  No, it doesn't.  One meal a day is actually better than NO meals a day.

As a nation, we face several significant challenges as we prepare our children for the world of tomorrow...not the least of which is that we will never be able to compete with the likes of India and China in manufacturing (at least until they grow their middle classes and labor costs become comparable to those in the West).  Let's face it:  If you want to manufacture widgets (e.g. computers or drugs or whatever), at least for the foreseeable future, it will be cheaper to make them abroad where labor costs are a fraction of those we find in this country and Western Europe.  So, until automation solutions (e.g. robotics) provide us with the same competitive advantages in manufacturing that cheap labor delivers to our 2nd and 3rd world neighbors, we need to prepare our children for a competitive landscape that does not focus on widget production.

Our nation's competitive advantage, then, resides on a different path.  We need to prepare our children to think creatively, to dream outside of the box, if we are to remain competitive.  It is not an accident that this nation still reigns supreme in such areas as software and drug design & development.  In other words, if we are to remain competitive, we should not be preparing our children for a life of widget manufacturing; we should be preparing them for a life focused on developing the "software" that goes onto those widgets.

Strings instruction is unique in that it lies at the interstice of mathematics and art.  It helps children think analytically (that's the math/science part of music), and inspires them to emote creatively (that's the creative side of music).  As such, Strings instruction is, in our view, a key element in the kind of curriculum that will protect our nation's competitive advantage far into the future.

We at CUSP urge all parents with elementary-age children to attend the School Board meeting on Monday, May 19th.

No matter what you care about -- be it Strings or Science instruction; be it class size or the time made available for lunch and/or recess -- this is the moment to get involved.

An involved citizenry is the only way we will ever get the momentum required to reinstate Hazardous busing.

An Open Letter to Messrs. Kilgore and Huston of the Hopewell Valley News (Princeton Packet)

Dear Messrs. Kilgore and Huston:

Now that the dust has settled and the School Board election is over, and in light of Ms. Ruth Luse’s editorial in today’s Hopewell Valley News, we thought we would take a moment to write you about our perceptions concerning the coverage of the election.

You may or may not be aware that two of the “Letters to the Editor” written by Roy G. Dollard, candidate for School Board, never made it into the paper the last week before the election. While reasonable people may disagree regarding the paper’s handling of this particular matter, the rather bilious nature of the campaign, and the perception which many in the community currently hold about the paper’s coverage of the election, we sincerely hope that you will perform a self-analysis of your paper’s performance.

As staunch protectors and advocates of the Press, we feel that your special position in the community warrants an equally special responsibility to ensure fair play in coverage of key community events.

THE SOLLOZZO AFFAIR
We realize that your editor – Ms. Ruth Luse – felt hoodwinked into publishing a so-called bogus letter (scribed under the pseudonym, “Sollozzo” – a character from the movie, The Godfather) that she apparently believes was not written by a real person. Without getting into details that might compromise this woman’s identity, we will say that we know for a fact that she exists, but that she felt concerned about revealing her identity for fear of recrimination and because she felt her personal information might be revealed to the pubic at large -- notwithstanding the guarantees expressed in your published campaign coverage guidelines of February 28th. It is for this reason that she submitted her letter under a pen name – a practice often used by legendary editors, including founding father Benjamin Franklin.

Furthermore, we have solid evidence to suggest that Ms. Luse leaked particulars about this woman’s identity to the opponents of Dollard and Fogler...in direct violation of the newspaper’s policy of protecting the anonymity of letter writers. Indeed, undoubtedly based on this information, candidate Armelle Daniels subsequently went about town and claimed in her “dream team” campaign rallies that the police were actively investigating this so-called bogus letter...as if the police would waste their time or our tax dollars actively investigating such a non-crime!

Be that as it may, despite the presence of this letter, and Ms. Luse’s understandable concerns about being made to look foolish as a result of its publication (resulting in her spurious "apology" for its publication), we don’t believe this event justifies the paper’s dismissal of your own letter-writing guidelines as articulated in the February 28th edition, which states (on page 8A): “...All letters will be subject to editing and must be signed by a writer. A phone number for confirmation must be included. Phone numbers will not be published...”

In the case of the mystery letter, it is our understanding that a real phone number was provided for confirmation purposes. If Ms. Luse has some question about this, perhaps she should have made a greater effort to dial it.

Of course, we are hearing this second-hand so, please, consider it hearsay. That said, however, please note your guidelines do not specify that pseudonyms designed to protect a person’s privacy may not be used, nor do they state that confirmation via any other means but by telephone must be provided.

THE MISSING DOLLARD LETTERS
Regarding the dialogue between candidate Dollard and Ms. Luse, if you follow the string of emails listed below (under the heading, “The letters the Hopewell Valley News Refused to Print”), you will note that Ms. Luse did not make any attempt to contact Mr. Dollard by telephone to confirm his identity or his specific desires regarding the letters he submitted for publication, as prescribed by your guidelines.

Indeed, the only attempt made to contact him was by email and, since he was out campaigning on the day in question, and since he doesn’t own a Blackberry or similar device, he was not able to read her emails until his return home later that Monday (i.e. 3 days before the paper’s actual publication). By then, Ms. Luse claimed, the section was “done.”

Of course, we realize Ms. Luse was under a great deal of strain during the campaign; that publishing deadlines and such are difficult to manage; and we don’t claim we will ever fully understand the nature of the personal relationship she has with those who supported the opponents of candidates Dollard and Fogler...although Ms. Luse’s favorable treatment of Lindenberger and Daniels and their supporters -- from School Board member Jeff Bartolino, to those pro-Sports and pro-Bear Tavern PTO families pressured to write letters on their behalf -- makes it painfully clear where her allegiances lie.

Nevertheless, we feel it’s incumbent upon us to inform you of our grave dissatisfaction with the outcome of this exchange. Indeed, the disappearance of one of the Dollard-Fogler advertisements, the mysterious disappearance of one of Mr. Dollard’s “Letters to the Editor,” and Ms. Luse’s subsequent refusal to make good on her promises to Mr. Dollard and his wife demands that we do so.

Nor was Mr. Dollard’s case an isolated incident. Once again, we urge you to review the post below, under the heading, “The letters the Hopewell Valley News Refused to Print.” You will note there that Ms. Fogler, Mr. Dollard’s running-mate, was told by Ms. Luse that she had to change her letter because -- given that it was the last week before the election -- it would have been unfair to characterize or analyze a candidate since they had no opportunity to rebut...and yet this is exactly what Mr. Michael Bruno (an outspoken Lindenberger/Daniels supporter) did in his letter entitled “Candidates Assessed, which Ms. Luse allowed to run in the same edition of the Hopewell Valley News immediately before the election on the 15th. Is this an example of your paper’s unbiased, balanced approach?

THE JUDY KARP LETTER
Furthermore, we were greatly distressed to see Ms. Judy Karp’s letter appear outside of the Campaign Corner, April 10th issue, (second letter) in your “Letters to the Editor” section. You have a long history of reserving letters pertaining to campaigns within the Campaign Corner. I’m sure this has something to do with selling your papers (vs. your non-subscription online edition) and making money, and that seems perfectly understandable.

But when a letter that was so clearly political in nature, and which so clearly referred to the recent campaign (i.e. “...I am seeing the same high spending scenario in a current campaign...”), appeared outside of the Campaign Corner, we were troubled.  After all, to quote your February 28th guidelines again, "...The initial raising of controversial or sensational issues will not be permitted in the April 10 edition. April 10 is the 'rebuttal' week edition, when only endorsements and comments by readers and candidates on issues previously raised in this newspaper will be allowed. Letter-writers, who are doing more than just endorsing candidates, must identify the previously raised issue and the individual who raised it when submitting letters for April 10." (Bold emphasis added; ED)

It seems disingenuous at best to state that this was fair play because an online remark happened to appear alleging similar issues in one of your anonymous online posts.

For that matter, since -- as your historical practice attests, and your guidelines imply -- campaign-related materials must be restricted to the Campaign Corner, shouldn't the same policies apply to online submissions as well?

Now, we fully understand the competitive pressures Ms. Luse undoubtedly faced when this same letter from Ms. Karp appeared first in the Pennington Post, but we submit to you that this rationale, while eminently sensible from a bottom-line perspective, should not trump your clearly stated guidelines.

THE BARTOLINO “GUEST OPINION”
In addition, in your April 10th edition, Ms. Luse permitted School Board member Jeff Bartolino to write a prominent “Guest Opinion” in which he derides the questions posed by Ms. Desiree Fogler (during the March 19th School Board meeting), an active candidate for School Board.

As we have already stated (see, “Ethics Violations” under Key Pages, at left), it is a serious ethics violation for a School Board member to endorse a candidate, or to -- conversely -- denigrate a candidate, thereby endorsing his or her opponent(s) during a School Board election, unless that individual states clearly and publicly that they are speaking as a private citizen, and not as a Board member.

The reason for this is simple: it provides School Board members with an unfair advantage in influencing the outcome of an election.

In our view, Mr. Bartolino violated School Board ethics guidelines when he issued his critique of candidate Desiree Fogler during the School Board meeting of April 7th (and in the subsequent “Guest Opinion” which appeared in your paper).

Given our feelings about Mr. Bartolino’s obviously partisan comments, you can appreciate our dismay, then, when his “Guest Opinion” ran on April 10th, in your paper’s last edition before the election, leaving Ms. Fogler with no time to rebut -- once again, in direct violation of your own published guidelines.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE
If you would indulge us for a moment, in order to ensure a truly level playing field moving forward, and so as not to further tarnish the Princeton Packet brand, we humbly suggest you pay heed to the following recommendations:

1. Live by your own guidelines, do so consistently (i.e. both off- and on-line), and ensure that your guidelines are known.
   
   As Thomas Hobbes, the great philosopher of the Enlightenment, says about Liberty in his Leviathan (Emphasis added; ED):
   
   "...By civil laws I mean those laws that men are bound to obey as members of any commonwealth. The sovereign is the sole legislator, and is not subject to the laws which he can repeal at pleasure. The civil laws are the laws of nature expressed as commands of the commonwealth, or the will of the sovereign so expressed; whatever is not the law of nature must be expressly made known and published...Unavoidable ignorance of a law is a complete excuse for breaking it, but ignorance due to lack of diligence is not unavoidable..."
   
   We believe these words ring as true today as they did in the 17th century. It’s not an accident that Hobbes’ Leviathan is considered to be a cornerstone of Western political philosophy. We further submit that, unless you wish Ms. Luse and the Hopewell Valley News to be perceived as “sovereign” to the people of this valley, and not as members of the 4th estate in good standing, you consider this recommendation with great seriousness and, further, firmly censure Ms. Luse and all those who, wittingly or unwittingly, work to place your institution in such poor light.
   
   
2. Repeal your current practice of accepting anonymous posts on your Web site.
   
   The standard practice of this nation’s superior newspapers is to mandate that posters sign in (i.e. they must already be registered users) if they wish to post a comment, and to provide an active email address. This encourages -- while, admittedly, not guaranteeing -- posters to be more circumspect about their submissions online and will, hopefully, dampen the often mean-spirited -- and potentially slanderous and legally suspect -- tone of the submissions you have been receiving on your blogs.

We believe that what we’re recommending will only enhance your readers’ experience while not significantly diminishing the number of online readers you currently enjoy, nor the attendant loss of unique visits which, undoubtedly, buttresses your online advertising rate card.

Furthermore, by automating the process (whereby you could set up a bot to “ping” all submitted email addresses to ensure they are legitimate), you will not overburden your human resources -- clearly, already strained.

We apologize for the extremely lengthy nature of this open letter/blog post. But, as you can see, we felt it extremely important to convey our feelings to you and your management. Given the stature and unique nature of your paper, we fear that we would all be the poorer should the Hopewell Valley News fall from grace and be diminished, or disappear from our lives. Nor would such an unfortunate event do anything to improve the equity value of your parent organizations at a time of industry consolidation.

In the past, we have both enjoyed and admired the Hopewell Valley News and the fine work that Ms. Luse has done in its service. And we genuinely regret that she is so near to retirement. In the interest of making a good paper even better, we urge you to seriously consider these two simple recommendations. We firmly believe that they will only serve to improve what is a significant asset to the valley.

The CUSP Editorial Board

UNTIL WE SEE A CHANGE IN EDITORIAL COVERAGE, WE URGE ALL CUSP MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS TO CANCEL THEIR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE HOPEWELL VALLEY NEWS, AND TO BOYCOTT ADVERTISING WITH THE PRINCETON PACKET PORTFOLIO OF NEWSPAPERS.

SAMPLE CANCELLATION LETTER (to be sent to:  ahuston@pacpub.com & jkilgore@pacpub.com).

Dear Sirs:

In light of your abominable coverage of the recent school board election, and Ms. Ruth Luse’s biased editing (as described at www.hvcusp.org), please cancel my subscription to the Hopewell Valley News immediately. I will not renew my subscription to the Hopewell Valley News, nor purchase any advertising space from the Princeton Packet family of newspapers until Ms. Luse is censured, and your editorial policies become more balanced.

Very truly yours,

On another note, please check out the latest CUSP survey (at left).  We'd like to know how you feel about the HVN's coverage of the election.

Why Each Vote Counts

During the last School Board meeting on April 21st, no agenda was delivered to Board members or the public until minutes before the meeting began.

Once again, before the three new Board members -- Lindenberger, Dollard and Daniels -- had warmed their new seats at the table, several hundreds of thousands of dollars in bids were awarded (some to single-bid vendors), and professional services agreements meted out, including:

• $336,398 to Advanced Solar Products to install a 50 kilowatt solar-powered electrical system at Bear Tavern Elementary;
• $266,900 to Catari Electric of Trenton to "upgrade" the high school’s fire alarm system;
• $124,483 to Scozzari Builders of Trenton to "renovate" the district’s Information Technology nerve center, which houses the district’s major systems, including network servers and telecommunications infrastructure;*
• $153,300 to Falcon Ridge Construction Co. Inc. for close-out work stemming from a recent addition at Timberlane, including re-grading detention basins and relocating an earthen berm and installing concrete channels for better drainage;
• Plus, eight (8) professional service firms, including three architects, an environmental consultant and an auditor.

This is not to imply that any of these contract awards are not worthy of our tax dollars, although one must wonder what was wrong with the original work at Timberlane that it required so much re-grading and relocating.

The point is, why does this Board leadership (AKA Linda Mitchell -- recently voted in for a second term as President, and one of the few holdovers who supported the elimination of "hazardous" busing), force such major expenditures unannounced (remember, no agenda was forthcoming until the very last minute), before the three (3) new Board members could even get their bearings?

Couldn't such major decisions have waited a meeting or two so that these new Board members could have a chance to review the proposals in detail and vote on them -- one way or the other -- with some sort of insight?

This "we won't tell you until the very last minute what you're facing, and then we'll ask you to vote on what you haven't had a chance to review in detail" approach is but one of the reasons that we believe we're in so much trouble on the Board.  It's indicative of Mitchell's failure as Board leader, and why we hold out little hope that things are going to get better this year...unless the citizens of this Valley demand change, and the other Board members hold her feet to the fire.

Then again, we're not surprised by this blitzkrieg approach.  After all, while the 2008-2009 budget (which squeaked by on April 15th by a paltry 105 votes) was presented to, and discussed by the Board members prior to their vote on the matter (i.e. when the Board members were asked if they were going to support it or not), the detailed, line-item budget was not given to them until 5 minutes before they were asked to vote on it!  Yes, you read correctly:  5 minutes.

Now, I ask you, why did this Board "leadership" allow the Administration to deliver such a critical, line-item document so late in the process...or did said "leadership" have the detailed numbers, while the other Board members did not?

"So, who cares?" you may ask.  The vote to approve the budget by Board members seemed a foregone conclusion, after all.  So, for that matter, did the vote to make Mitchell president of the Board once again.

We contend, however, that such votes do indeed matter.  They are not simply high drama, or symbols, or -- more disturbing -- attempts to "get along" and to "appease" and to "build consensus" with the powers-that-be.

It's our belief that, ultimately, letters to the (so-called) editor at the HVN, blog posts, and even spirited words at Board meetings -- all these things pass and dim with the passage of time.  In the end, it's the voting record of a Board member that people remember.  That's what really counts.  That's the legacy of every elected official, and the thing that's most reflective of who he or she truly is.

Plus, come re-election time, the voting record of Board members is what people look at.  That's why even seemingly forgone conclusions, votes that can't be finessed or changed, are still of utmost importance.

Indeed, a Board member's voting record is what will determine not only his or her chances of being re-elected, but it's what determines whether or not people will even bother voting at all.

After all, if one votes for a candidate -- thinking that they represent a specific point of view -- and then that candidate becomes a Board member...and does things that seem contradictory to their platform (e.g. "If there were a budget surplus this year, I'd refund it back to the taxpayers..."), voters lose faith.  They start to believe that it's not worth voting at all because -- after all -- once these guys get into power, they change their mind, or they're corrupted by the office, or they become egomaniacs, or they become politicians instead of passionate advocates for our children and the things that motivated them to run for office in the first place.

It's imperative, in our view, that the members of this new Board seek, first and foremost, to look into their hearts and vote their conscience...not what they're forced to do for political consideration, or in repayment of past favors, or because they're afraid of being threatened, or they just don't want to take the abuse of a bullying Board and failed President.

And to do that effectively, they must have all the facts -- not simply those that were presented to them only moments before.

They need the time and the opportunity to make smart decisions because, in the end, there's a lot riding on each and every vote:  their political future; our tax dollars; and, most important of all, the safety and education of our children.

* And we're keeping our eye on this, just in case key financial files suddenly go missing.

The Pressure is On!

Well, despite our warnings, reliable sources have told us that two (2) individuals have called the largest financial services ratable in Hopewell Township and pressured management to take Aaron off the School Board.  "It's a conflict of interest," they claim...in their attempts to stack the Board and hold onto power.

Poor Aaron.  The Naval officer and veteran of the Gulf War, threatened with the possible loss of his livelihood, voted "Yes" to make Linda Mitchell President of the School Board again tonight (April 21st, 2008).  Arghh...

While  expediency is a reality of the political life, and sometimes the middle road is the best course, there are times when -- in our view -- one has to stand up and be counted...and this time was one of them.

Here's how it went down, for those who want to know the sad truth.

The squirrelly lawyer, Bartolino, nominated Linda Mitchell before Jim Wulf could even utter the words "I nominate Mel Myers."

Then, Myers actually seconded the motion! Yep, despite a strong cheerleading section, Mel decided it was better to play second fiddle than take the heat of the Presidency.  Has he too been seduced by the "Dark Side?"

And then came the vote.

Of course, Myers and the squirrelly lawyer Bartolino said, "Yes."

The "pound-of-fleshers" Armelle (the iron boot) Daniels and Judy Lindenberger voted "Yes" for their sponsor, Linda Mitchell (and Melissa Weeks and Carrie Cahill) -- with Sally Turner noticeably absent, despite her lingering ghost.

Then came the squirrelly lawyer, Bartolino.  (By the by, who exactly paid for that legal seminar you attended in Atlantic City when you were bedding down at the Borgata Casino and Spa, Mr. Bartolino?)  Of course, he said "Yes" to Ms. Mitchell.

Then, in a deep baritone, came Dollard:  "No."  And then the irascible Wulf, with another deep, "No."

Of course Mitchell, the Ice Queen/Nurse Cratchett, voted for her own frigid ego.

And then...drum roll please...came the Gulf War vet, Tellier -- and he said (Gulp!), "Yes."

Believe it or not, after all that Mitchell has done to his running-mate Wulf and to him, Mr. Tellier voted "Yes" for the woman responsible for putting our children at risk, the Ice Queen who threw "hazardous busing" over to the Township Committee in revenge for cutting $2MM out of their budget!

I guess we understand.  After all, the puppetmistress Sally Turner has been knocking on his company's door.  Yes, that's right.  She actually had the unmitigated temerity to call folks at the largest financial services ratable in Hopewell Township and and plead for Aaron's dismissal from the School Board.  And she's not the first to have done this, we've learned.  Someone else has flaunted the "Project Democracy" approach of our system of government.  And, as we have written here, this is not only morally bankrupt -- it's actually illegal!

But why be surprised that Ms. Turner would undermine an elected official?  After all, lest we forget, Sally is the same woman who (as President of the School Board from 1990 to 2002) elected to ignore the people of this Valley by agreeing to pay District monies in support of football when the citizenry -- by more than two to one -- rejected $53,500 for football in the District referendum of 2002.  (See the Sally Turner Saga in the New York Times.)

Not that we're against football, per se.  We'd just rather have the county and State foot the bill at Twin Pines via municipal grants than see more teachers cut and class sizes expanded by raiding the District's ever-shrinking budget. We'd prefer to have sports associations and a number of townships and boroughs pay for field maintenance rather than taking several hundred thousand dollars per year from school budgets, resulting in fewer books, less science and music...and less everything else.  An arena behind the town library in a campus-like setting would be wonderful, but not if it results in driving people from town because they can't pay their taxes.  At a time when borrowing money from bankers is nigh on impossible, even a bus ride to Brandon Farms is better than no fields at all.

No, we are not surprised by Ms. Turner's behavior.  After all, if Sally could ride roughshod over the Democratic process before, why should she hesitate to face jail time this time around?

So the jury is stacked once again.  The majority (thanks to Myers and Tellier!) will undoubtedly only accept another patsy for School Board from Pennington to replace the effervescent Doran...despite the fact that Pennington voted down the School Budget this year.  (We're sure Board Attorney Martinez is pleased.  He can hide for a little bit longer from the scrutiny of the inevitable forensics accounting examination that's looming.  Just as Nemeth did before the NJ Dept. of Treasury sanctioned him for "double-dipping!)

Is it business as usual?  Will the School Board still keep our children walking down dangerous, sidewalkless streets for another year?  Or will Jim Wulf and Roy Dollard have the steely reserve required to keep up the fight?

Only time will tell.

Victory and Pressuring Our Public Officials

We are one step closer to victory with the election of Roy Dollard to the School Board.  Congratulations Roy!

It is a shame that Desiree Fogler was not elected, but given the biased editorial coverage of the Hopewell Valley News (whose managing editor is a very, very good friend of Sally Turner), and the ability of the Sports "special interest" cabal headed by Sally Turner, Melissa Weeks and Carrie Cahill to brow-beat the sports lovers of the Valley, it's hardly a surprise.

Plus, they had considerable assistance from Michael and Kim Bruno and the Bear Tavern PTO (still cringing under the iron boot of former president Armelle Daniels), and Judy Lindenberger's marketing savvy.

Hey, you can't get everything in life!  At least, not right away.  But, that doesn't mean you give up.

After all, a year ago there were 7 dubious characters on the School Board.  Since then, 5 of them have been booted out or have conveniently "retired."

The Bottom line --
The Board now seems to be evenly split between:  the two remaining Sally Turner Imperial Stormtroopers (Mitchell and Bartolino), plus the two newcomers (Daniels and Lindenberger) who, despite their Imperial sponsors, have already gone on record for bashing legal fees and (well, Lindenberger, at least) supporting Strings; vs. the Rebel alliance as represented by Wulf, Dollard, (potentially) Tellier, and (potentially) Myers.

Dollard seems like he will be a strong and reasonable Board member.  Plus, he's already gone on record as being in favor of the reinstatement of Hazardous busing

Meantime, with all of the pressure being mounted against Aaron Tellier these days -- a heretofore supporter of reinstating Hazardous busing -- this Website's legal counsel (Yes, we have a lawyer on retainer, just in case) has delivered the following tidbit re what happens to those individuals who try and pressure any duly elected public official (e.g. a School Board member) into leaving his or her post.

Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function, 2C:29-1

A person commits an offense if he [or she, ed.] purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent any public servant [e.g. a School Board member, ed.] from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act.

An offense under this section is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor obstructs the detection or investigation of a crime or the prosecution of a person for a crime, otherwise it is a disorderly persons offense. The offense is a crime of the third degree if the conduct which the actor knows has been charged or is liable to be charged against him [or her, ed.] would constitute a crime of the second degree or greater.

Consequences of a Guilty Verdict:

• You will have a criminal record;
• You may go to Jail or Prison;
• You will have to pay Fines and Court Costs;
• You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss [e.g. of a job, ed.] and if the court finds that you are able or will be able in the future to pay restitution;
• You must wait 5-10 years to expunge a first offense (2C:52-3);
• You may lose your right to vote.

If someone pleads Guilty or is found Guilty of a criminal offense, the following are the statutory Prison/Jail terms...

• In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years;
• In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months.

Fines have been increased recently. (See 2C:43-3) A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, to make restitution, or both, such fine not to exceed:

• $15,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the third degree;
• $10,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the fourth degree.

Of course, one would hope that no one would be silly enough to attempt to coerce a School Board member into either resigning his or her post, or would make any attempt to undermine their employment, thereby indirectly coercing them to resign.  Such behavior would not only be despicable, but – whether considered direct or indirect coercion – it would subject said individual(s) to the potential fines and prosecution outlined herein.

In the end, one must ask oneself, is the maintenance of a political dynasty, and control over the sports cabal within this Valley – whose members will, eventually, be satisfied with alternate sports arenas anyway, at little or no taxpayer expense – worth taking such a risk?

Public exposure, disgrace and humiliation are one thing.  Being forced to pay someone’s lost income, losing one’s right to vote, and going to jail are another matter altogether.

You decide.

The Letters The Hopewell Valley News Refused to Print

[The following letters were reprinted with permission from the website of the Fogler & Dollard for School Board campaign, ed.]

The following letters (were, SIC) submitted to the Hopewell Valley News by candidate Roy Dollard and others.

They were delivered in time to make last Monday's noon deadline [April 7th, 2008, ed.] but -- for the "reasons" outlined below -- Ruth Luse chose not to print them.

They are but a sample of more than a dozen similar letters that Ms. Luse intentionally kept from the citizens of Hopewell Valley in her desperate attempt to sway the outcome of this election.

One must ask oneself:

• Why do the vast majority of non-candidate letters supporting Daniels/Lindenberger always come first in the paper?
• Why did Ruth Luse permit Board Member Bartolino to write such an inflammatory and obviously political "Guest Opinion" column only days before the election?
• Why are the Daniels/Lindenberger supporters -- like Board member Judy Karp -- allowed to bring up new topics in this last issue of the paper when that's against Luse's own policy, as stated in the February 28th "Election Coverage Guidelines" she wrote?  And why does Karp's letter not appear in the Campaign Corner when it's so obviously a political smear?
• Why can Michael Bruno characterize the candidates in his letter -- when they have no chance to rebut -- but Fogler cannot?  (See below)
• How can Luse in good conscience continue to masquerade as an "objective" editor when she lets her political leanings -- and her friendship with former School Board President Sally Turner -- so clearly sway her judgment and sense of fair play?

Two of the basic tenets of this country are a free press and freedom of speech.  This week's issue of the Hopewell Valley News undermines both of these fundamental American values.

From: Roy Dollard [mailto:XXXXX @earthlink.net]
Monday, April 07, 2008 11:28 AM
To: rluse@pacpub.com
Subject: This Weeks Campaign Corner Letters

Dear Ms. Luse:

Here are my two letters for this final week's Campaign Corner. As instructed, one of the letters is from my wife, Barbara.

I sincerely hope, if you have any questions or comments, that you will take a moment to call me.

My home number is (609) XXX-XXXX. My mobile number is (609) XXX-XXXX.

Thanking you for your help and attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Roy Dollard

Letter # 1

Suggested Header:  HIRING A NEW SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT – TAKE TWO (300 WORDS)

The following letter was originally submitted on March 31st for inclusion in last week’s edition of the HVN. For some reason, although delivered on time, it was never published.

Barbara Dollard

One of the most serious challenges the School Board will face this year is the recruitment of a new superintendent to replace Judy Ferguson.  Dr. Ferguson resigned abruptly the same day it was announced former administrator John Nemeth was found to have been “double dipping” by the NJ Dept. of the Treasury, and a year and a half before she was scheduled to leave.

As a former VP-Personnel at NYNEX, I’m familiar with the challenges of hiring senior executives for tough positions. While this Human Resources know-how is helpful, in the end, my running mate -– Desirée Fogler -– and I are the only team running in this year’s School Board race with hands-on experience in actually hiring a school superintendent.

When I became President of the School Board in Briarcliff Manor, NY, before moving to Hopewell Township a decade ago, our taxes were spiraling upwards by double digits. Our School Board hired a new superintendent and together with input from the community, which we welcomed, we not only flattened the tax rate, but the metrics for student success – e.g. standardized test scores – rose by more than 10%.

Although it was a different district and a different time, the challenges were essentially the same. Economic cycles and academic approaches may vary through time, but the fundamentals of hiring successfully don’t change.

The Fogler/Dollard team has a proven track record of success in meeting this challenge. We owe it to our children to bring to bear the most formidable experience we can muster to face this difficult task. Desirée and I ask for your vote on April 15th.

Roy Dollard

Letter # 2

DOLLARD RECOMMENDS ZERO BASED BUDGETING APPROACH (299 WORDS)

I would like to expand upon my letter of March 27 which has been widely misquoted by my opponents and unfairly edited in reproduction.

Governor Corzine recently informed Hopewell Valley governments that State grants generally allocated to the municipalities have been shifted to the Hopewell Valley Regional School District, potentially resulting in additional municipal tax levies, unless citizens want to see a reduction in police and firefighting.

Corzine stated he hoped the District would be reasonable in budgeting this year, so taxpayers wouldn’t be hit with both municipal and school tax increases, and he suggested that if the District leveraged these State funds wisely, they’d be able to actually reduce their 2008-2009 budget, essentially keeping our tax burden flat.

Unfortunately, the current School Board recently voted to increase your taxes, despite various examples of waste (e.g. excessive legal fees) and mismanagement (e.g. the Nemeth fiasco), widely covered in this paper.

I suggested the District consider adopting a “zero based budgeting” approach. This means assume no increase in expenditures, and then slowly add essential expenses until you reach the smallest increase possible. It does not assume a zero increase, as most businesspersons generally add Cost-Of-Living adjustments – around 2.3% this year – and the District faces certain unfunded mandates from the State.

Instead, this School Board begins at 4% (the maximum allowed by the State) and works backwards in an attempt to hold on to as much of your taxes as possible. Indeed, when I suggested adopting this zero based budgeting approach, the Board displayed a startling lack of fiscal understanding by assuming I wanted to keep the budget completely flat.

Isn’t it time we brought some private sector experience and efficiency to this School District? Desirée Fogler and I ask for your support on Tuesday, April 15th.

Roy Dollard
Hopewell Township

I already have one letter from you, Mr. Dollard
Ruth Peterson Luse

You told me that we could send in two letters: one from my wife (see Letter #1); and one from myself (see Letter #2). The fact that my wife's letter (#1) quotes the letter that your newspaper lost and failed to print does not, in any way, undermine our agreement. If you wish to print my wife's name at the bottom of Letter #1, that is totally up to you.

I believe the people of this Valley deserve to hear my opinions concerning key issues confronting our School District. I hope and trust that you -- as an editor of significant reputation and good standing within the community -- will not stand in the way of the truth. I take you at your word that my previous letter was misplaced by accident. Please do not do anything to undermine the fine opinion that I hold of you and your newspaper.

I have the one letter. Just one of these can go. That's what we told you the day you were in.

I have lived up to our agreement.  My wife sent in one letter (#1), and I sent in a second (#2).  I expect that, as agreed, both letters will appear this Thursday.

With all due respect, I believe -- since you refused to print a correction when you lost my last letter, and since you offered me no "make-good" and nothing that wasn't already my right and my wife's right -- you should print both letters #1 and #2.

Since you lost my previous letter, I have had a chance to clean it up somewhat, and to have my wife add her signature and introduction.

I don't believe I am being unreasonable.  In all fairness, I sincerely hope you will reconsider your position.

you can have these two, but not three. The other one will be dropped. Which will have your wife's signature? Please note at bottom of the letter

Dear Ms. Luse:

I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.  I have been out campaigning all day!

Just to be clear, am I to understand that you agree to publish the following two letters as is, that LETTER #1 will appear with my wife's signature in the preamble, and that LETTER #2 will appear with my signature at the end?

Please clarify and let me know by noon tomorrow (Tuesday, April 8th).

the section  is done

Does this mean my letters will not be appearing as written this Thursday?

one will. I took the changed one and used that. The one similar to the one we typeset Friday

So, just to be clear.  You have decided to break our agreement (as confirmed in your email below, stamped Apr 7, 2008 1:31 PM), whereby you promised me the ability to submit two (2) letters this week -- one by me (about zero based budgeting), and one by my wife, Barbara (about hiring a new superintendent).

And, further, you have taken it upon yourself to decide which of the two letters you will publish; i.e. the one with the preamble by my wife about hiring a new superintendent...the less important and powerful of the two.

Please confirm that you intend to publish the following letter, VERBATIM, EXACTLY AS SEEN HERE, WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL CENSORSHIP.  In other words, it will include the preamble by my wife, written exactly as seen below...

I e-mailed you several times asking you which of the two letters should have your wife's name on it and which was yours. We had one letter already. We needed just one more. I have broken no agreement. The other lady in the shop here heard what you said and we both understood it the same way!

[The following letter was written but never sent.  Mr. Dollard opted, instead, to go in and speak to Ms. Luse. ed]

Look at the bottom of this email string and you will see that -- at 11:28 AM on Monday; i.e. in time to meet your deadline -- I said:

"Here are my two letters for this final week's Campaign Corner. As instructed, one of the letters is from my wife, Barbara ... 'The following letter was originally submitted on March 31st for inclusion in last week’s edition of the HVN. For some reason, although delivered on time, it was never published.' (Signed) Barbara Dollard...."

I don't know how much clearer I could have been.

I know you tried to reach me by email, Ms. Luse, and I appreciate that. But, if you had trouble understanding this copy, I did provide you with both my home and mobile numbers, and I encouraged you to telephone. You could have called me at any time when you saw I was not available by email. You chose not to do so.

Your failure to identify which letter was coming from my wife does not exculpate you from your obligation to live up to our agreement. You could have "typeset" both letters, and dropped in the appropriate signatory upon clarification.

Nor have you answered my question. What exactly will appear in this Thursday's paper? Please provide me with a copy of what you intend to publish.

Why are you not being forthcoming? I'm a devout reader of your paper. I'm an upstanding member of this community. And I'm a candidate for School Board.

Frankly, Ms. Luse, your explanation is simply not credible.

This from Desirée Fogler, the candidate, who is told by Ruth Luse she has to change her letter because -- given that it's the last week before the election -- it would be unfair to characterize or analyze a candidate (like Michael Bruno did in his letter, which Ms. Luse allowed!) as they have no opportunity to rebut:

-----Original Message-----
From: Desirée Fogler [mailto:XXXXX @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:51 AM
To: RLuse@pacpub.com Cc: XXXXX @hotmail.com
Subject: letter for this week's campaign corner

Ruth, Please confirm receipt of this letter for this week's HVN. Also, I don't want you to change the title of my letter. Thanks!

Desiree Fogler

-----Original Message-----
From: rluse@pacpub.com
To: XXXXXX @hotmail.com
Subject: RE: letter for this week's campaign corner (see noet)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:06:47 -0400

This will have to be rewritten to get your opponents out of it. They cannot rebut what you say:

"Fifty-nine percent of your tax dollars go to the district, and while the proposed 3.47 percent tax increase (supporting a 5 percent increase in the school budget) may not seem excessive today, if you vote for our opponents, in a few years I warrant this 3.47% tax increase will seem tame in comparison. And let’s not forget that a portion of our $1.8MM surplus was used to offset the increase in tax levy. We will not have this money to fall back on in the future!"

Ruth Peterson Luse
Managing Editor
Hopewell Valley News
52 E. Broad St.
Hopewell, NJ 08525
609-466-1190 (phone)
609-466-2123 (fax)

And this from Will Fogler -- husband of candidate Desirée Fogler -- who had to promise to escalate his complaints in order to get his letter to appear:

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXX @aol.com [mailto:XXXXX @aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:40 AM
To: rluse@pacpub.com Cc: XXXXX @aol.com; XXXXX @aol.com
Subject: letter for this week's campaign corner

Ruth Luse,
Please confirm receipt of this letter. Thank you! Dr. Will Fogler 737-XXXX

-----Original Message-----
From: Ruth Luse To: XXXXX @aol.com
Sent: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:40 am
Subject: RE: letter for this week's campaign corner

call 466-1190 so we know you wrote this letter

Ruth Peterson Luse
Managing Editor
Hopewell Valley News
52 E. Broad St.
Hopewell, NJ 08525
609-466-1190 (phone)
609-466-2123 (fax)

To: rluse@pacpub.com
Subject: Fwd: letter for this week's campaign corner
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:01:03 -0400
From: XXXXX @aol.com CC: XXXXX @aol.com; XXXXX @aol.com

Ruth, As per your email requesting me to call you...I did. You did not say I had to call by noon. I called as soon as I could get a break from work. I expect my letter to be in this week's campaign corner. If my letter does not appear, I will be forced to take further action in contacting your superiors and other local papers. I have records of all of our correspondence pertaining to this matter. It is not even policy to require a phone call in order to have a letter submitted...just a noon deadline for letter submission.

Dr. Will Fogler 737-XXXX

A Question of Trust

A variety of reliable sources have informed us that we have good reason to be skeptical about the honesty and integrity of the entrenched majority on our School Board.

Ultimately, you will need to decide for yourselves, but the allegations are serious and credible, and speak to the integrity of all the communications that were disseminated by the heretofore School Board majority -- namely Linda Mitchell, Kevin Doran (now retired), Edward Gainsborg (now voted out of office), Jeffrey Bartolino and Judy Karp (now retired) -- and the candidates who ran for School Board in April 2008: Armelle Daniels and Judy Lindenberger.

It should be noted here that the most serious breaches of ethics were committed by Kevin Doran and Judy Karp, both of whom had already announced they were leaving the Board and who, as a result, believed they had the least to fear.

(Please click on each Issue label if you want to learn more.)

That Email Flap

• From day one, the (heretofore) entrenched majority on the School Board accused Wulf and Tellier of issues of "trust"...simply because they questioned the way the Board spends our taxes, and for supporting the reinstatement of "non-mandated busing"!
• Turns out that for two months after former Board President Kim Newport (a puppet of the Sports "special interest" and clone of Sally Turner) was kicked off the Board by the voters, she was kept on the School Board email routing list by Superintendent Ferguson and Board President Linda Mitchell (another puppet of the Sports "special interest" and clone of Sally Turner).
• A private citizen/non-Board member (AKA Newport) was fed confidential personnel and special ed info and yet they claim Wulf and Tellier are "untrustworthy"!
• Hypocrites!

Attacks on the Township Committee

• Two years ago, when the $60MM+ budget submitted by the School Board was rejected by voters, the Hopewell Township Committee was forced to trim the increase they proposed by around $2MM.
• In revenge, the School Board dumped "non-mandated" busing in the Township's lap and said, "It's your headache."
• Then, just before the recent School budget vote, we saw (and continue to see) nasty personal attacks about the Township's mayor, Sandom, by the same School Board member they stuck on the Busing Task Force -- Judy Karp.
• Were they afraid Valley citizens would "Vote No" on April 15th, and were they trying to pressure the Township Committee and Mayor Sandom not to trim it again!
• Bullies!

OPRAs and Our Right To Know

• Jim Wulf's wife went to the New Jersey School Board Association to pick up some info about the Board under the Sunshine Law (OPRA - Freedom of Information Act)
• While there, she was spotted by Ms. Diane Morris, the HVRSD liaison
• A week or so later, a letter appears in the Hopewell Valley News from Ms. Carrie Cahill -- a rabid School Board supporter -- who accuses Wulf of wasting taxpayer money on OPRAs, although it's our legal right to know how the Board spends the 59% of the property taxes we give them.
• Hmmmmm.... Who passed that info onto the entrenched SB majority, and from there onto Cahill?
• Sneaky!

Ethics Violations

• It's a serious ethics violation for School Board members to endorse candidates without saying they're doing so as private citizens (vs. as Board members).
• Nor can they criticize candidates (e.g. Dollard and Fogler), since this means they're endorsing the opponents of those candidates (i.e. Daniels and Lindenberger).
• Yet Mitchell and Bartolino, Doran and Karp did just that -- in Board meetings or in letters to the Hopewell Valley News.
• And they call Wulf and Tellier, Dollard and Fogler "unethical"!
• Election riggers!

In the end, all we can do is pose questions. It is up to the citizens of the Valley to decide for themselves where the truth lies.

Some candidates told you this past election how to vote on the School budget. The candidates whom CUSP endorsed believe the citizens of this Valley have a right to make up their own minds, without undue influence, without propaganda from a newspaper that claims to be impartial but is clearly not, and without fear of retribution or retaliation or bullying.

Fogler and Dollard and McHugh did not endorse spying within private homes. They believe in free speech and free inquiry. They believe in a free press. And, perhaps most importantly, they believe that the voters of Hopewell Valley are smart enough to see through all the smear campaigns and lies being propagated by those who just want more of the same on the School Board.

Last year, Wulf and Tellier won when the voters clearly stated that, "It's time for a change." For a year, Wulf and Tellier have been the point of the spear of this change. But they still do not have a majority. They are still being persecuted by the heretofore entrenched majority on our School Board who would rather spend money on lawyers and bureaucrats, who defend unethical contracts with cronies, and who put our children at risk when they canceled "hazardous" busing simply because the citizens of this Valley voted their budget down, and the Township Committee was forced to trim their proposed increase.

Aren't our taxes already too high? 59% of our property taxes go to the School District!  Don't we need and deserve real fiscal conservatives on our School Board? How can we devote precious resources to things that matter -- like teachers and maintaining small class sizes -- if we continue to spend beyond our means?

We did not endorse Dollard and Fogler and McHugh because we believed they would cut teachers and key programs. We endorsed them because we believed -- and still believe -- that each dollar overspent on lawyers, misspent on cronies and a bloated bureaucracy is a dollar NOT spent on our children's education...or their safe passage to school. And we believed -- and still believe -- that Dollard and Fogler and McHugh have the strength of will and experience to actually do something about it.

Ask yourself: Why did the heretofore entrenched majority [i.e. Karp (now retired) and Gainsborg (now voted out), etc.] -- and their candidates Daniels and Lindenberger -- attack Dollard and Fogler so viciously?

Jim Wulf kicked over a rock and the harsh light of day is making what's under there run from the sunlight.

Could it be that the Nemeth Scandal (which precipitated Ms. Fergusson's, and now Ms. Karp's and Mr. Doran's "retirement") and the overpayments to School Board lawyer Martinez are just the tip of the iceberg?

Is there more wasteful spending that has yet to be uncovered?

Are there more ethical breaches?

J'accuse!

CUSP Endorses Candidates

After careful scrutiny of the candidates who responded to our recent question, we have decided to endorse Desirée Fogler, Roy Dollard and Brian McHugh for School Board.

We urge you to go out and vote on Tuesday, April 15th.  Your children depend on it!

QUESTION
Do you believe non-mandated (i.e. courtesy and hazardous) busing should be funded on a subscription basis, or funded through the 59% of your taxes that go to the School District?

And here are their answers:

DESIRÉE FOGLER

I am in favor of the School District funding Hazardous busing for the following reasons:

First, it’s the right thing to do. It’s a safety issue. I believe our District has a moral obligation to ensure our children get to school safely. Unlike many extracurricular activities, which are a matter of choice, our children have to attend school; it’s the law. And, whether we like it or not, the rural nature of our community means that many of our streets are simply not safe for children to travel. That’s why the State calls them “hazardous” routes.

The second reason, which some people may not have considered, is a financial one. Yes, busing costs money – not as much as the $450/pupil price the Districts says they are “subsidizing” when they offer subscription busing @ $150/pupil (formerly $500/pupil!), but it does cost money. And while $150/pupil may not mean much to some current Board members and Board candidates, let me assure you that it does to me, a small business owner with three children, and to many others in the community in these recessionary times.

In the end, though, I liken the District’s funding of Hazardous busing as a kind of insurance policy. As a physician, I am well aware that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Should, God forbid, one of our children be injured or killed while walking a route that is no longer covered by the District, it is a virtual certainty that the District would be sued, notwithstanding the fact that the District is offering subscription busing. We live in a litigious society. Such an event could make the District liable for millions of dollars in damages. And even if the District prevailed in such a suit, which is by no means guaranteed, the amount of money the District would be forced to spend on legal fees is more than the taxpayers of the Valley can afford.

Frankly, the last thing I want to see is more money wasted on high legal fees. We’re already paying too much here. In fact, if we cut our legal bills in half – putting them in line with comparable “like” Districts – we would have enough money to pay for Hazardous busing or the hiring of a new Strings teacher or the funding of the many other programs this School Board has elected to cut. It’s simply a matter of establishing Reasonable priorities.

ROY DOLLARD

Although the State does not “mandate” Hazardous busing, I think the Hopewell Valley Regional School District Board should never have cut it. Putting the children of this community at risk, many of whom are practically toddlers, and who are being forced to walk with giant backpacks down dark winding roads where traffic sometimes exceeds 50 MPH, is simply immoral.

Our children are our most precious resource. They are the future of this country, and the education of this resource is what will protect our competitive standing in the world long after I’m gone. If we want to safeguard the America we’ll become, we must invest in education. And that investment begins, first and foremost, with the protection of our children’s lives. It’s really that simple. As a veteran, I believe it’s our duty to nurture and protect the America so many have, and continue to die for.

How the School Board could have placed the financial interests of questionable administrators (e.g. Nemeth) and expensive lawyers (e.g. Martinez) over the interests of the children they are sworn to protect is beyond me. Of course, in these fiscally challenging times, we can’t have everything. But putting our children in peril to save a few dollars is morally bankrupt and makes absolutely no sense.

Plus, it pits family against family since some in our community can afford to pay for subscription busing while others cannot. If you have a couple of kids in school, that’s $300 you’re paying just to get your kids to school!

Don’t they understand that if both parents are working to make ends meet, and they can’t drive their children to school, they don’t have a choice here? Don’t they understand that such families are already being hit with high after-school childcare fees?

We in New Jersey pay the highest property taxes in the nation. In my view, those high taxes should already be covering the busing of our children to school? Subscription busing is just double-dipping – paying once through our taxes, and again through “optional” subscription fees.

There is something terribly wrong with this Board when they fail to understand the basic needs of the average citizen in our Township. Reasonable priorities begin with protecting the lives of our children, while ensuring that we don’t bankrupt our citizens through “optional” subscription fees masquerading as fiscal conservatism.

BRIAN McHUGH

The children of all families of the community are also part of the community. Independent of the number of children in a given family, the same fraction of the property tax from each family is received by the school district to educate all of the children of the community.

The school district has outlined the guidelines for hazardous busing:

• free for grades K-5 children living between 1 and 2 miles with hazards
• $150/year for grades 6-8 children living between 1 and 2 miles with hazards
• $150/year for grades 9-12 children living between 1.25 and 2.5 miles with hazards

... for subscription busing

• $500/year for grades K-8 children living between 1 and 2 miles with no hazards
• $500/year for grades 9-12 children living between 1.25 and 2.5 miles with no hazards
• Since our public school district is in the business to educate children and not to make a profit, I am at a loss to understand why certain students are charged when they are being transported for the purpose of education.

The school district should provide busing to all children according to the courtesy busing guidelines, i.e., there should be no charge for hazardous busing and there should be no subscription busing.

CUSP Question to School Board Candidates

Last year CUSP sponsored a debate with the various candidates running for School Board.

This year, we have decided to spare the various School Board candidates from taking time out from their busy campaign schedules by inviting them to answer a simple question.

We sincerely hope they will take the time to respond.  All of the candidates are being contacted, as we would like to get the broadest view possible of what they think about this issue.  All of the responses will be published here on the CUSP website, and in an open letter to the Hopewell Valley News.

QUESTION
Do you believe non-mandated (i.e. courtesy and hazardous) busing should be funded on a subscription basis, or funded through the 59% of your taxes that go to the School District?

We have asked that all the candidates' responses be emailed to us by Sunday, April 6th, by Noon.

Those who support the District's funding of non-mandated busing will, no doubt, win the votes of all those who hold this issue near and dear to their hearts.

Those who don't support the District's funding of at least hazardous busing, will most likely receive no support from CUSP members.

And those who don't bother to respond...well, we'll not only be able to infer from their silence where they stand on this particular issue, but it will say a lot about their desire to be responsive to the community as a whole.  And is this the kind of member we want on our new School Board?

You decide.

WE URGE YOU TO GO OUT AND VOTE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15TH!

People in Glass Houses...

And now it becomes perfectly clear why the Mitchell/Gainsborg/Karp/Doran/Bartolino cabal attacked Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier during the February 11th, 2008, School Board Meeting.

Anything to deflect the citizens of this valley from the real ethics violations and dirty dealings perpetrated by the entrenched School Board majority.  (See the Trenton Times article, "Adviser Ordered to Repay Pension, 02/27/08, in the Media Coverage section of this site.)

Given how much time we spend counseling our children about bullying in schools and how we should treat each other with civility, we were shocked to see the President of the School Board, Linda Mitchell, bullying a fellow Board member, Jim Wulf, and his wife during the February 11th HVRSD School Board meeting. (See 02/17/08 Trenton Times article "A School Board's e-Mail Hubbub" for details.)  Mrs. Wulf isn't even on the Board! It didn't appear to us that Mr. Wulf did anything wrong in trying to keep Valley residents informed about hazardous busing. People obviously care about this.

The truth of the matter is, the information that Ms. Mitchell characterized as being "confidential" was not a violation of ethics. Neither was it "negative" or "irresponsible" or "shameless" or "untrustworthy" or "unprofessional" or "dishonest" -- all terms used by the supporters of the Mitchell/Gainsborg/Karp/Doran/Bartolino cabal in the February 21st issue of the HVN (Letters to the Editor; see the Media Coverage section of this site).

However, one can only hope that Mr. Wulf and Mr. Tellier are indeed "destructive", as claimed by supporters of the entrenched School Board majority. One can only hope that their efforts will succeed in destroying the current attitude of arrogance and fiscal wastefullness, the rubber-stamping mindset of the entrenched majority currently infecting our School Board. This kind of bullying is shameless. What kind of an example is Ms. Mitchell trying to send to our children?

Frankly, we just don't understand why Ms. Mitchell attacked Hopewell Valley School Board Member Jim Wulf in the way that she did. Seems to us that Superintendent Judy Ferguson should never have called busing on the district website "courtesy" if it's really "hazardous." That's completely misleading.  Then again, we're not surprised.  The entrenched majority on this School Board, aided by Dr. Fergusson, has misled the public regarding the issue of busing since this whole fiasco began:  on what is or is not "hazardous"; on the cost of providing busing to our children; on the pricing of subscription busing; and -- as Mr. Wulf correctly pointed out -- on the District's website.

So why is Ms. Mitchell defending Dr. Ferguson against a fellow Board member, especially so rudely? Couldn't she have simply taken him aside privately if she had a beef? Why do it on television -- unless it was politically motivated?

Frankly, it made us think that the current school administration has too much influence over some Board members. Isn't this the tail wagging the dog? Isn't it the School Boards job to oversee the school administration, and not the other way around? Who's really driving the school bus here?

Despite Ms. Mitchell's political attack, Board Member Wulf spent the balance of the meeting still asking tough questions about how this administration is wasting taxpayer monies on excessive legal fees. He saved us tens of thousands of dollars and yet the Hopewell Valley News & Pennington Post didn't even mention this in their coverage. How come? Certainly doesn't seem very objective. While Mitchell's ambush of a fellow Board member may make for sensational copy, the real news got lost in the shuffle.

When all is said and done, it appears to us that if anyone should be charged with an ethics violation, it should be Ms. Mitchell herself. Such nasty and condescending behavior should not be tolerated on our School Board. We just don't see how Wulf's passing of already public information to his wife could be considered unethical or a violation...and yet Ms. Mitchell sat there waving the School Board Ethics Guidelines in his face.

And where was Mr. Martinez, the District's attorney in all of this?  Surely, if Mr. Wulf had committed a violation, Mr. Martinez should have stood up and supported Ms. Mitchell. Indeed, if someone else had asked Mr. Wulf to get the information superintendent Ferguson passed to him, and he had gone to the State for the answers to his questions, the result would have been the same. So what was so confidential? Is the current administration trying to hide things from the public once again?

Judge for yourself. Click here to see the ambush of Jim Wulf. And then watch as Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier take the entrenched majority to task for wasting our hard-earned tax dollars on excessive legal fees.

To quote Ms. Wulf's now infamous email note:  GO JIM!

School Budget and Busing

According to John Tredrea's article in last week's Hopewell Valley News (01/24/08):

The proposed transportation budget is $4,024,798. This is $30,324, or 0.7 percent, less than the 2007-2008 adjusted budget and $8,033, or 0.2 percent less, than the 2007-2008 adopted budget.

The district saved $209,692 this year by making policy changes in grades six-12 busing not required by state law. Under those changes, families who want that busing must pay part of the cost.

On Tuesday, board members Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier said the board and administration should investigate the possibility of having the district pay for all this busing again. Mr. Tellier said he has heard comments to that effect “from more than a handful” of district parents.

"We’ve had very few complaints," responded Dr. Ferguson on the nonmandated busing issue.

Board President Linda Mitchell said she has heard no complaints at all. She asked the board if any other members had heard any complaints about the busing changes. No other board members said they had.

The truth of the matter is that some Board members -- namely Aaron Tellier, Jim Wulf and Mel Meyers -- continue to hear from dozens of unhappy parents affected by the busing issue each and every month.

No, this issue has not gone away.

And we're glad that Wulf and Tellier still remember the important role this plank in their platform played in last year's election.  Indeed, we hope they make good on their campaign promises, and refuse to sign off on any school budget that doesn't include the reinstatement of funding for hazardous busing.

The new School Board election is only a few weeks away.  Since Wulf and Tellier's unprecedented victory last time around, they have made significant strides in promoting greater transparency in the way the Board conducts business.  They've helped keep costs down, and we're likely to see a significant budget surplus as a result, in large part due to their oversight.

But they are still the minority.  Too often Linda Mitchell, Judy Karp and other entrenched interests on the School Board have shut down their complaints, often vilifying them personally, or through surrogate agents.

Last election, the community responded overwhelmingly to the message:  "It's time for a change."  And, indeed, a change has begun.

But, until Wulf and Tellier are joined by three new Board Members sympathetic to their views, the Board will remain what it has been:

• largely deaf to the voices of outraged parents -- on issues as varied as hazardous busing, holiday celebrations and curriculum changes;
• too eager to cut sweetheart deals with former employees;
• too free with our tax dollars on legal fees and in creating unnecessary bureaucratic positions;
• and not caring enough about the safety of our children as they are forced to walk unprotected along our sidewalkless streets.

We're almost there.  We've made a good start.  Let's not give up now.

Linda Mitchell is saying that no one cares anymore, that few even bother to voice their opinion.

Let's prove her wrong.  Click here to send Ms. Mitchell and the other School Board members an email telling them just how you feel.  Or call Ms. Mitchell directly at 609-818-1715.

Post-Election Perspective

Lawsuit is Settled

PLEASANTVILLE, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey student who was paralyzed after being struck by a car following an early dismissal from school will receive a $6 million settlement from the school district.

Joseph Jerkins, who is now 15, was paralyzed from the neck down when he was struck by a car in 2001.

The teen has spent the past four years in a pediatric care facility after it became too difficult for his father, Charles, to care for him at home. Now he's headed home to live with his father.

"The settlement will help with everything," Charles Jerkins told The Press of Atlantic City for Friday's newspapers. "It will help bring him home. I will be able to get a house for him, and he will be able to have a nurse there. That will help with his healing. Home is where families meet, and children need their families."

In June, the state Supreme Court ruled that school districts must take responsibility for students after they are dismissed and schools must give families reasonable notice of early dismissal.

Jerkins' argued that the school did not give adequate notice to families about the 1:30 p.m. dismissal on June 15, 2001 from the South Main Street Elementary School.

Two hours and 20 minutes after students were released, Joseph was playing with a friend; his uncle was not present to pick him up because he didn't know about the early dismissal, the newspaper reported.

Joseph ran out into the street and was hit by a car.

The case was due to be heard in state Superior Court on Monday.

Gregory Giordano, the district's lawyer, said the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by the school.

John Nemeth Contract

To view John Nemeth's contract, click here.

Why Strings and Other Non-Busing Issues Matter to CUSP

A recent letter by Sally Turner to the Hopewell Valley News (posted under Media Coverage) has launched a veritable landslide of Comments from angry parents.  Why do Strings and other non-busing issues matter to CUSP parents?

The issue that Sally Turner is speaking about -- the cutting of the Strings program for 2nd and 3rd graders -- is really about more than what we find in our children's curriculum, what they talk about when they come home from school.  One of those who commented to Ms. Turner's letter perhaps stated it best:

This isn't about Strings anymore. Reasonable people can differ on the value of strings vs. science vs. whatever. It's about the way in which the School Board treated parents, even when they voiced their concerns. It's the way they tried to muzzle opposition by throwing out the sop of science, without any curriculum alteration to support it. It's the way they volunteered the YMCA without first bothering to check they could do it. It's the arrogance we can't abide. Spring is coming...

A pattern of abuse is emerging.  Whether it's the way the old School Board treated parents distressed and concerned when their children's "hazardous" busing was cut, or the way they treated those who were outraged by the sudden termination of Strings, the pattern of arrogant dismissal, of misinformation, of closed-door backroom dealings, of out-and-out falsehoods is frighteningly familiar.

One could say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but -- true as that may be -- it misses the point.  It's our School Board.  It's our School District.  It's our children's future.

It is our responsibility to ensure that the School Board is honest and open, and reasonable and fair-minded, like any good parent should be.  That it follows the rules that it makes.  That it understands waste is a book ripped from small hands, an hour of tutelage squandered.  And might we even add courteous?   

One day, the parents in this valley will get so upset, over yet another financial scandal or another sweetheart deal, over another wasteful expenditure, and they will rise up...as they did during the last election, when they drove in Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier -- in a landslide.

Spring is indeed coming.  There are still parents out here who believe that school busing within hazardous zones is the responsibility of the School District.  We have not given up.  We will continue to fight.

Care to respond?  Click on Comments, below.

School District Faces New Legal and Financial Exposure for Failing to Provide "Hazardous Busing"

On June 14, the court found in a case in Pleasantville that schools have an obligation to ensure children are heading home safely. The decision holds school districts accountable for student safety after school.  It was based on a Supreme Court case that revolved around a 9-year-old Pleasantville boy who was paralyzed after being hit by a car several blocks away from school after dismissal when left without a ride in 2001.

The Hopewell Valley school board has been relying on a state regulation that says schools don't need to provide transportation to children who reside less than two miles from school. But the recent court decision changes everything.

"It's a terrible tragedy," said School Board President Linda Mitchell, commenting on the case. "We are looking to see how to replace any of our policies that would clarify the district's responsibility in the finding of the court."

The school board won't enact any new policy before the first board meeting of the new school year in September. The board's attorney said drafting new dismissal protocols won't get rolling until the July 18 policy meeting.

We at CUSP urge Linda Mitchell and the other members of the School Board to reconsider their position on providing children with "hazardous" busing.  It would be a poor business decision to cease funding such busing given the considerable legal and financial exposure the new court decision places on the School District.

Care to respond?  Click on Comments, below.

Results for the Hopewell Valley School Board Election

Well, the voters have spoken ... and Tellier and Wulf are the winners!

Here are the latest "unofficial" results for the School Board election:

Aaron Tellier  1,262
Jim Wulf         1,149

Kim Newport     908
Robert Ghem    624
Werner Graf     256
Ken Hansen      248
Neil Seftor       228

Interestingly, although incumbents Newport and Graf were soundly defeated, the school budget was passed.  Here are the results:

General Funds
Yes            1,762
No             1,531

Separate Proposal
Yes           1,679
No            1,604

Just goes to show you, it wasn't just about the money.  The citizens of the valley cast their vote for new leadership on the School Board.

In a phrase, it was time for a change.

Care to say something about the election.  Click on Comments, below.

MARCH CUSP POLL RESULTS ARE IN

The results for the March CUSP Poll are in.  89% of the respondents said they will vote the School Budget down on April 17th if the Board refuses to pay for hazardous busing. For the results of previous polls, click here.

Look to the left margin to cast your vote in our April poll about the forthcoming School Board election.

If you would like to join CUSP, but don't feel like leaving a public Comment, click here to send us your name, email address and the name of the school(s) your children attend.

Candidates Debate on March 29

The Hopewell Valley League of Women Voters will hold its annual School Board Candidates' Forum on March 29.

The 90-minute debate will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the TV studio at Hopewell Valley Central High School, Pennington-Titusville Road, Pennington.

The debate will be broadcast live on Comcast Channel 19 in Hopewell Valley and be rebroadcast at 9 a.m., 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. daily until the day before the election.

The school board and budget election is April 17. Polls will be open from 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Eight candidates — seven from Hopewell Township and one from Hopewell Borough — are running for three open seats on the nine-member board. There are no seats in Pennington up for election this year. In the township, seven are vying for two three-year terms.

Candidates include Robert Gehm, Werner Graf, Ken Hansen, Kim Newport, Neil Seftor, Aaron Tellier and James Wulf.

Mr. Graf and Ms. Newport, board president, are the incumbents.

In Hopewell Borough incumbent Melvin Myers is running unopposed for a three-year term. He has served on the school board since September 2004, when he was appointed to fill a vacancy. The following April he was elected to serve the remaining two years of that term.

The regional board is made up of seven Hopewell Township representatives and one each from Pennington and Hopewell boroughs.

At the Candidates' Forum, each candidate will have an opportunity to make opening and closing statements, followed by questions from the public. At the close of the program, residents will be able to meet informally with candidates.

Meet the Candidates

On Sunday, March 25th, there will be a "Meet the Candidates Party" at 8 Hart Court in Titusville, from 3:00-6:00 PM, where you can get to know School Board candidates Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier.  See what the non-incumbents have to say on issues ranging from school taxes to hazardous busing.  Meet the alternative to Kim Newport and Werner Graf.  The weather should be beautiful and Miss Amy, the popular family entertainer, will be singing.  Bring your kids.  Snacks served.  Open to the public.

What:      Meet the Candidates Party

Where:    8 Hart Court, Titusville

When:     Sunday, March 25th; 3:00 - 6:00 PM

Important Busing Meeting on Friday, March 23rd, 2007

This just in...

President of the School Board Kim Newport has indicated the district will be providing hazardous busing this fall for elemenatry age students, but will only provide subscription school busing -- for a fee -- to middle and high school kids.

Aren't our taxes high enough as they are?  Is it fair we have to pay a new "user fee" -- yet another new tax -- just to get our kids to and from school?  Isn't this double dipping?

Come to the Timerblane cafeteria on Friday, March 23rd, at 8:00 AM when the district announces its plans for busing this fall.

Make your feelings heard!

CUSP Endorses Tellier and Wulf in School Board Race

Now that Hopewell Township has declined to assume responsibility for hazardous school busing from the School District, the ball is back in the School Board’s court. If they make good on their promise to cut hazardous busing, the school budget will, in all probability, be rejected by the voters in the spring.

In light of these developments, the race for the two open seats on the School Board assumes even more importance. After careful consideration of the candidates vying for the two Hopewell Township seats being contested in the forthcoming School Board election on April 17th, CUSP has decided to endorse the team of Aaron Tellier and Jim Wulf.

While all the candidates bring something to the table, Tellier and Wulf have demonstrated their commitment to bring transparency and openness back to the School Board -- in strong contrast to the way CUSP parents have been treated by the incumbents, Newport and Graf -- and have shown themselves to be supporters of our efforts to reinstate "hazardous" school busing.

We urge all CUSP supporters to take a good look at the candidates. Once you do, we think you’ll agree. This April 17th, it’s Tellier and Wulf for the School Board.

It's time for a change! Tell your neighbors and friends. Protect your children’s rights to receive "hazardous" school busing! Come out and vote!

For further information, write to:  TellierAndWulf@hotmail.com

FEBRUARY CUSP POLL RESULTS ARE IN

The results for the February CUSP Poll are in.  More than 81% of the respondents said they think others should step forward to challenge incumbents Kim Newport, Melvin Myers and Werner Graf in this year's School Board election on April 17th.

For the results of previous polls, click here.

Look to the left margin to cast your vote in our March poll.

If you would like to join CUSP, but don't feel like leaving a public Comment, click here to send us your name, email address and the name of the school(s) your children attend.

Two Upcoming Events

The Hopewell Valley League of Women Voters is sponsoring a Public Lecture on Property Tax Reform by Bill Schluter, this Thursday evening - March 1 - at 7:30pm. The Lecture will be held in the Hopewell Township Municipal Building.

And speaking of Property Tax Reform, Meg Berlin is coming to the Lawrence Public Library (at intersection of Darrah Lane and Rt 1) on Wednesday, March 7th, at 7:00 PM to discuss and review School Regionalization issues. We most cordially invite you to come and take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to have a League expert present.

Paying for Elective Athletics Transportation vs. Getting our Kids to School

According to the "2007-2008 Budget Discussion" Powerpoint presentation delivered by the School Board at the end of last month, Transportation Costs for 6-12 Athletics will cost taxpayers almost a quarter of a million dollars this school year:

• Transportation Costs for 6-12 Athletics
  • CHS - $184,067
  • TMS - $ 50,176
    

In light of the School Board's decision to cut "hazardous" school busing this year, it seems unseemly that they continue to spend money on elective, afterschool transportation.

After all, what's more important:  getting to and from Timberlane and Central High, or getting a free ride to some sporting event?

The School Board is already charging some parents $500/yr for the subscription busing of kids who simply want to go to school.  Why then do they continue subsidizing the Athletics Transportation of students?

This is yet another example of the misprioritization of funding by the School Board.

School Board members Kim Newport and Werner Graf both supported the elimination of "hazardous" school busing while voting in favor of elective athletic transportation subsidies.

Is this the kind of leadership we want on our School Board?  Both Newport and Graf are up for re-election this spring.  We at CUSP say it's time for a change.

The School District's Long-Range Fiscal Plan - Presented at the February 12, 2007 School Board Meeting

Come and speak your mind! Tell School Superintendent Ferguson what you really feel about the School Board's decision to cancel school busing. Hear about the long-range fiscal plan for our school district!

Host: Judy Ferguson
Place: Board Office

Dates
Friday, Feb 16, 12 noon Brown Bag Lunch
Thurs, Feb 22, 12 noon Brown Bag Lunch
Tues, Feb 27, 7 p.m. Coffee
Wed, March 7, 10 a.m. Coffee
Tues, March 22, 7 p.m. Coffee
Wed, April 11, 10 a.m. Coffee

JANUARY CUSP POLL RESULTS ARE IN

The results for the January CUSP Poll are in.  Approximately 54% of the respondents said they think it generally costs either $350 - $400 or > $400 per night to get a Fiore hotel suite at the Borgata Hotel and Casino similar to the one Kim Newport and other School Board members purchased with our tax dollars during a recent offsite junket in Atlantic City.  Turns out, the correct answer is > $400.

For the results of previous polls, click here.

Look to the left margin to cast your vote in our February poll about the upcoming School Board elections.

If you would like to join CUSP, but don't feel like leaving a public Comment, click here to send us your name, email address and the name of the school(s) your children attend.

Hopewell Valley Busing Task Force Report, January 2007

Background

The Hopewell Valley Regional School Board of Education has experienced five years of frozen State school aid, recent State legislation eliminating the budget cap waiver for non-mandated transportation service cost and a budget defeat resulting in a reduction of its 2006-2007 budget by $2,100,000. Facing the need to reduce its tentative 2007-08 budget by at least $1,000,000 to meet its tightened budget cap restriction, the Board of Education reached the tentative conclusion that it could not, in its 2007-2008 budget, continue to fund those transportation services not required by law, specifically transportation for non-remote students on hazardous routes to and from school. New Jersey State law, NJSA 18A:39-1 et seq and NJAC 6A:27-1.2, requires the School District to underwrite transportation expense for most special education students but only for those regular program students whose homes are remote from school: 2 miles for elementary school students (grades K-5 in Hopewell Valley) and 2.5 miles for secondary students (grades 6-12 in Hopewell Valley).

Transportation services funded by the Board of Education for regular program students living closer are not mandated. Transportation service for some of those students, those not on hazardous routes to school, was eliminated in the present year budget as per the recommendation of the Board’s 2005 Ad Hoc Committee on Courtesy Transportation. The other non-mandated transportation piece, services for non-remote students living on hazardous routes, is tentatively scheduled for elimination in next year’s budget. 822 students would be affected if these services were not available this year: 3 elementary school students in Hopewell Borough (no middle and high school students), 348 elementary school students and 208 Timberlane and Central High School students in Hopewell Township, and 19 elementary school and 244 Timberlane and Central High School students in Pennington. The estimated cost to transport these students this year is $405,888 ($1,564 for Hopewell Borough students, $291,557 for Hopewell Township students and $112,767 for Pennington Borough students).

In mid-August, at the outset of its budget deliberations for 2007-08, the Board of Education gave an alert to its constituent municipalities that it was not planning to continue funding non-mandated transportation services for non-remote students living on hazardous routes. The Board stated that it “would work closely with the three governing bodies to plan this transfer of responsibility for the affected students”. This was done in the hope that the municipalities would agree to underwrite the expense for continuing these services and in the belief that the municipal governments, unlike the School District, could do so outside of their budget caps via an inter-local services agreement. Subsequently, the three municipalities and the Board of Education agreed to participate in the Mayors’ Busing Task Force to identify the best possible plan to ensure safe passage for the affected students to and from school.

The Task Force Deliberation Process

The Mayors’ Busing Task Force was composed of fourteen individuals: residents of whom several were parents of presently enrolled K-12 students, representatives from the three municipal governments and from the Board of Education and a Hopewell Valley police representative. Chaired by Hopewell Borough Council member Paul Anzano, the Task Force met three times in November of 2006. The Hopewell Valley Regional School Board of Education representatives provided and commented on a substantial amount of documentation regarding its tentative decision to eliminate the balance of its non-mandated transportation services commencing the 2007-08 school year.

The Task Force first clarified its charge as addressing this question: What is the best plan for safe passage of non-remote hazardous route students to and from school? Recognizing all the stakeholders (students, parents, taxpayers, the School Board and the municipal governments), the Task Force developed and prioritized criteria against which it might evaluate any option. The criteria were as follows:

• Maximize safety (priority 5-the highest priority)
• Maximize level of service (priority 3)
• Minimize cost to taxpayer, parents, School Board and municipal governments
  (priority 4)
• Minimize adverse impact on educational services (priority3)
• Minimize adverse impact on municipal services (priority 3)
• Maximize effective administration of the transportation services at issue
  (priority 1)
• All options had to meet legal requirements

In addition to establishing the above criteria, the issue of whether the municipalities would be allowed to budget the necessary funds outside of their caps via an interlocal compact was debated and researched without agreement between municipal and school authorities. The School Board attorney and auditor provided written opinions that the expense could be budgeted outside of municipal caps. The municipal attorneys and auditors, in consultation with New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, informed municipal officials that the expense could not be placed outside of municipal caps. These caps impose a limit on the amount by which a governing body may increase its annual budget. Some municipal expenses may be budgeted above cap, but transportation expense was not believed by municipal authorities to be one of them. This finding altered the discussion, as now both the School Board and the municipalities foresaw very tight budgets and the necessity of cutting essential services if they were to fund the transportation services in question.

As a result, the following six options were evaluated vis-à-vis the above criteria and understanding:

1. Municipalities budget the requisite funds and, via an inter-local agreement, contract with the Board of Education to furnish and administer the necessary transportation services.
2. Municipalities budget the requisite funding, pool resources and contract directly for the transportation services.
3. Each municipality budgets the funding it considers necessary to provide and administer transportation services for its resident students.
4. The School Board offers subscription busing services at $500 per student per year; the three municipalities provide some safety enhancements in the form of crossing guards and sidewalks for walkers where feasible; parents transport rest of the non-remote students living on hazardous routes.
5. No busing services are offered. Municipalities make safety enhancements, as feasible, for walkers; parents transport most of the non-remote students residing on hazardous routes.
6. The School Board rescinds its tentative decision and agrees to continue to fund transportation services as in the past for non-remote students on hazardous routes.

The Task Force examined those six options vis-à-vis the criteria for the best plan and concluded that option 1 and option 6 were similarly scored highest. For all intents and purposes, identical options 1 and 6 would continue the same busing arrangement as exists this year. Only the funding source would be different. Ranking well below in descending order were options 2,3,4,5.

All parties, agreeing on the high priority of continuing the transportation services as well as the high priority of not having to cut other essential services, looked to other ways to jointly secure safe passage of hazardous route pupils to and from school:

1. Phasing in the transfer of these transportation services from the School Board to the municipal governments over a multi-year period.
2. School Board using savings realized via shared service arrangements with the municipalities to underwrite some or all of the transportation cost at issue.
3. Finding some funding via other reductions in both School and municipal budgets. Possible municipal transfer of funds to Board of Ed for school use.
4. The Board of Education reimbursing the three municipalities in part from year-end surplus.
5. Municipal funding of a shuttle service as was done by Pennington in 1995-96 and in 1996-97. (This option appears only applicable to Pennington.)
6. Application for New Jersey State Safe Routes to School Grant funding.
7. Emergency request by the three municipalities for a one-year cap waiver for the necessary expense.
8. Subscription busing handled by the Board of Education or the municipalities.

Conclusion

The Task Force concluded that it had identified the best two options but could not make a final determination, given the findings of the municipalities that the expense would be considered within their budget caps as well as within the School Board caps and thus its budgeting poses a threat to essential services for both the Board of Education and for the municipalities. The Task Force urges further effort to determine if there is any way in which the expense might be budgeted outside of municipal caps, even for one year. This would permit continuation, as per option #1, of the services at issue while recognizing that if funded in or out of cap there is an adverse impact to the municipal budgets and an additional burden on the tax payer. Subsequently, the expense would remain in municipal budgets with funds being transferred annually to the Board of Education which would continue to administer the services. Failing that resolution and recognizing that the Board of Education is not required to provide this service, the Task Force recommended that the municipal governments and the Board of Education examine the eight options directly above and possibly other ways to secure the mutually desired safe passage of students to and from school with an equitable sharing of the burden and equitable service for parents and students.

Also the Task Force specifically concluded that the Task Force did not support the elimination of hazardous busing or the initiation of subscription busing services.

DECEMBER CUSP POLL RESULTS ARE IN

The results for the December CUSP Poll are in.  Approximately 65% of the respondents said they would consider following Montclair, New Jersey's lead, to permit your local elected political representatives (e.g. the Hopewell Township Committee) to appoint local School Board officials vs. having traditional School Board elections, historically held in the spring.

For the results of previous polls, click here.

Look to the left margin to cast your vote in January's poll.

If you would like to join CUSP, but don't feel like leaving a public Comment, click here to send us your name, email address and the name of the school(s) your children attend.

Something to Lobby For

Assembly Bill A1643, which requires School Districts to provide Hazardous Busing, has been languishing with the Education Committee since January of 2006.  We urge all parents concerned with this issue to contact their State representatives to move it along.  (See "What You Can Do!", left)

Here is the Bill's "Statement":

This bill requires public school districts to provide transportation services to public and nonpublic school students who live along a hazardous route.  The bill stipulates that the district will be entitled to State aid in an amount equal to 100% of the cost of providing such transportation.

Under the bill's provisions, the Commissioner of Transportation, in consultation with the Commissioner of Education, will develop three definitions of "hazardous route" for the purposes of this transportation requirement.  The definitions will differentiate between urban, suburban, and rural routes.  In developing the definitions, the commissioners will consider the following criteria: population density; traffic volume; average vehicle velocity; existence or absence of sufficient sidewalk space; roads and highways that are winding or have blind curves; roads and highways with steep inclines and declines; drop-offs that are in close proximity to a sidewalk; bridges or overpasses that must be crossed to reach the school; train tracks or trestles that must be crossed to reach school; and busy roads or highways that must be crossed to reach school.

The Commissioner of Transportation, in consultation with the local police department, will designate hazardous routes in the State using the established definitions.  The Commissioner of Transportation will then notify the Commissioner of Education of the designated routes.  The Commissioner of Transportation will also conduct an annual review to determine whether the designated routes continue to need the hazardous designation, and will notify the Commissioner of Education if a determination is made to discontinue a hazardous route designation.

Finally, the bill provides that when the Commissioner of Transportation determines discretionary aid from the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund, he must give highest priority to projects intended to remedy conditions on the designated hazardous routes.

The bill requires that transportation be provided to nonpublic school students who live along hazardous routes and to provide State aid in an amount equal to 100% of the cost of such nonpublic transportation.  The bill amends and repeals sections of a prior law which had authorized school districts to adopt a list of hazardous routes in the district requiring courtesy busing services.

Make your feelings known.  Email your state representatives:

NJ State Legislators (District 15)
Senator SHIRLEY K. TURNER
     1440 Pennington Rd., 1st Floor, Ewing, NJ 08618 (609)-530-3277 Assemblyman REED GUSCIORA
     226 W. State St., Trenton, NJ 08608 (609)-292-0500
Assemblywoman BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN
     226 W. State St., Trenton, NJ 08608 (609)-292-0500

Assembly Passes New Bill - A4

The Assembly passed the Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act today.  Now the bill (A4) moves to the Senate.  If it's approved, as expected, it will require the Governor's signature before becoming the law of the land.

Assuming the bill is passed and signed, we urge the School District to move quickly to secure new transportation funding so that our kids won't be left hanging.

Pending Bill that the NJ Legislature is Voting on Today - A4

STATEMENT

This bill (A4) groups together the individual components of the CORE proposal that was considered by the Joint Legislative Committee on Consolidation and Shared Services. Article 1 contains the “Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act,” which is subdivided into provisions designed to encourage savings among local units of government through the use of shared services, joint meetings, and municipal consolidation. The article codifies the SHARE program that provides financial incentives for local units to investigate shared services opportunities and also empowers residents to promote shared service and consolidation opportunities. The article provides methods for resolving Civil Service barriers to shared services and consolidation in situations where some participating local units have adopted Civil Service and some have not. The article also permits school districts to join with other local units in group insurance plans.

Article 2 of the bill would greatly increase the fiscal accountability of local officials by requiring “user-friendly” budgets and increasing public notice and awareness, including the use of Internet posting, when salaries are established or modified. Part of the “user-friendly” concept is the requirement that all compensation, benefits, separation benefits, and contract terms for school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school business administrators be clearly disclosed to the Commissioner of Education.

After empowering taxpayers with all of this financial information, it is important to give them a reasonable opportunity to hold their local officials accountable for budget decisions at the polls. Articles 3 and 4 do that by moving the fire district and school board elections to the date of the November general election, when the maximum number of people turn-out to vote.

Article 5 deals with the problems of inefficiency and bureaucracy in the 616 school districts by giving the county superintendent of school much more responsibility to oversee local school districts. The article changes the title of the county superintendent of schools to the executive county superintendent of schools, revises the terms of employment and the duties of the superintendent, and provides for the appointment of the superintendent by the Governor, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Education and with the advice and consent of the Senate. An executive county superintendent of schools would serve for a term of three years and could be re-appointed for a subsequent term if the individual received a satisfactory performance assessment. The performance assessment, conducted by the Commissioner of Education, would be based on the ability of the superintendent to effectuate administrative and operational efficiencies and cost savings within the school districts located in the county, while enhancing the effectiveness of the districts in providing a thorough and efficient system of education, and on the capacity of the school districts in the five key components of school district effectiveness under the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum. In establishing the standards for assessing the performance of the superintendent in facilitating administrative efficiencies, the commissioner is directed to include such factors as administrator-to-teacher ratios, administrator-to-students ratios, and per-pupil administrative expenditures. The article also includes post-employment restrictions, prohibiting the executive county superintendent from being employed by one of the districts he supervised for two years after his term as superintendent terminates.

In addition to the current duties, an executive county superintendent of schools is charged with the duty to: promote administrative and operational efficiencies and cost savings within school districts while ensuring the provision of a thorough and efficient system of education; recommend to the commissioner the consolidation of certain districts’ administrative services; recommend to the commissioner the elimination of laws determined to be unnecessary State education mandates, except mandates that fall under certain categories of laws; have the authority to eliminate non-operating districts located in the county; no later than three years following the effective date of the bill, develop a plan to consolidate school districts in the county and require the affected districts to hold a referendum on the plan; promote the coordination and regionalization of public and nonpublic pupil transportation services in the county; request the commissioner to order forensic audits of school districts upon a determination by the superintendent that such an audit is warranted; promote cooperative purchasing of textbooks and other instructional materials; coordinate with the Department of Education to maintain a real time Statewide and district-wide database that tracks the types and capacity of special education programs being implemented by each district and the number of students enrolled in each program to identify program availability and needs; coordinate with the Department of Education to maintain a Statewide and district-wide list of all special education students served in out-of-district programs and a list of all public and private entities approved to receive special education students that includes pertinent information such as audit results and tuition charges; serve as a referral source for districts that do not have appropriate in-district programs for special education students and provide those districts with information on placement options in other school districts; conduct regional planning and identification of program needs for the development of in-district special education programs; serve as a liaison to facilitate shared special education services within the county; work with districts to develop in-district special education programs and services and provide assistance to districts in budgetary planning for resource realignment and reallocation to direct special education resources into the classroom; and, report to the commissioner on a regular basis on progress in achieving the goals of increasing the number of special education students educated in appropriate programs with non-disabled students.

The article also provides that the executive county superintendent is required to review all school district budgets and may disapprove a portion of the school district’s proposed budget if he determines that the district has not implemented all potential efficiencies in the administrative operations of the district or if he determines that the budget includes excessive non-instructional expenses. The executive county superintendent must also require a school district, before it submits for voter approval a separate proposal for additional funds in order to spend above its cap, to provide him with certain written documentation concerning shared services with other units of local government.

Article 5 also provides for the appointment of an executive county business official to serve in the office of the executive county superintendent of schools for a term of three years. The executive county business official would also be subject to re-appointment based upon receiving a satisfactory performance assessment using criteria developed by the commissioner.

Under the article, a local school district could apply to the executive county superintendent of schools to have services including, but not limited to, transportation, personnel, purchasing, payroll, and accounting assumed by the office of the superintendent. The executive county superintendent could assess a fee on the school district for any service he determines to provide. The executive county superintendent of schools could also utilize county special services school districts, jointure commissions, and educational services commissions to provide services to local school districts.

Article 5 also amends an existing statute to require that the report prepared by the executive county superintendent when a constituent municipality seeks to withdraw from a limited purpose regional school district or when the district seeks to dissolve must also include information on the effects on the administrative and operational efficiencies, and the resultant cost savings or cost increases, in the withdrawing and the regional districts, or by each constituent district in the event of a dissolution.

Candidates Wanted!

As we head into the holiday season, the new year is right around the corner, and with it come the spring elections for the Hopewell Valley Regional School Board.

Two positions are up:  Kim Newport, current President; and Werner Graf, who first proposed tranfering the responsibility for "hazardous" busing to the municipalites back on May 18th, 2006 (See Media Coverage, May 18th post.)

Whether you support these incumbents or not, we at CUSP firmly believe in the democratic process, and stongly encourage anyone with an interest in our School District -- and the "hazardous" busing controversy -- to think seriously about running for the Board.  The greater the field of candidates, the more robust the democratic process ... and the broader the intellectual capital we can bring to bear on the problems facing the School District.

So, if you have the inclination, as you gather with family and friends this holiday season, talk it through with those you trust most.

We need you.  Our children need you.  Our schools need you.

And if you decide to run, and want CUSP's help with your campaign, just drop us a line at hvcusp@gmail.com.

November CUSP Poll Results Are In!

The results for the November CUSP Poll are in.  79% of the respondents said they do not feel it's fair that the School Board is charging Hopewell Valley taxpayers (@ rate of $500/yr) for the "Subscription School Busing" of their children.

For the results of previous polls, click here.

Look to the left margin to cast your vote in December's poll.

If you would like to join CUSP, but don't feel like leaving a public Comment, click here to send us your name, email address and the name of the school(s) your children attend.

Nonmandated Busing Task Force Meeting Precis - November 29, 2006

Joe Lawver, Pennington Borough Councilman, read a letter at the beginning of the meeting quoting officials from the NJ Dept. of Community Affairs: “Having the three municipalities pay the HVRSD the $405,000 for the non-mandated busing would fall under cap….” Therefore, Joe Lawver and Hopewell Township Mayor Vanessa Sandom stated that they would have to cut services in their municipal budgets to assume the cost.

Judy Karp, who was the only HVRSD representative at the meeting, stated that she did not agree with that interpretation because their school board attorney said it was not within the cap. Mayor Sandom said it was presumptuous for the School Board to think that the municipalities would accept the school board attorney’s interpretation rather than listening to their own municipal attorney.

Judy Karp suggested that HVRSD could use its own buses for the non-mandated busing. She called this a possible “loop-hole”, and that this gambit would enable the municipalities to pay for the service as an interlocal agreement. There wasn’t any support for this from the municipalities.

The next part of the meeting was spent reviewing the Matrix that was formulated during the last Task Force meeting. The five choices were expanded to include a sixth option: the HVRSD continues to fund and manage all non-mandated busing.

And a new rating criteria was added:  cost to the School Board.

After weighing the six options against the rating criteria, the Task Force elected to recommend the following two courses of action: 1) To have the municipalities fund the non-mandated busing, with the HVRSD administering it; and 2) To have the HVRSD continue to fund and administer the non-mandated busing.

The least desirable choice was to have the parents pay by means of a “subscription busing” fee. As has been shown at Stony Brook – where the School District is already charging parents @ $500/yr/student (i.e. $1,500/year for families with three children) – the majority of parents would rather drive their children to school than avail themselves of this subscription busing service. This is already resulting in unsafe conditions at Stony Brook, as well as horrendous traffic jams. In addition, changes to the schools’ infrastructure would necessitate substantial increases to the HVRSD’s capital budget, thereby engendering still more tax increases.

Both the Pennington and Hopewell Township officials felt that they would not be able to fund the busing this coming year without significant, unacceptable cuts in their own municipal services (e.g. police and public works). They expressed concern that the transfer was not being managed over a 3-5 year period, and that the HVRSD had not come to them earlier to work out such a transfer of funding.

At this point Joe Lawver said that Pennington could adopt the “Giant Shuttle” solution with the HVRSD for their part of the busing. The “Giant Shuttle” solution would involve setting up two – and only two – bus stops within the municipality. Students would rendezvous at the two stops and would be bused (across Route 31) from that point. Judy Karp said this could be negotiated with Pennington.

John Murphy, Hopewell Twp Committeeman, then proposed that the School Board and the three municipalities get together and look at “shared services” to try and come up with the $405,500. Murphy felt confident that the funding could be found in this way. Karp replied that even if monies were found in this manner, the School Board would not necessarily agree to apply it exclusively to non-mandated busing.

If the School Board votes to transfer the busing to the municipalities, in order to avoid cutting vital municipal services, both Hopewell Township and Pennington Borough officials said they might have to support a Subscription Busing solution – even though this ranked lowest in the list of options.

Hopewell Borough Councilman Paul Anzano then said that the Task Force had accomplished its goal and this would be the last meeting. Anzano is drawing up the recommendations of the Task Force, including John Murphy’s “shared services” proposal with its phased-in approach to the transfer.

The Task Force represented all the interested parties in this affair: the HVRSD, the municipalities, as well as concerned parents. Since neither the School Board nor the municipalities appear to be willing to fund the non-manadated busing, it becomes increasingly important that the municipalities re-assess all the bus stops, walking routes and schools to determine which are indeed “hazardous”, and which are “courtesy” only. This is important because the municipalities are obligated to provide “safe passage”. In other words, they would not be obligated to provide transportation to students whose bus stops and walking routes fall under the courtesy umbrella (i.e. they are NOT hazardous).

It is not absolutely clear whether the “safe passage” clause also requires the municipalities to pay for said services, or whether or not they could simply pass this cost back to parents through a subscription busing fee, as this might be considered double-dipping.

It appears to CUSP that this “Mexican stand-off” between the HVRSD and the municipalities can only be resolved now through honest and direct negotiations between the School Board and the municipalities. We urge our elected representatives at the School Board and municipalities to figure out a solution promptly so that the affected children aren’t left out in the cold for much longer.

NOTE: Superintendent Judith Ferguson was not present at this meeting.

School Board Postpones Vote on Passing Busing to Municipalities

During last week's Nonmandated Busing Task Force meeting (November 15, 2006), School Superintendent Ferguson stated that the School Board would be voting on Monday (November 20, 2006) to officially transfer the responsibility for nonmandated busing to the municipalities.

But at last night's School Board meeting -- perhaps because it now appears that funding of hazardous busing by the municipalities would be under "cap" -- the School Board elected not to go forward with the controversial plan.

Had the service been outside of "cap", the municipalities might have been able to fund hazardous busing via new revenue-generating measures; i.e. new taxes. Now that municipality funding of busing appears to be within "cap", the municipalities will only be able to fund hazardous busing by cutting existing services, such as Police and Public Works.

We at CUSP commend the School Board for not rushing ahead to officially pass the responsibility for funding of hazardous busing to the municipalities. We urge them to give the Nonmandated Busing Task Force -- of which they are official members -- a chance to investigate the best way to handle nonmandated busing moving forward. (In all likelihood, a final recommendation from the Busing Task Force will not be forthcoming until the new year.) Further, since the municipalities generally don't deliver their budgets until the late spring/early summer, had the School Board gone ahead and officially passed this burden on to the municipalities, it would have meant that more than 1,000 nonmandated busing school children would have been stranded without a defined busing plan until May or June of 2007 -- a frightening prospect.

Perhaps the School Board will now finally reconsider what we believe is an ill-conceived plan to bequeath the responsibility for, and funding of hazardous busing to the municipalities. Perhaps, instead, they will work in concert with the municipalities to investigate other possible cuts in the School District's budget that don't involve putting our children at risk. Perhaps, after months of protests by irate parents and considerable negative media coverage of the School Board's plan, they will take it upon themselves to make the tough choices required to bring the District's expenses in line -- before the municipalities are forced to do it for them.  Only time will tell ....

Hazardous Busing Deemed an Under "Cap" Expense for Municipalities

Joe Lawver, Pennington Borough Councilman, has received a preliminary ruling from the N.J. Department of Community Affairs on whether the municipalities have to be within “cap” if they reimburse the HVRSD for hazardous busing.

According to Lawver, it appears that municipality funding of hazardous busing would indeed fall within cap.

Thus, if the School Board votes tonight on tossing this responsibility over to the municipalities, it means Hopewell Township and Pennington and Hopewell Boroughs will be forced to cut other vital services, including police and public works.

Is this what the taxpayers of the Valley want?  Should the School Board continue down this path, we predict that -- once again -- the HVRSD budget will be voted down, and it will be up to the municipalities to trim the District budget.

In our view, the School Board is abrogating its responsibility to live within its means without sacrificing the safety of our children.  What's the point of having great programs if our children can't get to school safely to enjoy them?  In our view, there are other less offensive items within the School District budget that can be cut.  But, since the School Board doesn't seem to be able to make the required tough budgetary choices without sacrificing the safety of our children -- like a teenager who can't live within his allowance, and who cries to his parents for support -- it will be up to our elected local government officials to do it for them.

Nonmandated Busing Task Force Meeting Precis - November 15, 2006

Since there was no media coverage of last night's Nonmandated Busing Task Force Meeting, the following summarizes the events that transpired.  (CUSP commentary appears in italics.)

Former Hopewell Township Police Chief Mike Chipowsky joined the Task Force.  Hopefully, the Task Force will leverage his expertise in formally evaluating each nonmandated busing zone in the valley to determine which streets and schools are "hazardous" under established state guidelines.

The bulk of the meeting was spent on choosing five (5) courses of action which the Task Force could recommend:

1. The HVRSD would continue to deliver hazardous busing, while being reimbursed by the three municipalities ($404,500);
2. The three municipalities would take over the administration of all hazardous busing, and deliver it in a unified, inter-local way;
3. Each municipality would provide busing, but would run it individually -- i.e. there would be three separate bus administrators;
4. The HVRSD would provide Subscription busing -- i.e. parents in each of the three municipalities would pay the HVRSD for the busing service;
5. No hazardous busing service would be provided at all.

Each of these scenarios was weighted by the six criteria established at the first meeting:

• Provide safe passage to school; 
• Adhere to all legal requirements; 
• Be cost effective; 
• Have the minimal possible impact on school programs; 
• Be administratively efficient; 
• Work within budget caps.

It was determined that, under these guidelines, the best scenario was #1; i.e. the HVRSD would continue to deliver hazardous busing, while being reimbursed by the municipalities.

We find it curious that one other possible scenario -- which would have served as a baseline during this analysis -- was not evaluated using the six criteria:  the HVRSD continues to administer and pay for the busing.

Joe Lawver, Pennington Borough Councilman, stated that he had been unable to get a definitive answer from the N.J. Department of Community Affairs on whether the municipalities had to be within “cap” if they paid the HVRSD for the busing.

If the funding of busing is outside of "cap", the municipalities will be able to fund the busing via new revenue-generating measures; i.e. new taxes.  If the funding of busing is within "cap", the municipalites will only be able to fund busing by cutting existing services, such as Police and Public Works. Given that neither scenario is attractive, we at CUSP still believe that -- like practically every other School District in the state -- the Hopewell Valley Regional School District should continue to deliver and fund the busing of children within so-called hazardous zones.

Finally, Superintendent Ferguson stated that the School Board would be voting this Monday, November 20, 2006, to officially transfer the responsibility for nonmandated busing to the municipalities.

In our opinion, it seems grossly premature for the School Board to be voting to officially transfer responsibility for busing to the municipalities.  The Task Force -- of which they are official members -- has barely begun its work, nor has it had a chance to formulate any official recommendation.  Further, until it is determined whether or not said transfer could be funded by the municipalities out of "cap" (i.e. by raising our taxes to pay for such busing), such a move might necessitate the cutting of critical services within the municipalities (e.g. the police).

Does the School Board really want to force this choice:  The safety of our children vs. the safety of our streets?

The School Board's "Open" Finance Committee Meeting

During the recent CUSP Candidate's Debate, School Board Member Judy Karp promised that the School Board's Finance Committee meetings would, henceforth, be open to the public. Previously, such meetings were held in private.

Last night – November 13th – the School Board’s Finance Committee held its first public meeting and here’s what was discussed:

• Uncertainties that will affect the final Budget;
• Budget assumptions of estimated costs;
• Caps that are imposed by the State;
• Spending growth limitation adjustments;
• Tax levy history;
• State aid history;
• Federal aid history;
• Employee benefits.

The Committee then announced that next year's School District budget is likely to increase by 10.3%, resulting in a shortfall of at least $700,000 due to being over the State Cap. Indeed, if salary contract negotiations don’t go as planned (the School Board is anticipating an increase of 2% in teacher salaries while COLA alone is around 4%), and if the School District reassumes its role as provider of “hazardous” busing (which it should never have abandoned), the budget could increase by another $1MM, resulting in a shortfall of $1.7MM, or more.

Given the fact that the School District’s last budget was voted down, and due to the rancor within the valley generated by the School Board’s decision to eliminate “hazardous” busing next year, it’s highly problematic that taxpayers in the district will sit still for such an increase. During recent municipality elections, nearly every candidate went on record predicting the School Board would have a hard time persuading taxpayers to approve any proposed School District budget this year, let alone one featuring a 10%+ increase. And, if it's voted down again, it will be up to the municipalities to – once again – trim the School District’s budget.

Following the announcement of the projected budget increase, the Finance Committee members retreated into “closed session” for one and a half hours.

Upcoming Finance Committee meetings are scheduled as follows:

• December 1st @ 8:30 am - Capital Budget;
• December, 11th @ 7:30 pm - Special Education Budget;
• January 8th @ 7:30 pm - K-5 Budget;
• January 26th @ 8:30 am - 6-12 / Athletic Budgets;
• February 9th @ 8:30 am - C&I / Technology Budgets;
• February 12th @ 7:30 pm - Maintenance, Transportation and Central Office Budgets.

We urge all parents interested in the busing issue to attend these important meetings.

Chipowsky Named to Busing Task Force

Michael Chipowsky, who recently lost his bid as the Republican Candidate for the Hopewell Township Committee, was appointed to the Nonmandated Busing Task Force last night by Mayor Vanessa Sandom. As former Hopewell Township Police Chief, he brings with him considerable experience in safety issues, and – in our view – will make a significant contribution to the Task Force. We hope the Task Force leverages him in re-evaluating all the streets and schools within the valley to determine which are hazardous and which, therefore, will require busing.

October CUSP Poll Results Are In!

The votes are in for the October School Busing Poll and 80% of the 60 respondents said they felt the School Board should continue to be responsible for 'hazardous" busing.

For the results of previous polls, click here.

See above, left, to cast your vote in November's poll.

If you would like to join CUSP, but don't feel like leaving a public Comment, click here to send us your name, email address and the name of the school(s) your children attend.