Grassroots Groundswell

By Emory Layne

Folks, in our eagerness to join the grassroots groundswell that has gone beyond being planted in North Plainfield, and is now blossoming, let’s remember to stay focused on the root causes of the situation that sowed the seeds of discontent in the first place.

Each and every situation that we now debate, every problem for which we seek a solution, can be traced back to a common cause:

Individuals or small groups of people who, through a combination of deceit, secrecy and double-talk, took it upon themselves to run North Plainfield in a way that did not and does not reflect the desires and needs of the vast majority of its residents.

We must remain focused on removing those individuals from positions of authority, and making sure that anyone who replaces them is truly different and truly what we need.

A case in point would be the Villa Maria situation. Most recently, I read that there is a suggestion to use the property for a stand-alone middle school for the Borough; subsequently, there is discussion of the pros and cons of such a thought.

Using this as an example of ‘staying on point,’ here’s my take: North Plainfield doesn’t need a stand-alone middle school.

First, the comment about high school and middle school children interacting too much is the only time I’ve ever heard that from any person with children at these grade levels. We can’t start branching off onto different tracks because of one person’s stated belief any more than, say, the town should immediately begin seeking a new team mascot for the high school because Emory Layne thinks a woodcutter is silly.

Second, residents’ taxes are already high in part because of past expansions and renovations to schools; taking on more expense for a reason other than dangerous overcrowding is just plain dumb.

And third and most important, remember why we’re debating this Villa Maria issue at all in the first place. That’s “the point” we must remain on.

The issue was not one of different people having different opinions.

The problem is that the residents were kept in the dark.

Has everyone forgotten the Council meetings held with the bare minimum notice posted on public holidays?

Or the attempt to force through a zoning ordinance change without there being anyone from the general public in attendance?

How about public statements that reflected either ignorance (the need to meet COAH standards which had already been met, for example) or gratuitous lying?

And let’s not forget being kept totally in the dark about things like back taxes (about which we only receive information when officials are pressed by NPCCR members), slanderous comments by public employees, and even threats from lawyers toward concerned residents.

ALL of this came to our attention because of the Villa Maria property.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for any action to be taken on the Villa Maria property between now and November, except perhaps to collect back taxes that are owed on the property.

No need whatsoever. Our current administration has shown repeatedly that it feels the best way to address any issue is to form a committee to ‘look into’ the situation . . . do the same here. Form another bogus committee to meet occasionally and flap gums about the topic.

There will be no tragedy if the property sits for a few more months as it has for the past few years.

We need to focus our attention and efforts to continue exposing the kind of political and administrative shenanigans that permeate this situation and numerous others.

It’s painfully simple. Whether the Villa Maria, or borough hall renovations, or enforcement of zoning ordinances, or management of legal contracts, or traffic enforcement, or school board decisions or any of a ton of other smelly issues in North Plainfield, the KEY is rooting out the people behind the questionable or completely screwed up actions and holding them accountable.

And the best way to hold them accountable is to extricate them from their positions as both the policy makers and paperwork protectors.

As we draw closer to the November elections, I and others I know will be posting some personal situations and interactions experienced over the years with the current administration; these are things that rarely if ever have seen the light of day.

Dirty politics? Hardly. If sharing documented, verifiable situations is “dirty politics,” then hidden agendas, refusal to release information and taking actions totally at odds with the taxpaying population are politics so filthy that even Billy Mays would back off.

I invite those of you who have had similar experiences, but might find it difficult to present them in article format, to communicate with me at emorylayne@comcast.net. I’ll be glad to assist in editing, and present them in whatever manner you are comfortable with.

Why?

Because this is the whole point. No matter how many different opinions and different points of view may arise in any given situation, something resembling a solution can’t be achieved without addressing the common basis for them all - the clique of politicians and employees who have held unaccountable power for far too long in North Plainfield.

Step One will be defeating the loyal followers of this group in November.

Step Two will be holding those who win to the standards North Plainfield residents deserve.

And Step Three will be NPCCR’s continued efforts to determine what was done or not done when, by whom, and whether or not those people can be further held accountable, apart from losing their political positions.

Stay on point. Expose the mismanagement. Expose the arrogance. We’ve lived with this mess for a decade or more; waiting a few more months isn’t impossible.

By Barbara Habeeb

At the Street Fair, I had the opportunity to speak with Department of Public Works (DPW) employee Angelo Costello, who was recently discussed on the NPCCR Blog. Someone from NPCCR had a concern that DPW workers were using town vehicles for personal use, because someone had seen a DPW vehicle in Angelo’s driveway.

Angelo pointed out to me that he is a supervisor on call 24/7. Because he is a supervisor, he is allowed to take the vehicle home in case he needs to respond to an emergency after hours. Only a supervisor has this privilege. He stated that the vehicle stays in his driveway every night and over the weekend and he does not use that vehicle for personal use. He does however drive from his home, to work and back.

He made mention of the fact that when he does drive the vehicle after hours, it is for town business only. For example, last Tuesday evening there was a tree that came down, and he had to drive the vehicle at night to respond to the call. He stated to me that his truck has lettering on both doors that anyone, at anytime could see. It would be easy for someone to assume when they see his vehicle being driven after hours, that it is for personal use.

Angelo wanted to clear the air and let people understand the reason the truck is in his driveway and why it would be driven after hours. I asked him if I could post his statement on the Blog, and he agreed. He hopes this will clear up any misunderstandings people have about this issue.

From the 1974 Master Plan - Section 5, pages 78-79 (emphasis added)

Editor’s Note: In my view, 1974 is the last time the Borough put together a well-documented, comprehensive, sensible Master Plan. It was slightly revised in a fairly good 1996 document, but the 2002 document was a pathetic piece of slipshod work, in my opinion.

Since the Borough must review and revise the Master Plan this year by law, there’s a great opportunity for the Planning Board, with community support and assistance, to rectify the enormous deficiencies of the 2002 document by updating the data in the 1974 version and adding in the community’s new ideas for the future.

Master Plan Revision is a duty of the Planning Board; to date, I’ve heard no signals suggesting they’ve got plans to start the required public hearings and do the job. To review all the Master Plans including and since 1974, check out the Document Library and scroll down.

FLOOD CONTROL

Perhaps the most serious problem which North Plainfield has experienced in recent years is frequent flooding of lands adjacent to Stony Brook and Green Brook. The more extensive floods occurred in 1969, 1971 (Hurricane Doria) and 1973. The latter flood proved to be the most serious.

The damage caused by flooding in the Borough has been extensive and has exceeded that experienced by most municipalities in the State. Although there is no way of defining precisely the amount of damage caused by flooding, estimates of damage to private and public property resulting from the 1973 storm alone range from $2,000,000 to $3,000,000. In addition, clean-up and repairs following this storm cost the Borough $400,000.

The flood damage that has occurred in the past is very much the result of the fact that development has taken place in flood plain areas which should have been left undisturbed. In addition, as more area upstream becomes developed, these flood plain areas stand the chance of being expanded. Therefore, prompt action must be taken if the Borough is to avoid repeated flood damage and the resulting expense.

Flooding of Stony Brook and Green Brook is largely a regional problem which is beyond the ability of the Borough alone to solve. Cooperative efforts of other municipalities are needed and, most importantly, action by higher levels of government. To date, activities in this area by County, State and Federal agencies have been tentative and incomplete and no firm or specific solutions have been presented despite the urgency of the problem.

Obviously, immediate actions are necessary if the Borough is to avoid repetition of flood damage.

Historically, solutions to flood problems have largely involved structural improvements, including dams and piping. In all probability, the ultimate correction of flooding of Stony Brook and Green Brook will necessitate drainage and flood control structures ot this nature. In addition, facilities for upstream detention will be desirable and should reduce volume downstream.

However, such measures will be extremely costly and may not provide the complete solution in North Plainfield. The Borough has more improved properties in the floodways than any other municipality in the County and many of these properties may continue to be faced with the threat of flood damage despite structural improvements.

The alternate solution in the Borough and the one which would be most expeditious, would be to acquire properties within flood hazard areas and return them to their natural state. Such an approach could prove to be far less expensive than structural improvements and should increase the water retention capacity of land adjoining the streams.

A number of attempts to define flood hazard areas and to identify properties that have experienced flooding have been made by Federal and State agencies. Review of the results of these efforts reveal apparent discrepancies between the flood delineations and what has been actual, local experience. Therefore, there is a need for more precise information before properties which should be acquired can be identified and reflected for this purpose on the Master Plan.

This will involve further studies which should address themselves to the following:

• (a) Identification of properties which should be acquired either as a result of final structural solutions that may be developed by the Corps of Engineers or out of consideration for safety and protection of life.
• (b) Preparation of a plan for the acquisition of the properties so identified utilizing every available and prudent funding source at the Federal and State government levels.

(c) Establishment of a local, flood hazard area delineation which will serve as the basis for sound and rational land use and development regulations within flood prone areas.

Dottie Gutenkauf is a Plainfield activist. This is an e-mail alert from her about Muhlenberg Hospital’s closure and other health care issues.

HOT FLASH: We’ve received information that Solaris is announcing “clinical changes” to take place within the next two weeks. As of today “there will no longer be resident coverage to the Critical Care Units or to respond to emergencies elsewhere in the hospital.”

There’s more: after June 27 there will be no more Colon/Rectal procedures or consults available to members of the medical staff as the physicians are relocating to JFK; and “labor and delivery patients will no longer be admitted to the Maternity Unit at Muhlenberg” as of June 30. “Other medical/surgical specialties…will experience changes to service, coverage and consults over the next several weeks.”

AND THIS IS BEING SENT TO MUHLENBERG STAFF EVEN BEFORE THE STATE HEALTH PLANNING BOARD “CONSIDERATION” OF SOLARIS’ APPLICATION TO CLOSE THE MEDICAL CENTER!

DON’T FORGET THE STATE HEALTH PLANNING BOARD meeting/hearing on Thursday–June 26–to decide on their recommendation to Commissioner Heather Howard on Solaris’ application to close Muhlenberg; 9:30 am to 2 pm at the National Conference Center auditorium at the Holiday Inn in East Windsor.

Buses are being chartered–for information call Steven Hatcher (908-731-1518), Plainfield chapter chair of the People’s Organization for Progress, which has led the struggle to save Muhlenberg.

Yesterday, the POP/Save Muhlenberg Coalition’s “Community Watch” got a great reception from the public and was covered (with photos) by the Courier News.

PHOTOS

COURIER NEWS EDITORIAL

John Gostel’s letter

You’ll have to buy the paper to see Nancy Piwowar’s full-page ad on page 8 of the local section–it’s terrific! Thank you, Nancy, on behalf of all of us.

And here’s the Star-Ledger’s story on the DHSS staff recommendations:

Star Ledger Story

You can read Dr. Harold Yood’s comments on the recommendations at http://dpotpourri.blogspot.com/.

The entire package is posted on the web here.

IN THE LEGISLATURE: On Wednesday, I attended the Assembly Budget Committee meeting and testified on our Muhlenberg crisis in the context of the proposed state budget’s drastic cuts in hospital and health care funding. Also testifying on issues of hospital distress resulting from cuts in “charity care” funding were representatives of other hospitals and nursing homes, as well as the head of the NJ Hospital Association and other hospital representatives, who are well aware of our situation in Plainfield and the surrounding area and its potential impact.

Two relevant stories appeared on page 11 of the June 12th Star-Ledger. Here are the headlines: “U.S. life expectancy climbs past 78 years” and “Underweight newborn rate spikes in U.S.”

I cited both stories in my testimony on Wednesday–they bolster our case for the need for adequate and available health care for our most vulnerable patients.

My husband, Joe Gutenkauf, joined me on Thursday for another session of that Committee, and we both testified on A-2809, which establishes a process for special grants to hospitals in fiscal distress that have a chance of recovery. (The proposed budget includes $44 million for this Hospital Stabilization Fund; there is a $35 million federal match.)

Our position in a nutshell: it places too much power in the hands of the Commissioner of Health & Senior Services with little accountability and no fiscal, legal, or legislative oversight. Acknowledging the good intentions motivating the legislation, I pointed out the usual destination of the road paved with good intentions, and said that if this bill had been passed last year Muhlenberg and the Plainfield area would not be in our current position.

Joe cited the DHSS staff’s recommendations to the State Health Planning Board and Commissioner Howard’s earlier statement to the Senate Budget Committee, saying they reminded him of the trial in “Alice in Wonderland” — “sentence first, verdict afterwards.”

We were both impressed with Assembly Budget Committee chair Louis Greenwald, and we appreciated the positive feedback from him and a number of other committee members including Joe Cryan, Nellie Pou, Gary Schaer, and Joan Quigley, who is getting a copy of the Kean/United Way study and will share it with the committee. Assemblyman Cryan, while voting to release the budget bill from committee, expressed his concern that budget cuts would hit Union County hospitals hard, and added, “I really have a problem with this budget…We’ve got a lot of work to do before Monday.”

MORE ON THE BUDGET: Budget comes to screeching halt, says the Star-Ledger: A $32.9 billion state budget that imposes no new taxes but cuts homestead rebates and aid to towns and hospitals stalled in the Senate Budget Committee last night after it had cleared its counterpart in the Assembly.

The Assembly panel approved the spending plan by a party-line vote of 7-4, with all of the Republicans voting against it. It recessed about 7:30 p.m. and is scheduled to reconvene this afternoon, as is the State Senate Budget & Appropriations. Both houses expected to vote on the final version of the budget Monday, but today’s extraordinary committee sessions may interfere with those plans–and both houses have scheduled meetings for next Monday and next Thursday.

For the Star Ledger story, click here.

HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION: Health care coverage for all is moving in the Legislature–one step at a time: New Jersey took another step toward providing universal health care as both the Senate and Assembly budget committees approved a bill yesterday that mandates all children have coverage and permits 20,000 middle-class parents to participate in a low-cost state program.

The cornerstone of the plan is the expansion of FamilyCare, which already provides some 200,000 children and working-poor parents with HMO-style health care. The budget that is expected to go into effect July 1 includes $8.9 million for this effort.

I have scheduled a meeting next week with Senator Joe Vitale, the sponsor of this bill. For the Star-Ledger story, click here.

I suspect that both houses of the Legislature may be wrapping up the budget next Thursday–at the same time as the State Health Planning Board meeting–if they are unable to finish on Monday (which seems unlikely at the moment).

AGAIN - DON’T FORGET THE STATE HEALTH PLANNING BOARD meeting/hearing on Thursday–June 26–to decide on their recommendation to Commissioner Heather Howard on Solaris’ application to close Muhlenberg; 9:30 am to 2 pm at the National Conference Center auditorium at the Holiday Inn in East Windsor.

Buses are being chartered–for information call Steven Hatcher (908-731-1518), Plainfield chapter chair of the People’s Organization for Progress, which has led the struggle to save Muhlenberg.

Area physicians are being contacted by Save Muhlenberg Coalition activists Nancy Piwowar and Gayle Jones, and are being urged to attend and be heard.

DRIVING DIRECTIONS: Take the NJ Turnpike to Exit 8 and go right after the toll on Route 33 East toward Freehold/Twin Rivers. Turn left at the first stop light (Woodside Avenue); turn right on Monmouth Street–the hotel is at 399 Monmouth Street.

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!

by Councilwoman Barbara Habeeb

This week, I called and spoke to a woman named Courtney Wald-Wittkop; she is in charge of the  Somerset County land acquisition programs for the  NJ Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres projects and funding.

I asked her about the money that’s available. Basically, she told me I need to first find out if that land will be available to North Plainfield to purchase.

She suggested talking with Borough Administrator David Hollod, Borough Engineer Daniel Swayze and Borough Attorney Eric Bernstein to find out if they can approach the landowner, Robert McNerney, to see if he would be willing to sell us the land.

We DO have a right to take the property through eminent domain (with the support of the townspeople) and Green Acres WILL fund eminent domain property. It’s a long legal process though.

If the land is accessible, we’d need to find out if the town is willing to put up a temporary bond, until we get the money back from Green Acres. The process takes up to a year to get the funds approved.

If we work to get an open space tax on the ballot in November and work on an Open Space Recreation Plan, they will consider us for the 50% matching grant. As long as they see we are working on it, they will do this.

She said we would have a good chance to receive funding because of our dense population.

Ms. Wald-Wittkop is willing to come and talk with us about what we need to do IF we know we can get that property.

The School Board meeting covered in this prior post will be at West End School tomorrow (Wednesday) night, and the public hearing on the administrator contracts begins at 8 p.m. I think if you get there at 7:30 p.m., you’ll be able to see a teacher recognition ceremony.

Just in from Jerry Jacala:

I found the attached document [announcing the federal Hope Now program, follow-up article here.]

Federal Foreclosure Help

in the Boro website regarding a program for homeowners on the verge of defaulting on their mortgage loan.

I thought it might help some of the many owners desperately trying to sell their homes.

I know when I asked a realtor about the high inventory of “short sale” properties recently, she said it is property taxes and unemployment that are forcing people to sell.

I think this is an issue that really needs more attention.

I think most people pay their property taxes through an escrow account handled by their mortgage lender and therefore do not directly monitor how much their taxes have increased through the years or even how much they are, period.

[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.

Antoinette sent in this link to a June 15 NYT article on property tax reassessments in New Jersey municipalities.