Grassroots Groundswell

From a flier picked up at the Fourth of July Parade:

The NP High School Senior Class of 2009 will be holding a fundraiser at the Stony Brook Car Wash on Tuesday, July 8, from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. “to help make our last year of high school the best!”

Stony Brook Car Wash is at Route 22 and Grove Street, across from CVS. I think you need to have a copy of the flier with you to make sure the donation portion (50%) of the car wash costs go to the fundraiser, but hopefully they’ll have copies available at the event.

By Antoinette Rinehart

The June 25 Planning Board meeting has been canceled. No reason given.

Next scheduled meeting is two weeks and I think this falls on July 9. Mark your calendars, please.

I have just returned from Borough Hall where I viewed the new application of Watchung Hills at North Plainfield.

As best I can tell they have designed 48 single-family stand-alone, 2-1/2 story homes; each containing three bedrooms, an office (could be used as another bedroom), two baths, one half-bath. Livable space averages 2,800 ft. on lots 50 ft. wide (depth varies) with a 30 ft. “front yard”. All these positioned on a “horseshoe drive” entrancing and exiting onto Interhaven Avenue.

No indication if these are pre-fabs but I would make a guess. On the corner of Wilson and Ridge Avenues there are two prefabs that have been built since March and are described pretty much per the proposed home plan submitted by Watchung Hills. These went together fast but are not yet finished. Yet the Era Realty sign is posted for both and carries a local Suburban Realty number.

I will try to check out the pricing and advise.

By Heather DeGeorge, North Plainfield resident and former Council member

There is only one Council representative to the Planning Board allowed, but one is enough to convey the message. It was traditionally Frank Righetti but I don’t know who it might be now–Skip Stabile did it for a while.

We briefly considered Villa Maria for school space and it’s a good BUILDING for it, but in terms of keeping the kids close to fields, etc. it wasn’t such a great idea due to the cost of excavating the land for fields (plus the destruction it would cause to the trees, etc.). So you could do it, but at a much greater cost and a MUCH greater impact environmentally. If nothing else, it needs to be leveled out and that alone would destroy a good number of the trees.

The Master Plan was updated around 2003-2005 (I started with it and I believe they finished it when I left due to complicated pregnancy). I’m not sure they touched the section citing school expansion because I don’t remember it coming up–but maybe it was updated after I left. If they didn’t touch it, then it would still note the need.

It has always been an issue trying to keep the kids from having to cross roads to get to fields (for practice, playing and events). The thought came up once to acquire the Ballas property on Greenbrook Rd. and it came up again that it would leave the kids (and adults) having to cross a busy street.

It’s a tough thing to accommodate.

Closed now. What will happen next? Borough Hall Annex? Youth Center? School for Adult English as a Second Language? Library? Affordable senior housing? Medical or professional offices? Charter school? Razed for single-family home construction?

by Mark Williams, NPCCR Co-Chair

I attended the regularly scheduled school board meeting held at the West End School Community Room on June 18.

Prior to the meeting there was a wonderful ceremony recognizing the accomplishments of teachers during this current school year. I attended a similar ceremony held at the Board’s first meeting of the this school year which recognized North Plainfield School District employees in areas such as educational accomplishments, years of service to the district and new hires/appointees.

Recognition for a job well done is always a good thing.

The regular Board meeting followed this special event and proceeded along with usual protocol until it arrived at Item #7 on the agenda, Public Hearing, P.L. 2007c. 53, Section 5-N.J.S.A. 18A:11-11.

Item #7 was basically an opportunity for the public to make comments with respect to the employment contracts of Marilyn Birnbaum, ED.D, Superintendent of Schools; Robert H. Rich, Ed. D, Assistant Superintendent of Schools; and Donald Sternberg, Business Administrator.

The press release as read by School Board President, Linda L. Bond-Nelson was indeed eerie, as was suggested in a blog submission on June 15, 2008.

I have to give the Board credit; they anticipated that this could be a highly-expressed, emotional issue for residents and planned for it. However, when it was time for the public to speak, no one rose to offer an opinion or observation on this issue, including myself.

In fact, there were only eight people in the audience.

The 50 to 75 people who attended the recognition ceremony just prior to the Board meeting had been long gone by this time.

Next came a presentation by the Community Adult School/Adult High School, followed by Committee and Delegates Report.

What happened next blew me away.

Board Member, Mr. David Branan gave his report from Finance and Facilities where he stated that the facilities use committee rejected a proposal to erect basketball court(s) on school property.

He gave as the committee’s reasons:

1. Community opposition;
2. Chief of Police William Parenti’s opposition;
3. Insurance liability issues;and
4. Presence of signs that prohibit use of school property without a permit from the School Board.

The following exchange between Mr. Branan and Board member Mr. Drew Elliott Smith was difficult to understand, because Mr. Smith spoke in a very low tone.

Mr. Smith questioned if Chief Parenti was actually in opposition to the installation of basketball courts on school property.

Mr. Smith reported that he is aware of a meeting between Chief Parenti and local clergy members during which the Chief said, in so many words, that he was not opposed to basketball hoops.

Mr. Smith then asked Mr. Branan to identify the people in the community who were opposed.

Mr. Branan responded that there was no current survey of community residents standing in opposition of putting basketball courts on school property.

Mr. Branan stated that the facilities use committee partially based their decision on information taken from an informal survey of people familiar with the problems associated with previous basketball hoops, particularly those that formerly stood in the back of East End School 10 years ago.

They relied on 10-year-old information.

Mr. Branan went on to say that the facilities use committee took no current survey to see if community feelings regarding outdoor public use basketball hoops on school property remained unchanged over the past 10 years.

Superintendent Birnbaum stated that there had been incidents of vandalism at the East End School and that the area was difficult for police surveillance because the basketball courts could not be seen from the road.

Next, Mr. Smith questioned the issue of increased insurance premiums associated with increased liability.

No one from the facilities use committee had inquired of the school district’s current insurance carrier what the actual increase in premiums would be.

In the end, the Board agreed to:

1. Keep the matter open as an agenda item for their next meeting [July 23 at 7:30 at 33 Mountain Ave.];
2. Ask Chief Parenti to attend the next Board meeting to clarify his postion on the issue;
3. Check with the insurance carrier to determine how much premium would increase; and
4. Ensure future community input on this issue.

During the last public comment section, I reminded the Board of the growing worldwide pandemic of obesity.

I pointed out that the World Health Organization reports that there are currently three hundred million people in the world who currently meet the criteria for being obese, that more then half of all New Jersey adults are obese or overweight and that New Jersey has the highest incidence of obesity in low-income children.

I noted that as the risk of obesity increases in children due to increased sedentary lifestyles and poor nutritional habits, it would be wise to have as many recreational opportunities as possible in our communities.

I am aware of all the current ways in which North Plainfield provides recreational programs for the community and I feel we do a good job.

It’s the process of how this decision was made that disturbs me.

If we are concerned about a rise in insurance premiums, then let’s explore how organizing basketball leagues where each member pays a use fee might defray any cost incurred.

Additionally, I am disturbed by the idea that if I want to play catch with one of my daughters at East End School, I need a permit to do so.

Finally, one last item that caught my eye.

The Board of Education approved the reimbursement of almost $38,000 to 16 administrators for unused vacation days earned during the 2007-08 school year as per negotiated agreements.

WOW!

I want to make this clear, I am not suggesting that anything is wrong with this.

A contract is a contract, but I still say WOW!

[There's a little background about last year's contracting process posted here.]

Press release from Donald Sternberg, Business Administrator for North Plainfield School District:

Contract Hearing Notice

“Pursuant to NJSA 18A:11-11, the North Plainfield Board of Education will begin discussions regarding the Superintendent of Schools [Marilyn Birnbaum], Assistant Superintendent of Schools [Robert Rich] and Business Administrator [Donald Sternberg] contracts.

A public hearing will be held at the Board of Education meeting on June 18, 2008 [at 33 Mountain Ave. at 7:30 p.m.].

Following the public hearing Board action may be taken.

A copy of the proposed contracts will be placed on file in the Board’s business office [33 Mountain Ave.] and will be available for review prior to or at the public hearing.

The Board, pursuant to NJSA 10:4-12(b), the Open Public Meetings Act, shall not publicly discuss personnel matters and shall not respond to comments made by members of the public.

The subject of this hearing retains the right of privacy and shall retain all rights regarding defamation and slander according to the laws of Ne Jersey. The Board shall not be held liable for comments made by members of the public.

Chilling, eh?

It’s almost like they’re expecting a crowd of taxpayers to come out and vigorously challenge the job performance of the school administrators (particularly Dr. Birnbaum) and angrily question why Birnbaum’s salary is approaching $200,000 (as covered in Sunday morning’s Courier-News in a followup to the Keansburg golden parachute fiasco) when Governor Corzine’s salary is capped at $175,000 (although he actually only collects $1 per year ’cause he’s so rich from his former life in the private sector.)

The School Board seems to be expecting that public outcry, and intent on ensuring that no member of the public expressing public views at the meeting will have any hope that what is said by members of the public will impact the School Board’s ultimate contract decisions in any meaningful way.

I’ve also heard a rumor that Dr. Birnbaum may be at the end of one five-year contract and planning to retire or move to another district before a new contract is negotiated. Some readers have noted that many school administrators are part of a “revolving door” culture and move from one district to the next every few years, upping their salaries by a few thousand dollars with each move.

Whatever the situation, and whatever the Board’s willingness to listen and respond, show up anyway.

Ask your questions, even if they don’t get answered.

Share your thoughts, feelings and ideas about the schools and the administrative salaries, even if they aren’t considered important enough for a verbal response from Board members.

Show up, not for the School Board members’ benefit, but to be there for each other, to hear each other, to meet each other, and that way, to build a stronger community consensus that - eventually - they won’t be able to ignore anymore.

On a related issue, if the charter amendment to change from partisan to nonpartisan elections wins a majority in November, North Plainfield voters will have another (May) election date to remember and pay for in addition to the February presidential primaries (every four years), the April school elections, the June non-presidential primaries, and the November general elections.

There’s a bill in the legislature (A-15) to move the school elections to November.

As this June 2 article from the Philadelphia Inquirer states, the intent is partly to reduce municipal election costs, and partly to increase voter turnout on school issues, which tend to be decided now by a fairly small proportion of the eletorate that bothers to vote in school elections at all, which may also be because participation is somewhat meaningless, as voter budget decisions can be overturned by municipal councils and the state education commissioner.

Another legislative bill (A-10) is aimed at cutting administrative spending by 10% over the next three years, covered in this May 12 article from NJ Politicker.

Two bipartisan measures Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts, Jr. is championing to enhance local voters’ ability to hold elected school board members accountable for their fiscal and policy decisions and to slash inefficient non-classroom administrative spending in public schools were released today by the Assembly Education Committee.

The bills would move school board member elections to the November ballot (A-15) and require 10 percent cuts in administrative non-classroom spending in certain districts over the next three years (A-10).

Of interest for North Plainfield - If these bills clear the Legislature and are signed by Governor Corzine, then school election questions would appear on the November ballots in a special section called “non-partisan” since School Board members are already elected on a nonpartisan basis.

If North Plainfield voters adopt the nonpartisan charter change, under the current terms of office (barring Council or Mayoral resignations in 2009), my understanding is that 2010 would be the first year for implementation of that new schedule.

So, losing the April school elections and gaining May municipal officer elections would mean the Borough taxpayers would about break even as far as election costs.

And, if the legislature deems voters smart enough to understand a nonpartisan school portion of the November general election ballot, then eventually the nonpartisan municipal elections might also be moved onto the November ballot, streamlining and cutting the costs further.

Personally, I think increasing voter engagement in democratic self-governance year-round is worth much larger investments of public money, time and energy than that effort currently gets (for example, I support public funding for campaigns, as a way to involve candidates who can’t finance their campaigns out-of-pocket or can’t bring themselves to grovel for campaign donations only to have to pay back those donations with legislative favors later.)

But I do see the value of bundling important electoral events in packages, to increase the number of people participating.

[Editor's Note: This dispatch is a point-counterpoint piece when read alongside Norman E. Ortega's post (below). However, Mr. Layne wrote it without having seen Mr. Ortega's post, and Mr. Ortega wrote his post without having seen Mr. Layne's post.]

By M. Emory Layne

Okay, I guess 2008 political-correctness demands that I start this dispatch with all the standard disclaimers.

I am not a racist. Some of my best friends are [fill in your favorite ethnic designation].

I feel the pain of [ibid].

Let’s all hold hands and live in peace and harmony.

Pardon me while I clean up the vomit from my laptop.

I am under no obligation to say that, and neither is anyone else. It’s done because no one wants to be branded a racist, the ultimate crime of the 21st century. In my mind, the situation crossed the boundary of ludicrousness when the right Rev. Al Sharpton decided he wanted to determine what the rules of language usage would be for the general population (who can and can’t say what).

I do, however, discriminate.

I discriminate against idiots.

I can’t stand idiots. I don’t believe idiots should have the right to vote. I don’t believe idiots deserve the constitutional protections that non-idiots have earned. And how, you may ask, do I define an “idiot?” It’s simple, really. Anyone who chooses not to see the common sense of a concept, but instead begins inserting moronic arguments into the process for no other reason than to bolster their idiotic pointless point … is an idiot.

I (and friends of mine) lived in apartments for years. Some of them weren’t half bad. They had running water and the vermin were tame.

Others were, well, lower in the Michelin guide. We used to comment, at the time, that the best job in the world must be being a landlord - you only have to ‘work’ one day a month, rent collection day.

Wait! you say. (You being a landlord.)

We have to repair things! We have taxes to pay! We have planes to catch and bills to pay!

Great, I’m happy for you - I never had the luck to rent from you.

I remember the portrayal of landlords in society at the time. White men. Shysters. Rich guys who lived in luxury while their tenants had collapsing floors. When they made that movie about a landlord being sentenced to live in his own flophouse, they cast Joe Pesci in the lead role, not Damon Wayans. No one complained. No one screamed “Racism!” when a big city busted a landlord - they screamed “More! More! More!”

The whole reason I was renting was that I was too poor to own. When I finally was able to own, the space was livable … but room enough for one family. I never had the access to capital to own more than one residential property, and there were no special loans available to me to make that happen because of the color of my skin. I owned one house, I lived in it.

It never crossed my mind to rent out my attic or my basement.

First of all, I needed that space to store stuff. Second, my life wasn’t all about more money, more money, more money. And third, and this is the big one, I admit, it was illegal to do so. Was I a saint? No. If I was ever tempted to consider doing that as an additional source of income, I knew it would be my luck that some meter reader would report me, or some problem would break out and a cop would notice.

I never had any concern about a zoning officer figuring it out because, well ….

Funny thing, though, now I’m hearing about people who own multiple single-family homes, and who are renting out those homes as apartments.

Must be those white shysters, right?

I’m hearing about people who own single-family homes, but charge other, non-related people money to live in parts of those homes.

Must be those greedy white guys, right?

But whenever I hear someone complain about it in a public forum, what I’m not hearing are the cries of “Woe is me! Woe is us! Get ‘em! Toss ‘em in jail! Fine ‘em!” I used to hear. I wonder why?

I don’t have to wonder anymore. People who contribute to this forum have answered the question for me. It’s no longer wrong for landlords to do these things! What’s wrong now is for people to complain about it, and for officials (if they were ever so inclined) to enforce the laws!

And why is that?

Because the shyster landlords aren’t white.

Oooooh, I just committed the ultimate sin, didn’t I? I just transgressed the unwritten law (though I can actually imagine that it will be written in the not-too-distant future).

I said a baaaaaaaaad ting about the ‘R’ issue!

Actually, what I said is pure, simple common sense. The racists are the ones who are throwing out all their ‘discrimination’ and ‘xenophobia’ sputum these days.

The same people who applauded the prosecution of evil Caucasian landlords (and probably, selectively, still do) don’t want the exact same process applied to other people doing the exact same things because of their last name or their skin color!

And that makes me racist?

Let’s take this very slowly and very simply, okay?

1. Someone owns a building. Got that? Someone.
2. The building is zoned as a single-family residence. Zoned, got that? Through a constitutional process creating a law pertinent to all people regardless of race, color and creed.
3. That “someone” who owns the building that is “zoned” as a “single-family residence” BREAKS THE FREAKING LAW by renting it out, in whole or in part, and accepting rent (”payment,” “income”) from those to whom he or she rents.

Now, please explain to me what part of that I overlooked that says it’s okay for “someone” to do that if they are members of a particular race or ethnic group?

Or that it’s discrimination if those empowered to enforce the laws enforce them against someone who is a member of a particular race or ethnic group?

Go ahead - just remember, you’re stepping into the “idiot” position.

Great googly-mooglies, can it be any more cut-and-dried? If anything, it’s the ultimate Rainbow Coalition goal - anyone, regardless of race, color or creed, can now own a building or property … and anyone, etc. etc., can choose to abide by or break the law. So how brain-damaged do you have to be to attempt to make it into racism or discrimination?

Quite, apparently.

Find instances of racism in North Plainfield and post them on this blog.

I guaran-damn-tee you that residents will be up in arms, and will support you.

But what’s next? Are you going to claim racism each time a drug dealer gets busted if you find his last name is ethnic? Are you going to suggest that home-invaders and murderers walk because of the color of their skin? How idiotic are you?

Houses are not selling for three easy payments of $99.95 in North Plainfield. They cost big bucks. So someone already has enough money - or access to it — to purchase the property, right? Is that some poor, underprivileged soul?

Then, unlike all the people in town who buy a house to raise their family, mow their lawn, and park their 2 or maybe 3 cars, someone decides to make even more money by renting out a basement or an attic or a garage (there’s a house in town that installed a toilet in the garage, I kid you not; it was reported but never busted by the zoning office) to people, right?

Now, they’re even poorer?

You’ve just got to stop eating those mushrooms that grow on your front lawn.

The apartment buildings in town don’t have “sorry, no vacancy” signs posted on them.

This isn’t a ‘supply versus demand’ issue.

This is a “finally got my piece of the pie” issue. A crook is a crook is a crook.

You want racially-diverse law enforcement? No one, regardless of race, color or creed, should be allowed to break the law in North Plainfield by using single-family homes as apartments. Yet the only outcry I hear from these self-righteous activists is that it’s racist to bust people if they are minorities.

Please - go back to Idiotville. Leave the discussions and solutions to people who have an ounce of common sense. Or, better yet, call me a racist. Prove my point.

[Editor's Note: This post is part of a point-counterpoint pair, along with the next post (above) by Emory Layne.]

by Norman E. Ortega

Again, I am going back to the issue of Illegal Housing and Overcrowding because, as candidates have shown, many are interested in this issue and dealing with it is as varied as the issue itself. Nevertheless and despite its variations and conundrum of opinions around it, illegal housing and overcrowding enforcement must be balanced and sensitive to the realities surrounding it.

Council Candidate Frank D’Amore (R), advocates for “strict enforcement” only and Council Candidate Skip Stabile (D), wants the same, “continue stricter enforcement of property maintenance codes.” These positions should be worrisome to residents of North Plainfield because they show an apparent lack of understanding of the issue.

Yesterday the New York Times published an editorial piece based on studies which show a definitive disparity in Racial Inequity and Drug Arrests. According to the New York Times, “These reports show large disparities in the rate at which blacks and whites are arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses, despite roughly equal rates of illegal drug use.” The same premise was used to determine Police Profiling in New Jersey’s highways and urban areas where minorities are stopped and arrested at a higher rate than the majority.

Currently, this is not the situation in North Plainfield, but as I mentioned before, if 75%, (according to the 2006-2007 DPW report) of identified cases of overcrowding and illegal housing has been attributed to a single minority (32% of the overall population), strict enforcement only, is a reason to worry because of the implications for minorities and repercussions it may bring to our town.

Strict enforcement without education and assistance was the main reason the Federal Government issued a Consent Decree against Bound Brook. In Bound Brook the situation would have been different if Code Enforcement Officers had received sensitive training and implemented other ways to correct the issues prior to strict enforcement only.

We do not want what happened in Bound Brook taking place here.

So far there is reason to worry because at this time, we have one ingredient working against us, the disparity of minorities affected by this issue. If strict enforcement only is introduced, it would add another ingredient to a recipe for disaster.

This is what Council candidate Frank Righetti (D) and Mayoral Candidate Mike Giordano suggest. According to Righetti, the “Borough needs to do more education to the public about the codes”.

On the same page, Mayoral Candidate Mike Giordano (D) says that “When codes are violated, it’s bad for the Borough, both for aesthetics and for safety.” He is “proponent of strict but fair enforcement” and believes education about codes must be stressed.

Any candidate undertaking this issue should understand it well. For instance, what are the differences between strict enforcement only and education supplemented by enforcement? Normally, one would not undertake these steps, but when 32% of the population is singled out by a particular issue, it must be carefully decided what is the objective of policy, punishment or correction. Strict enforcement only is about punishment and punishment is after the fact. In other words, it does not attempt to correct the problem, its objective is to punish one and continue to the next.

Education, on the other hand, amounts to prevention. Education prevents cases of illegal housing and overcrowding not just on a case by case basis, but on a mass basis that may expand through generations.

There are other differences such as fairness and intellect. Fairness because education supplemented by enforcement takes into consideration that the issue is disparately affecting one side of the community in particular and intellect because education supplemented by enforcement mitigates both needs, education and enforcement, to resolve the issue.

So what is the best approach to prevent overcrowding and illegal housing and any other issue related to immigration and integration?

I believe a well crafted commission to deal with this and any other issue related to integration is the answer.

North Plainfield is home to some of the fastest growing immigrant communities in New Jersey, Hispanics and Asians among others. A commission dedicated to soften the integration process by educating our immigrant communities about the goals and objectives of North Plainfield as a community is the right approach.

What do I mean by the goals and objectives of North Plainfield?

Take overcrowding and illegal housing for instance; in immigrant communities this is an issue of economics, but more so is an issue of culture. It is ok for us to have and live in one home with large families. When our sons and daughters marry, they don’t leave. They stay and live with us as any other family member. At the same time, what may be economical, cultural and normal to us, is a violation of housing codes here. As any other productive section of the community, why not have a mechanism to educate our newest members so we can have a better community?

Currently, NPCCR and I are discussing the creation of such commission for introduction. Any political candidate interested in solving this issue and any other issue related to our growing communities should be working and supporting us in developing and implementing a commission of Community Integration to address issues such as overcrowding and illegal housing.

By M. Emory Layne

A little background on this. I have never - repeat, never - participated in any kind of group working toward a common goal that agreed on everything.

And I’ve worked on a lot of them. Even the best of friends, the most stalwart of teammates, disagree occasionally. On groups and organizations, there are ALWAYS differences of opinion that go beyond simple words. No one (well, except perhaps Janice Allen) always gets their way in a group of more than one.

At the North Plainfield Board of Education website, there is an archive of minutes of Board of Ed. Meetings going back to February of 2007. I began reading through those minutes.

The first thing I learned was that Donald Sternberg, Schools Business Administrator and Board Secretary, keeps extraordinary minutes. That is not stated in sarcasm. I have never seen such thorough, detailed and professional meeting notes as those he provides. These minutes should be required as guides for every commission and committee in town, because most others in the borough run more along the lines of telegrams - almost as if there’s a one-page limit rule or something.

When I started reviewing these minutes, I used a shorthand notation of ‘PUA,’ which stood for ‘proposals unanimously approved.’ This is where I began to become concerned.
Just about everything discussed by Board of Ed members ended up with a ‘PUA’ notation after it. Just about everything. No matter what was being voted on, from approval of pay for various employees to actions to be undertaken, the votes were unanimously in favor. There’s something inherently wrong with that.

How can it be that members of the Board of Ed, who are elected (not appointed) to their positions at various times, are in such perfect agreement on everything? We are criticized, at times, here in the NPCCR blog for being “too negative.” Certainly, our goal is to reach positive solutions to situations - but this is ridiculous. I can almost imagine “Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine In” playing in the background at Board of Ed meetings as all topics and issues are pencil-whipped through in a huge love fest.

Fairness dictates that I say “just about” everything, because on occasion (and they stand out simply by their rarity) someone DID vote something other than ‘yes.’ Unfortunately, most of these minimal exceptions consisted of someone abstaining from voting.

An aside on ‘abstentions.’ There are usually three reasons to abstain from a vote. One is that the voter did not attend the meeting at which the particulars of an issue were discussed; the voter abstains because he or she cannot fairly vote without sufficient background. A second reason is that the voter disagrees with the topic, but does not want to go on record as having voted ‘no;’ this is a common application by members of the senate or congress, who provide themselves with a convenient excuse down the road - “well, I didn’t support it!” for those opposed, and “well, I didn’t oppose it!” for supporters. A third reason is that the voter has no particular opinion on the topic either way; in this case, the voter should most likely resign from whatever body he or she is on if he or she doesn’t have the sand to take a stand.

In the case of abstentions on the Board of Ed, I draw the conclusion that (a), not having been in attendance during discussion, is the most likely reason for such votes. I reach this conclusion because the abstentions I saw were either in the approval of minutes from a prior meeting (at which the abstainer may not have been in attendance) or general abstention on all topics up for a vote (for the same reason).

There were also a couple of instances where people actually had the gumption to vote ‘no’ on something. In particular, the minutes of a meeting on September 5, 2007 show that there was some actual difference of opinion. The topic was salaries for the Schools Superintendent (Dr. Marilyn Birnbaum), Assistant Superintendent (Mr. Robert Rich) and Business Administrator (Sternberg). In what I found to be the only instance of a motion not being seconded, Board member Drew Elliott Smith moved to freeze these officials’ salaries … and no one seconded the motion.

Then, a motion was made by David Branan and seconded by Thomas Allen regarding the salaries of these officials pursuant to state law P.L. 2007, c. 53, an Act concerning School District Accountability, and the vote went 3 to 1 against the motion. Finally, a vote concerning the approval of the Superintendent’s employment contract was taken, and Mr. Smith actually voted ‘no.’

Admittedly, this got fairly confusing to me. Anyone interested in helping clear up my confusion can access all the Board of Ed minutes at the this link. [Editor's Note: There's a little information - not much - about this issue at two archived posts, here and here.]

Following this one blip in the space/time continuum of Board of Ed business, subsequent meetings reverted to their previous mode of proposals and unanimous approvals.

There’s something seriously wrong here, in my humble opinion. On the one hand, Borough Business Administrator David Hollod is quick to point out that a major chunk of our annual tax bite is taken up by the schools budget, and distances the Borough administration from that portion. Yet, on the other hand, the officials elected to the Board of Ed move in such perfect synchronization as to make the Rockettes look like amateurs. We’re not just talking solely about mundane business like proposals to fix bathrooms or approve leaves of absence either - we’re talking about scores of issues involving hires, salaries and spending. And in 99 out of 100 instances, our Board of Ed, the people elected to objectively look out for us, vote in unison.

I admit that I did not read every last word of each post. My eyes began to roll back in my head when I tried to digest every last bit of information about activities at different schools, which athletic teams did what, and what performances were scheduled. Those of you with the time and initiative can point out what I missed, and I’ll be grateful.

But one thing I did notice, by its absence, was any discussion of the concerns regularly voiced by taxpayers outside of Board of Ed meetings. Topics like illegal students or efficient spending. They don’t come up. There’s a sense of a group ‘whistling past the graveyard,’ pretending that all their activities and decisions fall under a wonderful generic heading of “what’s best for our children.” That what the taxpayers are most concerned about would get in the way of the efficient approval of anything and everything that comes down the pike.

Am I the only one concerned about this? I hope not. The complete lack of anything resembling contrary opinion in this group scares me. I cannot conceive how people from various backgrounds elected at different times can magically become one on almost every topic. In a relatively underfunded organization such as the Recreation Commission, I wouldn’t find this terribly problematic; in a group that oversees the spending of tens of millions of dollars annually, I shudder.

THIS is our representation?

Serious Error or Just a Typo?

As most parents and other interested parties know, this week the North Plainfield School System is administering the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge test or NJ ASK. NJ ASK is a state assessment of student achievement in language arts, math, and science that was implemented in 2003 to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.

At the Day 2 session held on April 30, students participating in the ASK 7 (7th grade level) component of the testing, Language Arts Literacy, were given instructions to complete a Persuasive Prompt essay. They were given instructions that the the time allotted for completion of this portion of the test was 25 minutes.

After 20 minutes students were told they had an additional 20 minutes to complete the assignment. Apparently there was misinformation provided in the teachers’ handbook indicating that 25 minutes was the allotted time when actually this test allows for 40 minutes for students to complete the assignment.

Questions that may arise from this are:

• Is this a serious error or just a typo?
• Will this component of the test need to be repeated by students?
• What effect does being told you have 20 additional minutes to complete an assignment have on how the student proceeds; given the original instruction that they would have 25 minutes total to complete the test?
• Given that this is a standardized test, and therefore empirically valid and reliable, does mis-instruction about time quantity render the test invalid and unreliable as an educational measurement tool?
• How widespread was the error?

Let’s keep a close eye of how this plays out.