Blunt axes
Well, the numbers are in and the results are staggering. Handed a mandate to reduce the size of the Board of Education's proposed budget back in April, the Council has managed to lighten the load of the overburdened Teaneck taxpayer by slashing a whopping $534,000, or 0.63%, off of the defeated Board of Education budget. What the voters hated at $84,800,000 they're sure to love at $84,266,000.
It's not entirely clear who the taxpayers of Teaneck have to blame for this farce.
- Is it the Board of Education, who managed to evade the Council's calls for joint public meetings to review the budget? Their gamesmanship appears to have been rewarded as their budget has been left largely untouched.
- Is it the Council, for acting timidly despite the fact that an electorate that had rubber stamped every proposed budget since 1998 stood up and demanded that this one be reduced?
- Is it the attitude that prevails in some quarters (and expressed by defeated Teaneck New Beginnings candidate Ronald Schwartz in one candidate forum) that the 'no' vote was more a reflection of voter frustration over mismanagement and corruption than it was about the skyrocketing tax burden? It's worth noting that this spin is not credible given that Teaneck was hardly the only district to vote down a school budget in 2006. In fact, the New York Times reported on May 7 that this year's rejection total was the fourth-highest of the past three decades.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 12:58 PM
25 Comments:
What can we do about this travesty? I am not prepared to sit back and just watch my taxes go up and up? Where is the accountability?
There is no accountability. Haven't you learned the Township motto? "Spend, spend, spend.. the residents who live in northwest Teaneck will pick up the tab"
Why just northwest Teaneck? Last I checked, northwest Teaneck didn't have the exclusive on five figure tax bills.
At the last candidates meeting, I asked almost every candidate whether they had specific proposals to reduce the budget and only O'Brien could answer positively (I've asked the same question at the school board candidate meetings, btw). Clearly, you don't get elected in Teaneck by offering a serious proposal to get the budget under control. No one wants to take the hard steps of reducing services and going up against the employees. It is, I think, instructive that Eli Katz, who has been on the board 8 years and has widespread support among all segments of the community, but doesn't have any proposals to reduce spending either (am I being unfair to him? I asked him the same question and he couldn't give me a better answer than anyone else. If I'm wrong I'd like to be set straight).
I don't think you are wrong about Katz. Throughout his very successful re-election campaign, he always emphasized his credentials on the revenue raising side rather than the waste cutting side. This proved to be a shrewd decision, perhaps for the reason that you suggest, i.e. budget cutting doesn't win votes in Teaneck.
Now that the campaign is behind us and Katz has been placed in a position of power through his dominating performance, I think many people would like to see him lead the Council in taking some of the hard decisions that have been put off for so long.
Patrick O'Brien talked about hard budget caps and requiring Township employees to contribute to their own healthcare plans, as most private employers do. These proposals may be a good place to start. As harsh as these measures may seem, I think the public may be more prepared for a period of fiscal austerity than the Council members seem to think. In any case, we are headed down this road regardless of whether the Council likes it or not. Making a public demonstration of municipal government's resolve to be proactive in averting a fiscal crisis would be a good confidence-building measure at this point and would do a lot to quell the anger taxpayers feel at being forced to dig ever deeper into their pockets for the same menu of services.
Ultimately, no one can't be voted out. Let's press for action.
Just what services are any of you proposing to cut to save money?
Perhaps the answer is for West Englewood to secede from Teaneck. It could be a town without a public school. Is that legal?
"Just what services are any of you proposing to cut to save money?
Well, that's the issue, isn't it? I'm no expert on the budget, but the big bite is clearly employee expenses. We could easily start by having employees pay towards their health expenses, as every private employer is doing right now. In non-school township expenses, I have no further sense of what could be cut, but that's because of my lack of familiarity with budget specifics.
Beyond that, we would have to tackle the school budget. I have 2 kids in the public schools and I would be willing to seriously consider increasing average class size if proportionate cuts were made elsewhere. Please let me repeat, I have 2 kids in the public schools.
Maybe we could just make those who use the public schools pay for them. Why should those in West Englewood who send their kds to private schools have to pay anything for public schools?
Maybe we could just make those who use the public schools pay for them. Why should those in West Englewood who send their kds to private schools have to pay anything for public schools?
Why? Because that's how the educational system in this country works. Public education is considered a right. It is pointless, and in my opinion, undesirable, to lodge a protest against that fact.
However, although the taxpayer is obligated to support the local school district regardless of whether he opts to avail himself of its services, the school district also remains accountable to its benefactors. The taxpayers are owed fiscal responsibility and satisfactory performance. This is indisputable. And there has been a growing feeling among Teaneck residents that the Board of Education is not upholding its end of the bargain.
What are the proper metrics of budgetary and academic success? This is the $84.8 million question. In my mind, the best place to start is with comparisons to surrounding areas. I think the numbers show that the burden of proof is on the Board of Ed to demonstrate that the taxpayers of Teaneck are not being bilked of their hard-earned money. There's no question that we are paying a high price for public education, more than our neighbors in surrounding towns are paying and more than we can afford in absolute $ terms. Someone has to make a very good case that it is worth it for us to extend ourselves this far for the school system we have. And even if they succeed in that, they may still have to find places to cut a few million $ more from the budget. There are no easy answers here.
An addendum to my previous comment:
From a position of pure political expediency, those who oppose out-of-control educational spending do themselves a disservice when they make comments about seceding from Teaneck or making parents pay to use Teaneck's public schools. I believe that these comments come out of frustration more than out of actual conviction that such ideas represent workable solutions to the problems that face Teaneck and its taxpaying residents today. But once one expresses frustration in this manner, one only strengthens the hand of the hard-core tax and spend faction by allowing them to argue that all their opponents are just selfish extremists who don't have the best interests of Teaneck's children in mind. This just removes from the conversation all those who believe in balancing the wants of the Board of Ed with the need of fiscal responsibility. After all these years of being trampled over, we need to take a seat at the table if we are to help Teaneck get out this mess it has landed in.
You say that, "Public Education is considered a right." Is it your opinion that it should be?
You say that, "Public Education is considered a right." Is it your opinion that it should be?
Fair question. You are right to pick up on my neutral phrasing- those words were indeed carefully chosen.
I do believe that every child in this country should be guaranteed the funding for an education from K-12. I don't believe that children should be forced to attend the local public schools in order to take advantage of that benefit. As is well known, numerous municipalities across the country have instituted voucher programs that allow children residing in unsatisfactory school districts to attend school elsewhere. I believe that school choice is a good thing because it allows students to be matched with the best environment for them and it forces schools to compete for students, and by extension, funding, which leads to an overall improvement in the product.
I look forward to a day when we can stop supporting dozens of redundant independent school districts with all the infrastructure and bureaucracy they require. It would be great to pay into a regional voucher scheme that would permit our schoolchildren to find the best environment for their needs while promoting efficiency and quality in education. But I also know that this is a remote possibility given all the entrenched interests and the major overhaul of existing structures that it would require. So for now I content myself with pushing for the most careful and responsible management of the system as currently constituted.
I was being ironic when I suggested that West Englewood secede. The truth is I'm a public school parent. Obviously, I'm a minority on this site.
I'm very satisfied with the education that my children are getting. The curriculum is challenging and the teachers are caring and competent.
Teaneck is a unique district by virtue of its wonderful demographics. It's hard to think of another district in NJ with comparable demographics (in terms of income mix, race / ethnicity and percent foreign-born). Perhaps Monclair - although Monclair probably has a higher percentage of upper income people in the system than Teaneck - which probably impacts test scores.
Frankly, I don't know what the appropriate price tag is for a high quality suburban district with challenging demographcics and I'm not suggesting that Teaneck can't economize. I just wish that the dialogue wasn't dominated by people who have an abstract and hostile attitude toward the district and public education in general.
Because that's how the educational system in this country works. Public education is considered a right. It is pointless, and in my opinion, undesirable, to lodge a protest against that fact.
Thank you, Teaneck Blog, for responding in such a sane and responsible manner in this an other comments (btw, I'm the guy who made the anonymous comment earlier in this thread about asking the candidates whether they had a specific proposal for reducing the budget--I only just now came up with a good moniker).
As I said, I have 2 kids in the public school system and am, on the whole, pretty satisfied with the education they're getting. But I am not happy about my taxes, and don't feel the BOE or Council is behaving responsibly.
With that said, let me add that the Orthodox community has no idea how they are perceived by the rest of the world when they make comments like, "Perhaps the answer is for West Englewood to secede from Teaneck". Not only is this objectively offensive but it is self defeating because, as Teaneck Blog points out, the public schools aren't going away!
What's more, the last time the Orthodox attempted to take over the school board all they did was elicit the biggest turnout in BOE history to clobber the poor fools who got talked into running.
Whether you care about the public schools or not (and I do -- a lot), if you want to reduce taxes you must join the club. You must gain allies who are not Orthodox, you must take pains to rid yourselves of what other consider your arrogance (with one exception, the Orthodox candidates at the previous BOE election struck me as breathtakingly arrogant), and you must ask responsible, serious questions.
Forgive my bluntness, but we should all be blunt here. We're all anonymous and it's good when we can give public voice the the things we say over the dinner table.
...I'm in favor of a regionalized system as long as my tax money doesn't pay for schools that teach Maori creation myths, or that the Jews killed Christ or that it's a sin to mix linen and wool.
Well put, PublicSchoolParent.
As for swurgle's comment,
...I'm in favor of a regionalized system as long as my tax money doesn't pay for schools that teach Maori creation myths, or that the Jews killed Christ or that it's a sin to mix linen and wool.
I don't think that's on the table. At least I hope it isn't.
...I'm in favor of a regionalized system as long as my tax money doesn't pay for schools that teach Maori creation myths, or that the Jews killed Christ or that it's a sin to mix linen and wool.
I don't think that's on the table. At least I hope it isn't
Ahhhh, but it is on the table. That's what a voucher system does, it pays tuition to religious schools (eg, the last item that swurgle mentioned). And 50 years ago most Christian schools were teaching the 2nd item. This is exactly the issue that stops the adoption of school vouchers.
Ahhhh, but it is on the table. That's what a voucher system does, it pays tuition to religious schools (eg, the last item that swurgle mentioned). And 50 years ago most Christian schools were teaching the 2nd item. This is exactly the issue that stops the adoption of school vouchers.
Yes, you are certainly correct that the most controversial aspect of the school choice movement has been support for religious schools (though the Cleveland system, which ended up subsidizing that city's Catholic schools, has survived numerous legal challenges). However, I was not advocating a completely unrestricted voucher system when I discussed school choice in the context of answering whether I believed public education was a right. I was focused more on the "home rule" question- i.e. should each town operate its own independent school district and obligate its residents to enroll there if they want free public education.
I do not support issuing taxpayer funded vouchers that may be used to pay private school tuitions directly. I do, however, believe that some sort of consideration may be in order for parents of schoolchildren who opt out of the public school system. Those who forego a benefit that is coming to them free up resources for others. It may be just to make some portion of educational costs tax deductible to avoid the double taxation that comes with charging homeowners for local schools and having them pay for private education with after-tax dollars. But this would not be a local issue.
I think the assumption that everyone who is sceptical about the Teaneck Board of Ed is Orthodox is unwise and inaccurate. Yes, my Orthodox neighbors who pay $50,000 plus in parochial school tuition are angry about the Board of Ed budget. But I don't and I'm hopping mad. When Jackie says we'll find new services if the money's there, that angers me. When my African American friends say raise the taxes on Hebrew Hills- the Jews can afford it, that angers me. When the Orthodox act arrogant and pretend that the quality of Teaneck public schools doesn't affect their property values or that they have no secular civic responsibility, that also angers me. But making assumptions about all the Orthodox, or all the African Americans, or all the anything, is wrong. Let's stick to the issues. Like the moderator wrote, Teaneck public schools spend more than their neighboring districts. Why?
I've lived in Teaneck since 1967 and I never heard West Englewood described by anyone as "Hebrew Hills".
"With that said, let me add that the Orthodox community has no idea how they are perceived by the rest of the world when they make comments like, "Perhaps the answer is for West Englewood to secede from Teaneck""
if you read swurgles earlier post, you will see that he indeed was a public school parent, not an orthdox private school parent making that comment. so it looks like you are assuming that a negative comment made about the beloved school system must be made by an orthodox jew when in fact it was a fellow public school parent.
lets start with this reduction- pay for your own sports programs. i pay for my own. as said earlier by teaneck blog "Public education is considered a right." playing football for free is not.
I've lived in Teaneck since 1967 and I never heard West Englewood described by anyone as "Hebrew Hills".
Doesn't mean it's not the case. I would venture a guess that you don't move in the circles in which this moniker has gained currency.
you read swurgles earlier post, you will see that he indeed was a public school parent, not an orthdox private school parent making that comment
You're right, and I apologize. And I too am a public school parent not happy with the budget.
Post a Comment
<< Home