NEW WEBSITE - - - PLEASE READ

If your browser is still directing you to this website you are NOT getting the latest content. This site has been moved to a 'new and improved' location where you can get all of the latest information. Please update your browser and bookmarks to point to: WWW.GOTTAXES.ORG

I Think We Struck A Nerve

What started out as a simple effort born of the frustration of asking questions and getting "Why do you need to know that answers" this website has seen some unexpected usage particularly over the last 10 days. No one is more surprised than I am, consider: Just in the last 10 days there were 1,481 visits to this website from 822 unique visitors who looked at 3,542 pages and stayed an average of 3.5 minutes per visit. These 1,481 visits represent ALL 50 US STATES (NJ 727, NY 193) as well as 7 visits from Canada and 1 visit from Paris, France. New Jersey visitors came from 57 cities including 360 from East Brunswick. And not surpisingly in the last 10 days, 107 visits came from WITHIN the East Brunswick Board of Education Network (that is within the schools or administration building (including 20 visits today). So yes, it seems like we might have struck a nerve in our passion to improve the education of our children. And it seems we are not alone. I will continue to work on this site as long as you continue to find value in it and ask questions and request information. I hope to make it easier for you to let your friends and colleagues know about this site and for you to keep track of updates and new items. Stay tuned and don't stop asking questions.

If YOU had the Magic Wand

So how do we snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Clearly this was a defeat for the students of East Brunswick as is evidenced by the ongoing interest in this blog and the thoughtful comments on what needs to be changed. Please let us know what you think and together we'll figure out a way to continue making a difference. This is only the beginning. CHICAGO MATH is a hot topic and has been for years and the district does not seem interested in addressing it. There is a body of research that indicates what I think parents and students intuitively know - - - it doesn't work. Tell us your experience. Tell us your ideas. Phonetic spelling as opposed to Words Their Way. What is your experience. What works and what doesn't for your children. TEACHING AND USING SCRIPT. It is a lost skill in East Brunswick. Should it be? Would you bring it back and what would you do to encourage it's use and build on it's value. STUDY ISLAND and the process of 'teaching to the test'. Is there any legitimate research that shows that the use of computer-based drill tools like Study Island make any difference? Is it possible that they actually work to DECREASE test scores instead of enhance skills? Tell us what your experience is and tell us what you think. TeacherWeb and ParentConnect. What is your experience? Some teachers seem to use TeacherWeb and ParentConnect religiously and others can't be bothered. Are these useful tools that should be continued? Should they be mandatory? Should there be other tools to engage parents, students and teachers in a cooperative process that isn't stymied by administrative bureaucracy? BACK TO SCHOOL NIGHTS and PARENT TEACHER CONFERENCES. What is up with these important meetings being held only during school hours so that many (most) working parents are unable to attend? What is up with not being able to schedule more than 3 seven minute sessions with your child's teacher at the Middle School? What is up with not being able to schedule ANY time with your child's teacher at the Junior High School Level unless the teacher requests a conference because your child is failing. I doubt this nonsense is because teachers are too lazy to meet with parents and I suspect it is more of the bureaucratic burden that unnecessarily gets in the way of real education. WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE? What are your ideas? I am sure there are many, many, many other things that could and probably should be done differently. The current board and administration does not have any unique qualifications to dictate that this is the ONLY way that quality education can be delivered. Collectively, parents, students, residents, teachers and professionals know a hell of a lot more than this board and administration are giving us credit for. PLEASE -- pick up the magic wand and let us know what YOU would do if you ran the zoo. You can either post in the comments here or send an email (anonymous or otherwise, your wishes will be respected) to info@gotmail.org. Education of our children is NOT in the hands of the bureaucrats. It's time to take back that responsibility.

EXPECT MORE OF THE SAME

VOTE APRIL 21, 2009 TODAY

CLICK TO ENLARGE

BREAKING THE LAW - - - AGAIN!

We've all seen the lies repeated: at the budget hearings, at the debates, in campaign literature, in electioneering materials. However, it is still hard to believe that the incumbents would actually be so foolish to lie so blatantly and not expect to get caught. Well the board and administration have done it again. AND THEY'VE BEEN CAUGHT AGAIN. We're refering of course to the unprecedented sacrifice that the administrators have made in order to craft a fiscally responsible budget. As has been pointed out numerous times, most administrators are under contract and they CANNOT 'give up' their contractual salary increases without a modification to the contract. We've also pointed out that numerous OPRA requests to the district for these contract changes have produced - - - - no contract ammendments. For those of you that still doubt the games that are being played by the administration and board let us point out a recently noticed provision in the NEW JERSEY Statutes for FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY, EFFICIENCY AND BUDGETING PROCEDURES N.J.S.A. 6A:23A (The entire document is available as Chap23a under Docs).

(1) The public notice and public hearing required pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:11-11 is applicable to a board of education that renegotiates, extends, amends, or otherwise alters the terms of an existing contract with a superintendent of schools, deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent, or school business administrator. (d) Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-5.3, the Commissioner shall require each local public school district, CVSD and CSSSD to submit as part of the annual budget submission supporting documentation in regard to the employment contracts of the superintendent, any assistant superintendent, the SBA, and any employee with an annual salary that exceeds $75,000 who is not a member of a collective bargaining unit. The supporting documentation shall include employment contract information as detailed in 1-4 below The employment contract information in (d) above shall be provided for public inspection, along with the budget as prescribed in (c) above, in an easily accessible location and in a "user-friendly," plain language format as prescribed by the Commissioner on the local public school district's Internet site, if one exists, no less than 48 hours after the public hearing on the budget. 1. The employment contract information shall be maintained on the district’s Internet site, if one exists, with a visible link off the main page, for the entire budget year

No such contract modifications have been published on the district's website. No contracts for any of the named positions have been provided as public documents and no public notice or public hearings were permitted as required by law. Do you still doubt that this board and this administration are not only playing fast and loose with your children and your money, but fast and loose with the law as well??

VOTE FOR THE CHANGE WE NEED VOTE APRIL 21, 2009

Dr. Magistro Thanks Board

I guess it’s only right that we ask our superintendent to lead by example. After all don’t we want our children to learn courtesy from our school leaders? Dr. Magistro is indeed thankful for the lockstep support she receives from the incumbent board members and is doing her best to express her appreciation. How else would you explain the 11th hour electioneering that Dr. Magistro is engaging in? What? You mean YOU didn’t receive a personal letter from Dr. Magistro? Well just in case you missed it you can download it from the DOCS section (April 17th letter). That’s right, Dr. Magistro sent out a letter on April 17th, the Friday before the School Elections. April 17th . . . the last day of the school vacation. April 17th . . . the day after the board cancelled the last public meeting before the school election. April 17th . . . the same day an editorial letter appeared in the Home News questioning the superintendent’s statement that insurance would pay for the lease of Corpus Christie vs. the $775,000 line item in the proposed budget to pay for the lease of Corpus Christie. This seems to be another one of those patterns: ‘we don’t really want to answer questions in public, but we do need to try and round up SOME support for the incumbents . . . wait, wait!! Let’s cancel the public meeting and have the superintendent send out a letter at the last minute to only the people we think might support us. Confused yet? No wonder. Here’s what has happened. Dr. Magistro and the board got caught again in their lies about what really is going on at Memorial. It seems between the February letter Dr. Magistro sent out and the newspaper articles that quoted Dr. Magistro and Todd Simmons the board president, and the PTA presentation made by Dr. Magistro that they were telling so many contradictory stories they figured one more might convince a couple of people to vote for the budget and the incumbents. So here’s the rundown (links and/or documents can be found on the right):

February 24, 2009

The superintendent sends out a letter to ‘Memorial Parents and Staff’ in which she states; “Our insurance carrier has accepted responsibility for the temporary placement of our school at Corpus Christie in South River. These costs include the lease for the South River facility, the clean up and repair to that building in preparation for school opening and any salvage from the old Memorial site.” The same letter from the superintendent stated: “I spoke at the recent February 16th Memorial PTA meeting and indicated that the architect would be able to present his plan at our February 26th Board of Education meeting. However, the architect has been informed to review his plans again to work out some additional cost saving measures. Therefore, he will not be at this Thursday’s Board meeting. As soon as he is ready to present, you will be notified so you may attend the meeting if you wish.”

March 31, 2009

The superintendent makes a presentation to the Memorial PTA in which she states they plan to “Move forward with the plan for Memorial based on the same educational specifications as recommended by the community committee and approved by the State in 2004.” The superintendent announces that the “Board gave consensus to a September 2009 bond referendum” and the “Expected opening of New memorial - September 2012”

April 9, 2009

Board President Todd Simmens is quoted in the Star Ledger referring to a bond referendum to raise at least $23 million from the taxpayers “If we can go in June, then Wednesday after election day we’ll break ground.” Simmens also suggests that money shouldn’t be the focus but making things happen as soon as possible should.

April 17, 2009

In a letter to the Home News a reader points out the flat-out lie told by the Superintendent in her Feb 24th letter when she assured parents and staff that the insurance carrier had agreed to cover the cost of leasing Corpus Christi school. Referring to the proposed 2009-2010 budget that includes $775,000 per year for the district to pay the lease on Corpus Christie the reader wondered how quickly the superintendent’s message would change once his letter was printed.

April 17, 2009

The superintendent sends out another letter (but only to Memorial Parents and staff) that now says: “My recent discussions with the President of Corpus Christi’s Parish Council indicate that they are happy to house our students and staff until Memorial is rebuilt.” The superintendent DOES NOT say that the insurance company is going to pay for it - - as she did in her February letter. In the same letter the superintendent states: “we will prepare for a September 2009 bond referendum.” And “the architect has been asked to refine the plans (which will not in any way delay the bond referendum).” The superintendent DOES NOT say why the architects have not completed their ‘refinements’ in the nearly two months since they were first scheduled to appear before the board and public. The superintendent DOES NOT say why there is $100,000 in the 2009-2010 proposed budget for ‘Architectural Fees’. And the superintendent DOES NOT say when the public will have an opportunity to hear the entire plan, in one place at one time and be able to provide their input. What the superintendent does say is: “I look forward to your support . . . “ and “appropriate sections of Memorial playground will be relocated to South River. this week.” The production and mailing costs for the superintendent to send out this last minute electioneering letter likely came out of the $392,361.00 budgeted THIS YEAR for ‘General Administration Communications and Postage’ Account 11-000-230-530. Maybe we don't want our children to learn courtesy from our school leaders.

Maybe we should ask our school leaders to focus on honesty instead!

Karp, Becker & Shaw's Idea of Safe Schools

The following cell phone videos were provided to us and are only a small example of what the incumbent board of education has tacitly approved for our 'safe' Churchill Junior High School. These are only a small sampling of what goes on in Churchill EVERYDAY.

It's time to make the CHANGE WE NEED.

Do you want to continue to pay for THREE superintendents and a PUBLIC RELATIONS DIRECTOR? Or might it be smarter to pay for ONE superintendent and THREE Public SAFETY Officers?

EB Receives $2,096,917 in Funding For a Problem That Doesn't Exist

The incumbent candidates for the EB BOE would have you believe that they are doing an exemplary job of oversight and the administration's running of the schools could not be better. Mrs. Becker and Mrs. Shaw, in particular have repeatedly disparaged anyone who raises the question that all is not as it seems. We've seen the Churchill teachers speak out against the incumbent delusions of no violence or drug problems at the junior high school. Now we have Governor Corzine casting doubt on how well this board and administration is addressing the needs of our students, particularly at Hammarskjold, Churchill and the High School. Today's Star Ledger (link at right) reported on Gov. Corzine's announcement of the distribution of stimulus funds to districts. East Brunswick was singled out to receive more than $2 million in additional funding to: " beef up academic standards, expand teacher training, enhance collection of education data and improve low-performing schools." But Mrs. Becker and Mrs. Shaw insist that we don't have low performing schools, that we are wrongly classified because of a technicality in the NCLB law. Do you see a pattern here - - - let's only follow the laws that are convenient for us and ignore the ones that are bothersome? Once again, it's time to GET THE FACTS. Under documents you can now download: IDEA Stimulus Awards by District (provided by NJ DOE); EB Adequate Yearly Progress (provided by NJ DOE). IDEA stimulus funding is provided specifically for special education populations. East Brunswick failed to meet adequately yearly progress for special education populations in Math at the high school, in Math and Language Arts at the junior high school; and in Math and Language Arts at the middle school. Can we honestly expect board members that refuse to recognize that a problem exists to figure out how to fix it? The NJ Legislature, the Governor, the Congress and even the President are clearly saying "Here's an additional $2 million to address this problem." How come Karp, Becker and Shaw keep telling us there is no problem? How confident are you that the public will ever know where that additional $2 million in funding was spent?

GET THE FACTS and VOTE ON APRIL 21, 2009

When a 'flat increase' really isn't

Not surprisingly the Sentinel is reporting on the alleged 'flat increase' in this year's school budget. Prominently featured in the article are the ususal self-congratulatory comments from the board president, Todd Simmens including how the big unknown was how much state aid the district would receive. What Mr. Simmens didn't comment on, and the Sentinel didn't ask about was the $1,022,533 in state aid that the district lost out on because last year's budget was $10,801,186 OVER the state calculated adequacy budget. Mr. Simmens also did not comment on the tax hikes of the last two years (37 cents and 2 cents) that allowed the board to transfer $4 million from last year's tax hike into this year's budget. So the 'flat increase' they are all so proud of is only because they OVER taxed you by $4 million LAST YEAR. We do indeed NEED A CHANGE.

Even Churhill Teachers Know There Are Problems

This week's Sentinel has an interesting article reporting that a number of Churhill Junior High School Teachers presented the Town Council with a petition containing more than 100 names asking to keep the East Brunswick Police Officer assigned to the Churchill Junior High School. (see the link on the right) This is clearly at odds with the comments Mrs. Becker made at the Memorial School candidates debate where she dismissed a parent's concern about drugs, violence and sexual activity at Churchill by claiming that East Brunswick has one of the lowest numbers of incidents reported on the Violence Vandalism and Drug Report sent to the state. So who do you think is in a better position to know what's going on, Mrs. Becker or teachers that are actually doing the job in the school building. Maybe Mrs. Becker and the rest of the board should pay more attentiion to their parents and staff. Maybe if they didn't spend $113,000 on a Public Relations Director and more than $500,000/year on three superintendents they could find the money in the budget to pay for a police officer at the High School AND at Churchill and actually keep our kids safe???

Empty Heads Repeating Empty Promises

In her recent editorial letter in the Home News, Grace Glassen would have us believe that she has 'no direct investment in anyone's future', yet implores the public to not 'let economy prevent the right vote on budget'. Perhaps Ms. Glassen is just another unwitting shill for the administration and incumbent board members that think empty political rhetoric is what this school election is about. Here's a news flash: It's not the economy! What this election is about is the ongoing deceit, financial maneuvering and abuse going on in the administration with the willing complicity of the incumbent board of education. Residents want to know that they are being dealt with honestly, that their hard-earned money is going to fund actual education and that their elected officials are there to represent the students and the taxpayers, not to simply, naively accept whatever the administration tells them to do. This board of education declined more than $1 million in state aid by not addressing wastesful budgets year after year. Yet they continue to tell you Trenton is holding back on them. This administration is punishing parents by extracting $240,000 in parent-pay fees as critical to a bare-bones budget. Yet, they awarded $227,000, in one year, to just 20 administrators who have nothing to do with educating students. This board of education refuses to deal with the public openly, transparently and honestly. Yet they have staff members surripticiously attacking anyone who questions them. Perhaps if Ms Glassen was a parent, she would understand that the kind of role models that children need are ones that can gather the facts, think for themselves and make informed judgments. Perhaps if Ms. Glassen had a direct investment in at least her own future, she would be able to see that she is being used as a rube to perpetuate the myth that this board and administration are accountable to anyone but their own egos and greed. GET THE FACTS, then judge for yourself. And stay tuned, there are ten more of these 'planted' editorial letters that were timed to be published in the final two weeks before the election. (Now if the administration would just put this much energy into actually doing their jobs . . . . . .. )

User-Friendly Budget IS NOT Taxpayer Friendly

The administration has finally posted, as required by law, the 'user friendly' version of the budget on the district's website. This document also requires the district to disclose the name, title, and current salary of the highest paid employees of the district. By comparing this year's information with prior year's (available from Data Universe, State DOE and other places); it is easy to calculate the amount of raises these individuals received in their 2008-2009 salaries. Once you look at these numbers, you may not be surprised that they were willing to sacrifice this year's raise knowing that they were already well taken care of. Some interesting things to note in this information release: Just 20 of the district's administrators received total salaries of $2,044,730 in 2007-2008 (an average of more than $102,000 each). These twenty administrators received salary increases for 2008-2009 between 4% and 138% with the average salary increase weighing in at 11%. These twenty administrators received total salary increases of $227,251 in 2008-2009 (an average of more than $11,000 each). In addition to these generous salaries and increases, these twenty administrators are entitled to a total of 839 paid days off EACH YEAR. Yes, that is correct on average they EACH get 42 paid days off per year. That's more than EIGHT WEEKS of paid time off in addition to holidays and other occassions when the district offices are closed. AND these twenty administrators ARE NOT principals, assistant principals, supervisors of instruction, department chairs or anything even remotely related to classroom instruction. These twenty administrators are management, finance, HR, and technology people. The same kind of people that are losing their jobs or seeing their pay cut in the private sector. CLICK ON TABLE FOR LARGER VIEW The data for this report can be found under docs as EB 09-10 User Friendly. 2007-2008 data for the same people can be found by entering their names in the Data Universe application on the Home News website.

Leaving a Million Dollars in Trenton

Year after year we have heard incumbent members of the board who are running for reelection bemoan the fact that once again Trenton has done us wrong. "We're not the bad guys. It's those politicians in Trenton." The incumbents undoubtedly complain that the problem is not that they are spending too much money, the problem is that Trenton is not giving them more money to spend. Sound familiar? Did ya ever wonder if these people understand the concept of taxation? The only reason 'Trenton' has money to spend is because they took it out of taxpayers pockets just like the board of education does. Do you think residents who are struggling to keep their jobs and keep their homes really care which politician is picking their pockets clean? Yet we keep hearing that it's not that we're wasting money on duplicate administrators (superintendent, deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent) or positions that the NJ efficiency standards say we shouldn't have (director of public relations). No they keep telling us it's because we haven't given enough money to Trenton in taxes for Trenton to give back to the schools so that they schools will take less in taxes. This year, however, their protests are not only hollow, they are simply false. As Mrs. Becker so astutely pointed out in a recent board meeting, East Brunswick is one of the few districts in Middlesex County that got no increase in state aid. What Mrs. Becker did not explain (perhaps she really doesn't understand?) is why we got no increase in state aid. If you look at the document that shows all districts in Middlesex County (under docs Projected 2009-10 School Aid) you will clearly see that the only districts that DID NOT get a 5% increase in state aid were the very same districts that SPENT CONSIDERABLY MORE than the 'adquacy budget'. Now the administration will try and tell you that they have not 'gone over cap' which is in itself true. What they won't tell you is that the state funding formula ALSO considers whether they've gone over 'adequacy'. Those districts that went over 'adequacy' got NO INCREASE in state aid. Those districts that stayed under 'adequacy' got a 5% increase in state aid. EAST BRUNSWICK WAS OVER THE ADEQUACY BUDGET BY NEARLY $11 MILLION. Missing out on the 5% increase in state aid COST EAST BRUNSWICK TAXPAYERS MORE THAN $1 million in state aid. That's $1 million that: doesn't go into programs for our children - - or has to be taken from our taxpayers. Either way, it's probably not the kind of oversight we expected from our elected board of education.

Thank You Ms. Eisenberg

We couldn't have said it any better ourselves than you did in the headline of your recent editorial letter in the Home News Tribune: "Karp, Becker, Shaw Best for E Brunswick BOE". You see, that's exactly what the problem is. These incumbent candidates would be the best to support the Board of Education instead of doing what they are elected for and that is to support the students and teachers and represent the taxpayers of this district. Serving as an elected official should be more about the people who you represent than the people you are supposed to be providing oversight for. How can these candidates, in good conscious, continue to deceive the public with the blatant lie that they have once again crafted a 'bare-bones' budget - - this time with the kicker of an alleged 0% tax increase?? The documents are available for all to see that this shell game is only possible because you intentionally OVERtaxed residents by $4 million last year? Unfortunately Karp, Becker and Shaw are indeed best for the Board of Education. The change we need is clear, board members that will put the students, teachers and taxpayers first.

Got a Question?

Can't find the information you are looking for? Have a question where you want a simple, straight-forward answer? SEND AN EMAIL TO: info@gottaxes.org and we'll do our best to find an answer for you AND GIVE YOU THE ORIGINAL SOURCE so you can decide for yourself what the facts are. A reader recently submitted this question: Thanks for all the hard work you are doing on your website. Do you happen to know what Henry Stankiewicz's salary is? Henry Stankiewicz is married to the Superintendent of Schools JoAnn Magistro. Mr. Stankiewicz is also employed by the East Brunswick Public Schools at a 2007-2008 salary of $137,288 as reported by the Home News Tribune's DataUniverse Website. Click on image below for more detail. The 2008-2009 salaries of public school employees have not been posted yet but have been requested from the district

They're Baaaaacccccckkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!

Remember the announcement of the unprecedented budget with the unprecedented sacrifice by the superintendent (under contract), the principles and supervisors (under contract) and the central administration and non-unit staff? Well here’s the curiosity. At least the PSA and the Superintendent have contracts that call for automatic salary increases every year. The only way to legally give those up is to change the contract and have both parties agree to it. Yet when the administration was asked to provide copies of the executed amendments showing this they basically said ‘they don’t exist’ [See OPRA requests under documents]. But wait, Mrs. Becker claims that “we have signed agreements with the PSA”. Hmmmm. A board member says they have signed agreements but the administration says they don’t? The administration says the superintendent will give up her salary increase but the board member doesn’t say they have a signed agreement for that change. So which is it? Is this a typical nod-n-wink deal or is there really a legally binding document to back up what we think is going to happen with salary increases? Let's see. Is it more likely that a records custodian and district employee would risk their job and reputation by false statements OR that a politician desperate for re-election would say whatever it takes to win a couple of more votes? Are you surprised that they want you to believe that the only thing that is important is a 0% tax increase (that is itself the result of financial maneuvering)? How about spending money responsibly? How about dealing with the public honestly? How about enriching the education of our students and not the egos of our adults? Yeah, that might just be too much to ask of elected officials who claim to represent the community.

Board of Education and Administration Launch WMD

It was very interesting, even mildly entertaining, to watch the board and administration continue their increasingly discredited attempts to confuse and hoodwink the voting public in their most recent rendition of the Adopt-A-Budget-Blues program. The predictable comments from the administration were followed by the even more predictable comments by board members and the required appearances by staff expressing their unyielding support for this charade. What sets this year’s performance apart from prior years is, at the special request of the administration, a guest appearance by the district’s independent auditor to not only repeat but expound on the WMD (weapons of mass distraction) launched by the administration. While this auditor initiated his discussion with a definitional lecture on the word fact; he would have been more honest had he provided the definition of obfuscation which is what he and the administration continue to engage in. Obfuscation is the concealment of meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret. Despite the teary-eyed pleas of several board members and the righteous indignation expressed by others, the performance is not likely to garner even an MTV Real World award. As you have read many times on these pages: GET THE FACTS for yourself. The documents are either provided here or links are provided here for you to access the original documents. You do not need to have the information spoon fed to you by the administration or anyone else. Make up your own mind. You are free to review the posts here and review the original documents and decide for yourself. Some things to keep in mind: Mrs. Becker claimed (on multiple occasions) that the Board could not simply transfer money from one account to another or from one year to another or they would go to jail. Mr. Simmons characterized this claim as moving funds “willy-nilly”. THE FACTS: that were presented to you came directly from the 07-08 CAFR that clearly states that the board not only can and does, but must approve both transfers from one account to another (for a variety of reasons) and from one year to another (again for a variety of reasons). There is no attempt to question the nature of these transfers, but rather to point out the blatant factual error of Mrs. Becker’s original statements. [Notes to Financial Statements, Items: 2B1, p54; 2E, p57 and 4, p64 of 07-08 CAFR] No one has disputed the Independent Auditor’s qualifications or dedication. So it’s curious that he felt it necessary to spend more than 10 minutes enumerating these items in his guest appearance. Neither did anyone suggest that the district performed the audit themselves. THE FACTS: The district budgeted one amount ($38,000) for ‘Audit Fees’ and then during the year transferred an additional $35,000 into that account. The question was: Did we spend more than $35,000 over budget on audits and if so what for? [Exhibit C-1, page 89 of 07-08 CAFR] Similarly the district budgeted one amount ($247,000) for ‘Legal Services’ and during the year transferred an additional $77,894, into that account. Again, the question was: Did we spend more than $77,000 over budget on legal services and if so what for? The administration is attempting to create misleading, non factual statements regarding the child nutrition losses by claiming that the numbers they published say something other than what is stated in the report. THE FACTS: Operating Loss for Child Nutrition is listed as $889,751; for ETTC $50,219. [Exhibit B-5, Page 47, 07-08 CAFR]. The administration’s mouthpiece also claimed that ‘a resident’ stated that $50,000 in assets were purchased for the ETTC in the year that they lost $50,000 from operations. No such claim was made by anyone but the Independent Auditor. THE FACTS: The ETTC realized an Operating Loss of $50,219 for the year ended June 30, 2008. [Exhibit G-3, page 135, 07-08 CAFR]. $57,586 worth of Building Improvements were made to the ETTC. [EB Public Schools GASB 34 Fixed Assets Schedule.] The independent mouthpiece for the district finished his presentation with the biggest obfuscation of all when he tried to explain away the financial maneuverings of the General Fund Balance. He equated the district's fund balance to that of a homeowner and indicated that the only real difference is that a homeowner's budget is small and the district's budget is more than $100 million. THE FACTS: The homeowner generally has one source of revenue (or income) and that is what the household earns from working. The district has primarily two sources of revenue (or income): what they receive in aid from the state and what they collect from taxpayers. The homeowner can't go to their employer and say "I think I will need an extra $40,000 next year for expenses." The district can, AND DOES go to the taxpayers and say "I think we'll need an extra $3 million next year." The district ended the 2006-2007 fiscal year with $11,967,501 in the General Fund Balance. [Management Discussion and Analysis, p28, 07-08 CAFR] The tax levy collected by the district from property taxes increased $8,118,314 for the 07-08 fiscal year. The district raised your taxes $8 million even though they had nearly $12 million left at the end of 06-07. [Changes in Fund Balances, p152, 07-08 CAFR; Local Source Revenues, p33, 07-08 CAFR] The district ended the 2007-2008 fiscal year with $14,904,957 in the General Fund Balance, an increase of $2,937,546 over the amount at the begining of the year. They raised your taxes nearly $3 million MORE THAN THEY HAD TO. The district can do this and get away with it, the average household can't simply say "I'd like to have more money in the bank at the end of the year so my boss has to pay me more." [Managements Discussion and Analysis, p28, 07-08 CAFR] The district raised your taxes $8 million at the begining of the 07-08 fiscal year and then was forced to return $4,590,734 at the end of the 07-08 fiscal year by state law. In effect you gave the district an interest-free loan of nearly $5 million on money it knew it wouldn't need. [Fund Balance Appropriated, p77, 07-08 CAFR] The district has been playing this game for years. In fact they are able to claim a 0% budget increase in the budget for next year because they again collected too much reveue from taxes last year and are being forced by the state to return $4,069,104 into next year's budget. [East Brunswick Public Schools School District Budget Statement Page A:2] It's curious that the only person to describe the district's financial management as 'willy-nilly' is the board president who also claims the status of a CPA. GET THE FACTS and decide for yourself.

Da Nile is Not Just a River

One of the topics that came up in the recent Candidates Debate was the issue of school safety. Mr. Grekoski spoke convincingly of his experience as a police officer who was personally involved with school administration, students and the community through the DARE program and enforcement activities. Mrs. Becker, on the other hand, seemed to rely on the fact that the state-mandated School Violence, Vandalism and Drug Report showed East Brunswick had one of the lowest levels reported. Unfortunately the VVD Report has been criticized for years as being an unreliable and unrealistic measure of what is actually happening in the schools. This is true for a number of reasons including the great flexibility that is given to school districts in deciding what they actually have to report. The general consensus is that the VVD Report significantly underestimates what is actually happening in our schools. Today’s newspaper reports of yet another teacher being charged with the sexual assault of a student (right here in East Brunswick), only underscores the seriousness with which we need to address the reality that our students are facing every day. (See the link under East Brunswick in the news.) This sobering reality is clear in the reporting by the National Center for Education Statistics for 2007. There is no reason to believe that East Brunswick is immune from these problems. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 (Full Report available under Documents) Indicator 13: Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere The percentage of 9th- to 12th-grade students who reported being in a physical fight anywhere increased from 33 to 36 percent between 2003 and 2005. Indicator 14: Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and Anywhere There was no measurable change in the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon at school between 1999 and 2005: about 6 percent did so in both years. Indicator 15: Students' Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere In 2005, some 43 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported having at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 percent had at least one drink on school property in the 30 days before being surveyed. Indicator 16: Students' Use of Marijuana on School Property and Anywhere In 2005, some 20 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using marijuana anywhere during the past 30 days, and 5 percent reported using marijuana on school property. GET THE FACTS. Denying that a problem exists or pretending that East Brunswick is immune is not only ineffective but dangerous!

When You're Caught Sleeping - Shout MICROMANAGE

Unexpectedly faced with published facts at last night's Candidate Debate the incumbents, particularly Mrs. Shaw, resorted to the classic smokescreen of claiming micromanagement. "We hire professionals to do the job and we ought to let them do it." Apparently the same can not be said about the people we've elected to represent the community on the school board. Dictionary.com defines micromanage as: "to manage or control with excessive attention to minor details". Apparently Mrs. Shaw believes that asking any question of the administration or providing policy direction to them equates to ‘excessive attention to minor details.’ Maybe it's one of those pesky reading things or perhaps Mrs. Shaw isn't really a detail person. Under New Jersey Law (the QSAC monitoring requirements, that Mrs. Becker referenced) the board is held accountable to a set of Quality Performance Indicators including: Budget planning • Policies for the budget and financial planning process Financial and budgetary control • The monthly Board Secretary’s report is reconciled within 30 days of month’s end and treasurer’s report is reconciled within 45 days of the month’s end. • The district has established formal accounting policies and procedures Annual audit • If required, the district has implemented a corrective action plan acceptable to the county superintendent which addresses all audit recommendations. The board does not write the corrective action plan. The board must assure implementation. Restricted Revenue • The salaries funded by federal grants are approved by the board as documented in the board minutes Efficiency • The district has reduced the number of out-of-district segregated placements by developing appropriate in-district programs and services. Look for opportunities to share services and programs with neighboring districts. Get the facts. The NJQSAC Fact Sheet and a presentation by the NJ School Boards Association can be found under documents and a link to the NJ DOE QSAC regulations can be found under 'Just the Facts'

Speaking of Actually Reading What You Are Voting On . . .

Mrs. Shaw also seemed to have some difficulty at tonight’s Candidate Debate recalling the actual facts of various items that she voted to approve. In one case Mrs. Shaw waxed eloquent about the ‘rumor’ going about town that the district was spending $20,000 for each employee covered by the benefits plan. This was simply out of the ballpark and meant to exaggerate the real costs to the taxpayers she thought. Mrs. Shaw went on to assert “I think the real number is about $14,000 per person.” Ah, Mrs. Shaw . . . . . that Tentative Budget you just voted to approve . . . . we hate to break it to you but it included the ACTUAL number $16,600/per person to calculate what would be saved in benefits for the employees you are firing. Mrs. Shaw also took umbrage to the attention brought to the hiring of a new administrator in this year’s budget at the same time the district is getting rid of employees. Mrs. Shaw insisted that “I didn’t see any new administrator’s in the budget.” Ah, Mrs. Shaw . . . Account String 11-000-221-21020-000-00-0-001, Reference Number M0003156 calls for a new full-time job Supervisor of Autism. This sounds like an administrator job doesn’t it? Maybe there is a part-time person but when you create a full-time position isn’t that ADDING a new administrator? How about Account String 11-000-270-21600-000-00-0-001, Reference Number M0003326 that adds a full-time position of Bus Dispatcher? Hmm administrator ? administration ? ?? Well we know for sure it’s not educational. And although they don’t seem to be included in the ‘approved’ pile the rumor is that there is still the potential to add a $75,000 Internal Auditor, a $28,000 Bookkeeper and a $36,000 ‘Technical Assistant’ from the ‘pending’ pile. I know, I know, it’s such a BOTHER to actually read the things you are voting on, but . .

So Maybe They Really BELIEVE The Lies They Are Telling

At tonight’s Candidate Debate at Memorial (the rented) School the board of education incumbents seemed to have a hard time answering a number of the questions raised from the audience. Mrs. Becker seemed to have the most difficulty separating fact from fiction but she certainly was adamant in projecting the fiction she would have us believe: Mrs. Becker: “The board simply can’t transfer funds from one account to another or take surplus from one year to another. If we did we’d all be in jail.” The Truth: The 2007-2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that was approved by the board (including Mrs. Becker) and filed with the state of NJ includes the following passages: “The School Business Administrator, Superintendent of Schools, and Board of Education, must approve transfers from one program to another. Transfers were required due to: staffing changes based on student needs; accounting changes in maintenance and operations, such as transfers to Capital Projects; and changes in appropriations to prevent budget overruns, as well as to effect account coding corrections.” In fact, Mrs. Becker voted to approve the transfer of $448,230 from the General Fund to cover the shortfall in Child Nutrition and ETTC. “Transfers of appropriations may be made by School Board resolution at any time during the fiscal year subject to the limitations of N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-2.3 (et.seq.).” Mrs. Becker also voted to approve the transfer of $3,435,000 from the General Fund account to the Capital Reserve account. As for Mrs. Becker’s statement that the Board just can’t ‘take surplus from one year to another’, the very same 07-08 CAFR Report filed with the state (and approved by Mrs. Becker) includes the transfer of: “Excess Surplus – Designated for Subsequent Year’s Expenditures = $4,590,734.” Maybe Mrs. Becker doesn’t actually READ the resolutions that she’s voting for???

Candidates Debate TONIGHT

Robbing Parents to Build Empires

Parent-Pay Charges for 09-10 $246,375: Cha-ching Three new positions for Finance Empire, $137,000: Cha-Ching One new Bus Dispatcher position, $45,000: Cha-Ching Fees for Architect and Special Election, $152,000: Cha-Ching New servers and cabling for Technology, $55,000: Cha-Ching Upgrade a relatives position to full-time, $29,000: Cha-Ching Registrations/Training/Travel, $205,880: Cha-Ching Copier Leases and Maintenance, $604,553: Cha-Ching Computer Replacements, $181,000: Cha-Ching Computer Parts, $60,000: Cha-Ching ADMINISTRATION CAUGHT LYING TO THE TAXPAYERS AGAIN: PRICELESS!

Let the will of the Administration prevail!

Pass a 2008-2009 Budget of $134,641,412: Cha-Ching Budget gets voted DOWN by taxpayers: Cha-Ching Council CUTS $1.1 million from budget: Cha-Ching Administration Decides 'Adjusted Budget' should be $136,267,151: Cha-Ching ADMINISTRATION GETS CAUGHT LYING TO THE TAXPAYERS AGAIN: PRICELESS!

Watch Out For Those Splinters!!

Announce an Unprecedented Budget: Cha-Ching Claim Administrators will skip raises: Cha-Ching Hide $58,000 in building improvements for the ETTC that lost $58,000: Cha-Ching CAUGHT LYING TO THE TAXPAYERS AGAIN: PRICELESS! Nothing unprecedented about over-taxing residents by $4 million this year knowing they won’t spend it till next year. Nothing but a nod-n-wink agreement to skip raises by administrators - - no contracts modified. No answer on where the $58,000 in building improvements were spent on an office literally down the hall from the superintendent’s office.

What is the ETTC and Why is it Losing Money?

The NJ Department of Education awarded a total of $10 million in three-year grants to local school districts in each of the state's 21 counties to provide an Educational Technology Training Center (ETTC) as a county-based resource center that offer educators professional development opportunities. Funded by the federal Goals 2000 program and state funds, the ETTCs contain demonstration technology equipment and offer training programs to assist teachers in implementing the Core Curriculum Content Standards. The ETTC exists to serve the school districts of Middlesex County. All Middlesex County public and private school employees. Once the initial 3-year grant ran out it was up to the districts hosting the ETTC centers to financially support the ongoing operation of these centers. Currently no statistics are available on the number of workshops offered or the number of students participating in the workshops. The ETTC's website no longer even lists the cost of individual workshops. [See for yourself at: www.techtrain.org] Why is the East Brunswick ETTC losing money??? Apparently the Finance Committee of the Board doesn't know; the Superintendent doesn't know and the Business Administrator doesn't know. Maybe the Director of the ETTC can tell us. Maybe the Director can also tell us where the $58,000 in building improvements was spent on the ETTC in the same year that the ETTC lost $50,000. No one on the board or in the administration could answer this question on March 26th.

TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS - - "Relieved of one's money or aspirations, perhaps by flimflam; easily bested. The advent of professional dry cleaners not so many decades ago brought about this modernization of the earlier phrase 'cleaned out.' From "The Dictionary of Cliches" by James Rogers (Ballentine Books, New York 1985).

Sorry, Time's UP!

Seems like the East Brunswick School Board and Administration are more used to the 'go-along-and-get-along' crowd than being asked real questions. This was obvious at tonight's meeting when what could easily be described as a lovefest took place with the nomination and coronation of the newest member of the sorority. [Sorry guys it's not even a fraternity but clearly a sorority.] However the gathered officials were not so eager to address questions in the Comprehensive Annual Financal Report filed by the School District, as required by law, with the NJ Department of Education. This document can be found on the NJ DOE Website, or - - - for your convenience - - - right here. (Just look in the Documents link for the document titled 07-08 CAFR). Here are some of the highlights that brought only stuttering obfuscation from the administration, and not a word from our elected officials until the Board President announced: TIME'S UP. Hmmmm, seems none of the members of the Finance Committee of the Board were knowledgeable of or even interested in the issues raised. All of these points are directly from the CAFR filed by the District. Please do check them for yourself and GET ALL THE FACTS. "Item 20. Subsequent Events On August 6, 2008, the Board entered into a two year lease with Corpus Christie Church to provide facilities for displaced Memorial School students. Monthly lease payments of $60,493 commenced on September 1, 2008, and are being reimbursed to the Board by the insurer. The period for which the insurer will reimburse the Board has not yet been determined." This was reported in October 2008. So the simple question is, now, nearly six months later and not an inch closer to doing anything with Memorial School has the Board determined the period for which the insurer will reimburse us for leasing Corpus Christie School? In a word NO. . . but we'd be happy to tell you about all the trouble with the insurance company and them not being able to decide what they are going to reimburse us for and what repairs . . . . . . blah, blah, blah. It's a simple question: you didn't know in October, do you know now? Apparently not. Also from the CAFR reported by the District and Audited by the hired auditors: On an Operating Basis (Revenue - Expenses = Net Income / Net Loss) a simple concept Child Nutrition LOST $889,751 in 07-08 ETTC LOST $50,219 in 07-08 Adult Ed earned $16, 417 THE COMBNED LOSS FOR THESE THREE ACTIVITIES IS NEARLY $1 MILLION. Despite these losses the district invested $58,000 in building improvements for the ETTC. The same ETTC that lost more than $50,000 the same year. The same ETTC that is located within walking distance of the Superintendent's office and the Board Room. Yet when asked what the $58,000 building improvements were spent on - - - - - nobody knew. Not the board members, not the superintendent, not the board secretary. An obvious question on the ETTC is asking if this is throwing good money after bad. In other areas: We spent $78,000 MORE than budgeted on Legal services and $36,000 MORE than budgeted on Audit fees. One has to wonder why and wonder why there was not a sound from any board members. We spent $70,000 BELOW budget on Communications/ Telephone yet the board and administration OVER budgeted this account for the 08-09 fiscal year. (you can hear a pin drop) We nearly DOUBLED the amount we spent on "General Supplies" for school maintenance by spending $123,000 OVER budget. On the item Other Support Services, Students Extraordinary Purchased Services (consultants) we spent nearly $160,000 OVER budget. With every budget some items will come in below budget and some will come in above budget. This is a normal part of the budget process. However when so many accounts are significantly off budget, one has to wonder how good the budget was to begin with - - or what's really being hidden in the budget. Again from the 07-08 CAFR We are employing a Director of Information Technology a Senior Manager of Network/Telecommunications a Manager of Telecommunications a Senior Manger of Technology / Systems Support at a combined salary that is likely over $300,000/year. Yet on top of all of this well-paid, in-house talent we are being asked to spend another $88,885 on an outside consultant for 'network management' and an additional $17,921 on a separate vendor for 'support for three network switches'. Makes you wonder what the people on staff are doing with all that time on their hands. Again from the 07-08 CAFR 14. Fund Balance Appropriated General Fund - - Of the $15,835,282 General Fund balance at June 30, 2008, $718,944 is reserved for encumbrances; [paying bills that haven't arrived yet] $3,604,457 has been reserved in the Capital Reserve Account [a board vote to transfer this money to another account]; $469,466 has been appropriated and included as anticipated revenue for the year ending June 30,2009; [another board vote to tranfer money into the following year and treat it as a deposit] $8,046,777 is reserved for excess surplus in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-7 ($4,590,734 of the total reserve for excess surplus has been appropriated and included as revenue for the year ending June 30, 2009); [this is where they would like you to believe that this money is being 'returned to the taxpayer'. Did you get a check? Nah, I didn't think so. The game here is that they took the money from you when they really didn't need it and they sneak it into the next year's budget to spend and then tell you they didn't raise your taxes.]; and $2,995,636 is unreserved and undesignated. So what does this all mean? Even AFTER moving $3.6 million to capital reserve (a board vote); AND moving $470,000 to the 08-09 budget as 'revenue' (a board vote); THERE'S STILL $11 MILLION LEFT OVER. What could they have done differently? Instead of raising taxes $3.9 million in the 07-08 budget this board COULD HAVE CUT taxes by $4.1 million and guess what? They STILL would have been able to run the district just as they did in 07-08 AND they STILL could have moved $3.6 million to the Capital Reserve account AND they STILL could have moved $470,000 to the 08-09 budget dressed up as revenue AND they STILL would have had more than $3 MILLION dollars left at the end of the year!! Once again, the taxpayers are being asked to believe that soooooooo much hard work went into crafting a BARE BONES budget full of sacrifices when the reality is that you are STILL NOT BEING TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH. The single biggest contributor to a zero increase budget this year is NOT cutting waste, is NOT giving up salary increases, is NOT eliminating positions, is NOT meeting efficiency standards. The single biggest contributor to what is being called a zero increase budget is this Board's decision to use $4 million dollars that they took from taxpayers THIS YEAR - - and didn't need - - to spend in NEXT YEAR'S budget and claim they're not raising your taxes. Do you see the game here? We already took it from you last year so we won't take it from you again this year and you'll be amazed at how smart and hard working we are!

Sorry, Time's Up!

Please - - check for yourself - - look at the 07-08 CAFR filed by the District, audited by the District, accepted by the NJ Department of Education.

Computers and Copiers and Networks, oh my!!

Chicago Math? nah we got MADOFF Math

Just when you think it can't get any more bizzare, it gets more bizzare. After looking at the Tentative Budget summary relased this week the numbers didn't seem to add up. Hmmmm, maybe it's that new Chicago Math the district has put so much time and energy into bringing into our schools. (The same Chicago Math curriculum that nearly every parent hates and school districts in New Jersey are actually begining to remove.) Nah, here in East Brunswick it's MADOFF Math and the Administration can't seem to keep their numbers straight from year to year. The 'Final' 2008-2009 budget that went to the voters last year was: $134,641,412. Of course this was voted down and the town council cut about a million bucks. The Really 'Final' budget passed by the board in May 08 was: #133,700,000 or thereabouts. Yet the 'Adujusted Budget' that EB-Bernie reports for 2008-2009 in the current 'comparison' is listed at $136,267,151. So who made those adjustments between May of last year and March of this year? And where did the extra $3 million bucks come from. Oh that probably doesn't include the $4,069,104 that's coming out of the 'slush fund' from last year to be able to call this year a 'no increase' budget. So what's really going on here?? $134.6 million - $1 million = $136.2 million. Now don't forget the remainder of an extra $4 million to fudge this year's budget number. Maybe we can get a big discount on some of those Chicago Math textbooks being discarded by other districts and have remedial sessions setup for the administration? Or maybe we should consider replacing more than the math curriculum? Links to these articles and documents can be found on the right.

Do We Need a New Charter School?

A group of East Brunswick parents are applying to the state proposing to open a charter school in our town. Charter schools are funded by school tax money. The proposal is for a school that will appeal only to a small and exclusive sub-group of our diverse community. They are asking people to sign a petition in support of their proposal. The proposal will be submitted, at the end of March, to the NJ department of Education and the signatures on the petition will help them demonstrate that there is a need for this charter school in East Brunswick. You can see their statement here http://www.hatikvahcharterschool.com/ Another group of parents posted an online petition opposing the charter school. Their concerns are posted in their petition and initiated a conversation on different views why there is no need for a charter school in our town. See this petition here http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/concerned-citizens-against-hebrew-charter-school-in-east-brunswick-nj.

Oh How the Song Changes

Have you ever noticed that you get so used to hearing a tune being sung that you don't immediately realize that it's been taken away? Consider this: For years and years and years the East Brunwick School Board and administration has supported their increasingly bloated budgets and tax increases with the familiar tune of 'rising enrollments'. They have told us repeatedly that being a premier blue-ribbon district that people keep moving here to send their kids to our schools. This song was likely true for quite some time and we all got used to hearing it year after year after year. It was only recently that I realized this song wasn't being sung this year during the Tentative Budget roll-out party. Hmmmm, maybe they just forgot the words or maybe it was just an oversight in the board and administration's zeal to congratulate themselves on all the hard work that went into the budget they delivered. Or maybe the truth is that they don't want us to know the truth and are hoping that no one will ask. But there again is that pesky State Department of Education and their efficiency standards and data collections and guess what. Total enrollments in the East Brunswick Public Schools have actually been declining, for at least the last five years while your taxes have continued to climb. Here's another one of those dirty little secrets that the board and administration would prefer you not ask about because they don't want to be held accountable for what they are doing with your tax dollars. The enrollment figures reported to the State Department of Education are: School Year 2004-2005 9,047 total students School Year 2005-2006 9,030 total students School Year 2006-2007 8, 967 total students School Year 2007-2008 8,836 total students School Year 2008-2009 well the board and administration haven't told us these numbers yet.

Our Very Own Bernie Madoff Here in East Brunswick

You gotta love it. New Jersey is never content being considered second to our neighbors in New York or Philadelphia. So when Bernie Madoff started stealing all the headlines for his massive New York-based Ponzi scheme, is it any wonder that New Jersey sensibilities were bruised? Well fear not, East Brunswick now has our very own version of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme and maybe we've done them one better by adding a little Rod Blagovitch flavor as well. For those that attended the East Brunswick Board of Education meeting where the Tentative budget was announced you were treated to the Blagovitch-like declaration that this was indeed an unprecedented budget no less than a dozen times. What followed was the expected near hour long self-congratulatory drivel from practially everyone sitting at the board table. Much ado was made of the newly coined rhetoric for this year's unprcedented budget. In past years we've heard the 'for the children' refrain. This year the party line has changed to the 'from the administrators' refrain. Instead of asking the taxpayers to suffer 'for the children' the board and administration would like us to believe that this year the suffering is coming 'from the administrators' so that we taxpayers don't have to. As Bernie Madoff's investors learned - - as will EB-Bernie's constituents - - if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. EB-Bernie isn't promising undeliverable 40% returns on investments. Our Bernie would have us believe that through the magic of hard work and tough negotiating we can expect a school budget that delivers not only a zero tax increase on the operating budget but an acutal 4 cent decrease because the district somehow has engineered a better mortgage deal. And all of this magic is being delivered while suffering under the onerous burden of meeting the state imposed 'efficiency standards' that really aren't quite that fair. Hmmmmmm, not so fast EB-Bernie. Don't the administrators you so proudly touted as giving up their 2009-2010 salary increases to save this budget have a contract? Have you actually modified the contracts for the EB PSA, the EB Superintendent and all of the non-unit EB employees to include this provision that they will give up this salary increase? Or is this one of those nod and wink deals where they are simply postponing the increase to a later time? And even if you have completed all of these contract changes how much money does it actually add up to when you count up all of the salary increases that won't happen for these self-sacrificing administrators? I bet it's nowhere near the more than $900,000 that you are reducing teacher salaries by. But maybe EB-Bernie and his colleagues were too busy congratulating themselves to provide any details. Hmmmmm, what about the money that gets stashed away every year in the 'slush fund'? Okay, okay, the official name is the 'Unreserved General Fund Balance' but it's still a handy little place to hide a lot of money and it gets used to manipulate the amount your taxes increase. Here's how it works: The school district raises money largely through increasing your taxes and always raises taxes enough so that it gives them more money than they will need in a year to actually run the schools. Oh they will complain that this is a 'bare bones' budget and they'll cry and complain that this is the 'smart' thing to do because they need to plan for unexpected expenses. But the state has been wise to this game for years and keeps trying to rein in school districts. It used to be that if any money was left at the end of the year only some of it (6% of the general budget) could be kept as reserve and the rest had to go to 'taxpayer relief' Sounds good right? Any left over money gets returned to the taxpayers as taxpayer relief. When did you last get a refund check from the school district? Well you don't. Instead what they do is roll that left-over money into the budget for the following year and you never see it. What you do see is that they are 'only' raising your taxes 26 cents instead of 30 cents. How is this possible - - - all that extra money they collected last year enables them to claim they are 'holding the line' and not raising your taxes as much this year. Not because they are spending less, but because they already took that money out of your pocket last year when they didn't really need it! As part of the state's efficiency standards they now require that school districts can only keep 2% of the general budget as reserve at the end of the year instead of 6%. Sounds like pennies, just like sales tax right? Well, here's what EB-Bernie moved around over the last several years from this 'slush fund' accounting: after the 05-06 school year there was roughly $6.6 million excess dollars that had to be rolled into the next year's budget; after the 06-07 school year there was $7.2 million excess dollars that had to be rolled over; after the 07-08 school year more than $9 million excess dollars had to be rolled over. So when EB-Bernie tells you this year that there is a 0 cent increase in the tax rate the question you want to ask is: How much of that is because of excess dollars that you took from my taxes last year that you really didn't need to? And before EB-Bernie retreats back to his penthouse, let's ask him one more question. The state efficiency standards are interesting new rules, in fact they are now the law. So EB-Bernie, do we really get to choose which laws we agree with and only follow them or do we need to follow all of the laws that are in place? One piece of the efficiency standard is that we are only allowed to have one custodian per 17,500 sq ft of space and indeed EB Bernie (reluctantly I'm sure) has had to reduce the size of our custodial staff to meet this legal requirement. Hmmmm, the same efficiency standard also says that districts can no longer have dedicated public relations functions, that these duties need to be performed by the chief school administrator, the business administrator or some other staff. While EB-Bernie was busy eliminating the custodian he must have missed the fact that we still have a "Director of Community Relations and Programs" at an annual salary of $109,000. Sounds like a PR job to me. Hey EB-Bernie, maybe one of these positions could pick up the PR duties and save the taxpayers some money: Superintendent $209,000/year; Deputy Superintendent $163,000/year; Assistant Superintendent $147,000/year; or the Business Administrator $148,000/year?

Don’t let platitudes interfere with good judgment.

We are beginning to see the expected parade of letters published ‘supporting education’. Often these letters are written at the behest of the administration, current board members or board candidates to accomplish two things. The first is to whip up support for the status quo and keep the ‘party line’ in front of the public. The second is to cast doubt or criticism upon anyone who would dare disagree with 'the party line.’ In his March 12 letter to the Sentinel, Mike Hennessy asks us to support our ‘outstanding educational system.' He claims our schools are ‘among the best, if not the very best, in the nation.’ Such platitudes have been used for years to encourage blind support for ever-expanding school budgets. At the risk of clouding the issue with the actual facts (National Center for Education Statistics) consider: compared to the national average, NJ has 27% more schools; 43% more students; 80% more teachers and spends 128% more money on education while producing student scores that are: 3% higher for grade 4 math and reading; 2% higher for grade 8 math and 3% higher for grade 8 reading. After spending more than twice as much money as the national average it’s not unreasonable to expect better results than a 3% margin in student performance. Perhaps Mr. Hennessy was thinking of other core subjects like science when he asked us to believe our schools are the very best in the nation. The National Center for Education Statistics tells a different story. New Jersey actually ranks 21st in the nation for 8th grade science performance in 2005. These ‘planted’ letters to the editor will use a variety of other devices to try and maintain the status quo. Mr. Hennessy uses a popular one when he crafts the argument that anyone that waivers from the status quo doesn’t support education or long-term plans, is shortsighted and shirking the obligation to our children or is simply gullible enough to submit to temptation. Forty years of research have repeatedly demonstrated that more money, even significantly more money does not equate to higher student performance. This same body of research has consistently identified two factors as being the most significant impactors of student performance: race and socio-economic status. Is it surprising then, that tens of billions of dollars have been spent in Abbott districts without appreciable changes in student performance? Spending more money or maintaining the status quo is simply not supported by the abundant research available. Supporting education is the responsibility of all, as is the use of responsible judgment in determining what that support should look like. Platitudes must not take the place of sound judgment. When the East Brunswick school board and administration made the judgment to neglect Memorial school while desperately trying to sell the idea of a bond issue, the result was more extensive damage than was done by the original fire. The administration and the current board should be held accountable for this fiasco, not the taxpayers or the students. We can maintain a quality education for our children AND question the judgments being made by our elected officials and school administration. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, maintaining a quality education REQUIRES the use of sound judgment by all.

Don't Cheat Taxpayers With Worn-Out Rhetoric

It's that time of year again - - budget season for both the school board and the municipality. The difference this year is that the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. Mayor David Stahl is facing the predictable results of several years of Golden Triangle nonsense and the Board of Education needs to face up to many many years of foolish spending. Cutting garbage collection to once per week and espousing the same old 'for the children' rhetoric, as Ms. Cornavaca did in her recent editorial letter, won't begin to address the financial challenges our township and taxpayers face. Our state debt is approaching $45 billion and the Governor has yet to release what promises to be a budget that many will complain about: both because it cuts too much and because it doesn't cut enough. When the budget is finally released I expect it will send municipalities, school districts and taxpayers scrambling to deal with even greater cuts in state aid and possible elimination of the electioneering boondoggle known as Property Tax Rebates. The inescapable truth is that property taxes will go up and will likely go up a lot even before the school board releases their budget. An equally inescapable truth is that property values are no longer tied to the 'reputation of the school district' or how 'desirable a place this is to live.' The meltdown in the national economy combined with out-of-control political spending has more impact on property values than the threadbare 'school reputation' axiom. The school board needs to recognize these changing circumstances and present a realistic budget that isn't pre-padded with items to be cut should it fail to gain voter approval. The school board should not punish parents and students for a defeated budget by instituting even more usage charges while continuing to pay exorbitant administrator salaries. There are currently forty-three administrators who collectively teach not a single class and yet cost the district $4.9 million each year in base salary alone. Do we really need to pay six-figure salaries for a superintendent, a deputy superintendent and an assistant superintendent while we're charging parents for the wood stock used in shop classes? In this economy does the school board really expect taxpayers to embrace yet another bond issue, putting us further in debt on the rationale of we need to grab state funds while they exist? Building a brand new elementary school instead of doing the needed repairs to Memorial is fiscally irresponsible. It's time to have an honest discussion about what the township can afford in 2009 instead of where we hoped we would be or what we dreamed we could do. It's time to face the reality of credit card spending and focus on what will make a difference for our children instead of what will enhance the reputation of our adults. The expectation of 'great services at good prices' has become a fantasy in the retail world and is simply hubris when applied to our current municipal and education funding challenges.