Merger mania

Among the many ideas getting kicked around in Trenton by the special committees investigating ways to contain property taxes is the merging of school districts. Taking the widely supported, but scarcely implemented, concept of shared services to its logical extreme, legislators are weighing a proposal to consolidate the administrations of New Jersey's 611 school districts into 21 countywide districts.

The appeal of such a plan is obvious. Reducing redundant infrastructure, centralizing purchasing decisions, and slashing bureaucracy are all sensible ways of reining in costs. While no reliable estimates are yet available for the potential statewide savings from implementing such a plan in New Jersey, the track record of such reforms is good. Other states have successfully pursued such intiatives in the recent past.

Assuming the legislators possess the will to move this from concept to reality, there are still a number of obstacles to surmount. One of the most formidable will be, as usual, opposition from special interest groups who stand to lose out from efforts to improve efficiency. In this case, those special interests groups may include the New Jersey Association of School Administrators, for obvious reasons, and the New Jersey School Boards Association, a natural foe of any plan that would impinge on local control of the education system. Those two organizations, and others with an interest in avoiding some of the more radical proposals under consideration, can be expected to attempt to rally opposition among the voters by appealing to the common tendency to support unification of school districts everywhere but their own hometowns.

Will that play in Teaneck? If anything, it seems that Teaneck should be a hotbed of support for school district unification. Teaneck voters have demonstrated their concern over the rapidly rising tax burden at the polls recently. They are also all too familiar with the excesses that sometimes take place in independent school districts, thanks to the brouhaha over extra perks and pay for former school superintendent Harold Morris this past spring. The fewer hands there are dipping into the cookie jar, the less room there is for these types of taxpayer-funded shenanigans.

The most important reason Teaneck should feel comfortable with the school district merger plan concerns one major, though not often discussed, source for the opposition to school district consolidation. One of the main reasons New Jersey has 566 municipalities and 611 school districts and not many fewer than that is the desire of certain communities to segregate themselves from less prosperous areas with a different socioeconomic or racial makeup and manage their own exclusive towns and schools. As a result, many small and inefficient groupings exist throughout New Jersey, driving up the total cost for all state residents, even if a significant proportion of the cost is borne by locals. Teaneck has no reason to stand up in defense of this status quo. As a school district with a long history of embracing diversity (the longest in the nation among majority white communities), Teaneck has nothing to fear from a blurring of the lines separating local school districts, and everything to gain from the potential cost savings.

Another take on how we rate

New Jersey Monthly magazine is out with yet another set of rankings, and this time it might just serve to lift the spirits of Teaneck residents. Despite the magazine's low opinion of Teaneck as a place to live, it rates Teaneck High the 102nd best of New Jersey's 316 public high schools (28th out of 45 in Bergen County). This contrasts with the recent data from New Jersey's Department of Education that depicted Teaneck High School as a failing school in need of overhaul, based on federal and state accountability standards.

There is a simple explanation for this. The formula employed by New Jersey Monthly, while a broad measure of school quality, rewards schools for the performance and ambition of its highest achieving students by considering post-graduation plans, average SAT scores, Advanced Placement scores, and 'advanced proficiency' designations on HSPA exams. The state school report cards, on the other hand, judge whether minimum standards have been met in various categories, which essentially boils down to judging the school's lowest achievers. The contrasting results of two different measurements of Teaneck High School's quality seem to validate the argument that Teaneck High School offers a good education for those with the inclination and ability to take advantage of the resources, though it may struggle with some of the more difficult cases.

Is this the perfect rebuttal to those who would denigrate the quality of Teaneck's public schools? No, certainly not. We would all like to see the negative labels removed from the schools and the wide disparities in educational outcomes among Teaneck's students begin to narrow (with improvement at the bottom, not deterioration at the top, of course). It does, however, illustrate that the most significant problems facing the school district are the financial ones. As long as the extraordinarily high spending persists, residents and prospective residents will fixate on the negatives. But if we can find ways to bring the costs of running Teaneck's schools into line with the averages, the image problems will take care of themselves.

Inadequate Yearly Progress

Arbitrary, unfair, not representative of the true quality of the schools...whatever you say about federal and state educational accountability standards and the exams used to measure them, they are not shining the most flattering light on Teaneck's schools. Yesterday's release of the annual school improvement statistics by New Jersey's Department of Education revealed that Teaneck High School once again failed to make significant enough strides in language arts or math proficiency, and that the school will now enter Year 4 status. This could compel the school to :

• Extend the length of the school day or year
  
• Adopt a new research-based curriculum
  
• Replace or train staff
  
• Reorganize administration
  
• Submit to outside review

The picture is somewhat rosier at the elementary and middle schools, though there is still cause for concern.

While the flaws in the system are widely recognized, perception is often reality, and the reputation of Teaneck's schools is harmed through these negative designations. Given the extraordinary amount of money poured into the Teaneck school system and the provenance of those funds, voter support for public school funding, already on the wane, will only decline further if things do not change. The already elevated spending on Teaneck's public schools puts the Board of Education into a difficult position. It is now almost impossible to persuade the public that an even larger financial investment is all that is needed to make the problems, whether real or invented by an imperfect system, go away. Better results, however, must come soon. The only option is to do more with less. A tall order, indeed.

Tomorrow's news today?

Does it take a prophet to foresee what will probably happen tonight when the Council votes on a proposed resolution that would endorse the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Program? Probably not.

Environmental activists across the country have pushed their local governments to sign on to the agreement, angered by the fact that the federal government has for the past nine years declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which would obligate the nation to curb greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet international standards, as stipulated in the document. While both the Clinton and the Bush administrations refused to take the final step to bring the U.S. into the agreement, citing various objections to its fairness and the potential negative impact on the U.S. economy, the Bush administration has been especially reviled by activists for its stance on climate change issues, and it is not surprising that they have therefore sought to circumvent the federal government, to the extent that is possible, and build support for initiatives such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors' program.

Assuming everything goes according to form, the Council should reject the resolution by a 4-3 vote, with Parker, Kates, and Honis casting the dissenting votes. The debate will probably go something like this: every Council member will express his or her support for environmental protection and pledge to review the Township's energy conservation efforts and encourage Township employees and contractors to be responsible. Then, Council member Kates will likely push for the Council to endorse the resolution as it stands, noting that Teaneck has a long tradition of engagement in environmental causes and concern for protecting the environment. At that point, Council member Gussen will point out that adherence to the agreement could come at considerable expense to the Township, which can ill afford the costs of altering the building code to require greater energy efficiency, upgrading the municipal vehicle fleet's gas mileage, and fulfilling other such provisions. Additionally, he will object to the agreement's explicit lobbying of national officials to pass specific legislation, arguing that this oversteps the bounds of what the Council is empowered to do on behalf of Teaneck residents.

While this may be somewhat predictable (we'll see about that soon enough), this does not negate the fact that all seven Council members are voting sincerely and with the intent to do what is best for Teaneck as well as what is most just. While I scoffed at those who argue otherwise last week, I understand their frustration at what they feel is an unassailable majority that will simply railroad through whatever policies it pleases for the next two years or longer. However, I do not share the sense of outrage or powerlessness, even though I sometimes diasgree with the majority's decisions. I am pleased that the sitting Council members do not just vote willy nilly. It is good that our elected officials are guided by principles and generally vote in accordance with those principles unless persuaded otherwise. All hype aside, the most difficult thing for most Teaneck voters last Council election campaign was figuring out what, if anything, the candidates stood for. It is reassuring to see that the voters have elected responsible, thoughtful representatives rather than self-aggrandizing politicians.

And who knows? The outcome of tonight's Council meeting just might surprise.

Rearguard action has failed

The campaign to discredit the new Council showed a new bolder (or should I say impudent?) side this week, as the Suburbanite's letters section contained a "call for all four . . . Orthodox Jews to admit their illicit activies [and] step down" from one reader, a reminder that "all four of the young men who currently control the Teaneck Town Council represent a minority community -- that is, observant Jews" from another peeved correspondent, and an insinuation of corruption from a defeated Council candidate.*

To the credit of the Council members targeted by these attacks, they have, up to now, remained above the fray, refusing to allow themselves to be sidetracked from the business of governing Teaneck. While it has not been all smooth sailing for the newer, younger Council, and reasonable people may disagree over some of the measures the Council has enacted, this Council has thus far fulfilled its promise to be more ambitious, more proactive, and more pragmatic in tackling the challenges that face Teaneck.

Given the inability of the opponents of the Council to distract the Council members by extending the last election campaign, and the limited patience the voting public has for that sort of sniping, perhaps it is time for a change in direction. Here's a little advice for the opposition. Figure out what issues you really care about, and engage the Council in a dignified debate about those. That way, you might actually do something positive for Teaneck.


*"Elected officials who have obtained their position by virtue of fraudulent misrepresentations and illegal campaign practices sit in valueless seats, devoid of the public confidence so necessary to govern in a democracy. I urge the members of the majority who voted against this resolution to write to this newspaper and assure the public that they were not personally involved in these illegal campaign practices and that they have no idea who was. Unless they do so, we have no choice but to believe that the opposite is true."

Bloc busting

While they failed in their attempt to vote down the addition of a nativity scene to the annual holiday display on the Municipal Green (see page 5 of the August 16, 2006 edition of the Suburbanite), the fact that Council members Jacqueline Kates and Adam Gussen joined together and spoke with one voice on a significant issue should bring a warm and fuzzy feeling to everyone in town. Rejoice, concerned citizens of Teaneck! All is right once again. The hatchet has been buried between the once mortal enemies. The old and the new have united, and more importantly, with the defection of Councilman Gussen, the dreaded four man conspiracy to commandeer the municipal government and bend the Township to its monstrous will is no more!

Those of us who favor a more secular approach to marking the seasons may not have gotten our way, but at least we can rest easy that the Council members will vote their conscience on issues rather than just the party line. Or can we? The emergence of a new five person bloc on the nativity scene issue, consisting of Council members Feit, Rudolph, and Honis alongside Deputy Mayor Parker and Mayor Katz, may portend more trouble ahead. Raise the alarm!

Off the wall

Is this letter, printed in the August 16, 2006 edition of the Suburbanite, authentic?

You decide.

TO THE EDITOR:

Suburbanite writer Howard Prosnitz has done a tremendous service to the Teaneck community by following the activities of the recently elected council.

Those of our council who want to wrest control of the independently elected school board is an attempt to gut its budget. While promising to lower taxes, the view of many in my Orthodox community is "...we don't use the school system (we send our children to private yeshivas)...so why should we pay for it!"

The takeover of a duly elected chamber would violate its sovereignty and autonomy, and is probably illegal anyway. What would the council do next? Eliminate rent control to further enhance their personal wealth at renters' expense?

Furthermore, the recent refusal by council members to avoid illegal campaign tactics is a de facto admission to their questionable actions to get elected- and even worse, their arrogance to say...and we'll do it again!"

The worst kept secret in the Orthodox community is that the team of Feit/Rudolph/Gussen were encouraged to run for office by Mayor Katz and then by furtive vote elect him mayor late on a Saturday night. As Bob Dylan sang, "You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

With a county and state wide investigation going on, I call for all four of my fellow Orthodox Jews to admit to their illicit activities, step down, move on (or perhaps even move out of Teaneck) and avoid a scandal that will destroy our reputation in the community.

XXXXX XXXXXXXX
Teaneck

An omniscient deputy mayor?

As the Teaneck Township Council prepares to decide whether to put a ballot question about Sunday blue laws before the voters this fall, one member of the Council is vocal in her opposition to holding a non-binding referendum. Deputy Mayor Lizette Parker is quoted in today's Record making her opinion known:

"I feel that the majority of the residents in town like the fact that there's no congestion and traffic on Sundays," Parker said. "It's a quality of life issue."

Wait a second! Parker "feels" that the majority of residents favor the continuation of the blue laws and therefore opposes holding a vote? Isn't it the purpose of the vote to determine what the majority thinks? The fact that Parker, who must have a better handle on public sentiment than the current and former mayors, already knows which way the referendum will turn out is irrelevant.

Perhaps the Deputy Mayor is confused about the difference between voting on whether a referendum should be held and the actual way she might vote in that referendum, or maybe there is some other reason she seeks to squelch public consideration of this issue. Given the very cautious comments made to the Record by State Sen. Weinberg, an erstwhile supporter of a blue laws exemption for Teaneck, it appears that politics has gotten in the way of good sense. Wouldn't be the first time...

Cop out

Today's Record brings word that our neighbors in Hackensack are considering adopting a citywide juvenile curfew. The ordinance, proposed by residents, would prohibit youngsters from moving about freely after 10 pm, and might even impose penalties upon parents whose children are stopped by police after curfew. In the words of one community leader who supports the proposal:

"I don't think curfew laws seek to make the lives of young people and their parents miserable," said the Rev. Brian Laffler, a minister at St. Anthony of Padua, an Episcopal Church in Hackensack. "At 10 o'clock at night a kid should be home, especially during school time."

Laffler said having a curfew will also keep youngsters safe.

"Our other concern is if there are other influences in the neighborhood, it has to be bad for the kids," he said. "We want to protect homeowners and citizens and also provide protection for young kids."

The intentions of the proposal seem innocent enough. Adults are showing their concern for the safety and wellbeing of children. One could even envision support for a similar proposal in Teaneck, especially in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Ricky Lee Smith Jr. last month.

The consequences of imposing a curfew on our youth, however, are nearly intolerable. The abrogation of individual liberties, even those of minors, is not a small thing. Do we really need restrictive laws that send the message that we do not trust young people to act as responsible members of society? Furthermore, is it really the case that curfews are put in for the benefit of the youth, or are they a license to abdicate parental and communal responsibility, to drop our own problems into the lap of local law enforcement?

There are many ways to address the problems of wayward youth wandering the streets and making mischief (or worse) at night. Expand recreational opportunities, improve lighting, encourage greater parental involvement, or step up neighborhood watch or police patrols to catch actual wrongdoing. But don't implement harsh measures that impact an entire age group to cover up the failures of another.

Underrating the Suburbanite

It appears that I did not give the staff of the Suburbanite enough credit when I poked fun at it a couple of weeks ago. I mistakenly assumed that it was either foolishness or naivete that led to the inclusion of the religious affiliations of the Council members who opposed the adoption of a resolution condemning unsavory campaign tactics. Not so, according to the "Our View" column in the Opinion section of this week's Suburbanite (dated August 9, 2006). The Suburbanite made a deliberate decision to lump certain members of the Council together by religious affiliation, out of a sincere belief that religion was integral to the story of the Council's decision. In the Suburbanite's own words:

Campaign literature of unknown origin used fear tactics in pitting one religious sect against others. Religion thus became part of the political process and the election story. A resolution emanating from the campaign asked the council to condemn the illegal and negatives (sic) practices, including the interjection of religion into the political process. That four people voted against this resolution make (sic) their religious persuasion part of the story.

This poor defense of poor editorial judgment fails to address a number of objections.

The resolution in question made no specific reference to the "interjection of religion into the political process." Even if it had, is the failure to support such a resolution an endorsement of religiously divisive campaign tactics? Does the Orthodox version of the Jewish faith compel its adherents to favor the appeal to religion in political campaigns? According to the Council members themselves, the grounds upon which they voted against the resolution were not informed by religion. So why is the religion those Council members practice a pertinent detail?

It appears that the Suburbanite really meant to suggest that the candidates who were perceived to have been the beneficiaries of the inappropriate campaign tactics in question were the very same Council members who voted against the resolution. Why not just write that? Why introduce religious labels into it and turn a moderately controversial issue into a powder keg by hinting at collective responsibility for the actions of unidentified actors, who may or may not have been members of the religious group?

Furthermore, the resolution was not solely focused on the "campaign literature of unknown origin [that] used fear tactics in pitting one sect against another." This literature, which by all accounts reached only a portion of the Teaneck electorate (and which I and many others have only heard about from other residents), was only one of several instances of inappropriate campaigning. The most notable "mailing of 'unsigned' letters, postcards and brochures which is not allowed by New Jersey law" referred to in the resolution were the anti-Teaneck New Beginnings brochures that appeared in mailboxes throughout Teaneck. Those brochures made no reference to religion. Anybody who would have been elected to the Council ahead of Ronald Schwartz and Dennis Crowley could have been viewed as having gained an advantage from those prohibited mailings. Those mailings, the most visible and professionally executed violations of campaign standards, did not promote the particular candidates who won, so to assume that they bear some particular responsibility to address this issue is not justified.

Given these considerations, it is easy to see more nefarious purposes behind the grouping of Council members by personal religious affiliation. The parallel, and similarly unnecessary, mention of the gender of the dissenting voices on the Council seems in retrospect to have been a feeble attempt to camouflage the Suburbanite's cynical use of religion to link those who sided with the majority on this issue.

Score one for the good guys

County and local officials in our area are rightfully pleased by the significant declines registered in the crime statistics reported for 2005 (read the full report referred to in the Record article here). Teaneck was among the many Bergen County municipalities that saw a notable decline in the crime rate, with crimes per 1,000 residents dropping from 20.6 in 2004 to only 17.3 in 2005.

Drilling down into the statistics, it is evident that the fall in the Teaneck crime rate was wholly attributable to reductions in non-violent crimes, especially burglary and larceny. The violent crime rate was unchanged at 1.9 incidents 1,000 (which consisted of one murder, three rapes, 37 robberies, and 33 aggravated assaults).

There is no disputing that these statistics are encouraging, but it is also clear that they do not tell the whole story. Recent headlines on other types of crimes (not captured by the statistics) that have been perpetrated in Teaneck, the growing threat of gang activity as evidenced by the murder of Ricky Lee Smith, plus an (anecdotal, yet alarming) rise in vandalism and other more minor incidents in Teaneck's residential neighborhoods make it clear that both residents and law enforcement personnel need to remain vigilant to safeguard our families, our property, and the peaceful atmosphere of our neighborhoods from those who would threaten them.

Can't hide from it anymore

Those who see the relatively recent emergence of a more outspoken group of Teaneck voters and elected officials who are relentlessly focused on the bottom line as a negative development should take note of this report from The New York Times.

Far from a reactionary political phenomenon, the rise of the fiscal conservative in Teaneck reflects a basic economic reality that has for too long gone unaddressed. Rises in local property taxes have outpaced the growth in incomes across the region, a phenomenon that especially impacts Teaneck homeowners, who pay an overwhelming proportion of the total taxes collected by the municipality.

Structural reforms under discussion in Trenton certainly have the power to alleviate the situation, but the real work has to be done right here in Teaneck. Few residents truly want to see more development in Teaneck beyond, say, improvements to the mass transportation infrastructure. Nobody looks forward to cuts in services or more user fees. There is, however, a growing realization that the current situation is unsustainable. Forced to choose between a full complement of local government services and a comfortable retirement, Teaneck voters are signalling that the latter matters more. Childrens' college funds take similar precedence over a unobstructed views or a little more nuisance traffic on Teaneck's streets.

Here's a not so bold prediction: it will be increasingly harder for candidates who do not demonstrate true commitment to fiscal responsibility to win elections in Teaneck. It's not voter greed talking. It's the instinct for survival.

Nice towns finish last?

According to New Jersey Monthly magazine, Teaneck ranks as the state's 311th best town in which to live, 56th out of 70 in Bergen County. Obviously, these mediocre ratings do little to reflect the high regard most of Teaneck's residents have for their hometown. As is always the case when it comes to simplified statistical rankings, one has to look inside the methodology to truly understand how the subjects are being graded. Doing so shows that Teaneck receives low marks precisely in the areas one would expect, and that the keys to improving quality of life in Teaneck (not just for the rankings, but for the residents) are alleviating the tax burden, keeping our streets safe, and improving the educational achievement in our schools. Pretty standard stuff, none of which is new. The real message of the rankings, then, may be that we have fallen further behind our neighbors than we might have otherwise thought.

Here is how New Jersey Monthly figured its rankings:

METHODOLOGY: In compiling New Jersey Monthly’s 2006 Top Towns list, researchers at Monmouth University’s Polling Institute considered eight categories that would best represent the quality of life in New Jersey’s 566 municipalities: property taxes, home values, population growth, land development, employment, crime rate, school performance, and proximity to services. The research team selected a prototypical indicator corresponding, respectively, to each of these eight categories: median property tax (2005), median increase in home values (2000–2005), population growth rate (2000–2004), percentage of land preserved as open space (2004), unemployment rate (2004), total crime rate (2004), student proficiency on state-mandated standardized tests for students in grades 4, 8, and 11 (2005), and number of acute-care hospitals within 10 miles.

To level the playing field, household income levels were not considered, and home values were measured by their rate of increase over five years rather than actual prices. To compare land development, towns with slower growth and more open space were rated more favorably. Towns with lower unemployment and crime rates also scored higher, as did those closer to hospitals.

A statistical standardization technique was used to rank all 566 municipalities according to the eight indicators; an average of the eight numerical values for each municipality determined its final rank.

Among Bergen County municipalities, Teaneck had a median property tax at the high end and the second worst equalized property tax rate (only marginally better than bottom-ranked Bergenfield). Nonetheless, Teaneck finished a solid 26th in home price appreciation, perhaps due in part to Teaneck's top tier ranking in open space. So the other cuplrits for Teaneck's less than impressive showing are a relatively high crime rate (57th in the county for safety) and poor student test scores (63rd place).

In the immediate area, Hackensack, Englewood, and Paramus all scored lower than Teaneck overall, though Englewood is classified in an accompanying article as a 'safe bet.' So while these rankings, like any others, need to be taken with a heaping tablespoon of salt, they do provide a reality check as to how we are faring relative to our neighbors. The message is that there is still plenty of work to be done. While the tax issue is rightfully attracting plenty of attention right now, perhaps more energy needs to be directed seeking ways to reduce the crime rate and to help Teaneck's students reach their full potential.

No dice

As publicized on the Teaneck Township website, mailing of 2006 tax bills was delayed this year as the Township awaited a response from the State of New Jersey on the Extraordinary Aid Application it submitted. If the aid were awarded, there would be a reduction in the tax rate.

The list of lucky winners has been released, and Teaneck is not on it. There's no reason to be bitter or upset, though. Teaneck residents should be honored that their contributions are not being returned to them. And we should be pleased that we have the opportunity to be good sports and tip our caps to our neighbors in Bogota, Englewood, Ft. Lee, New Milford, Paramus, and Ridgefield Park, whose municipal governments will all receive six figure checks from Trenton.

At least the mailings can now proceed without further delay...

The gift that keeps on taking

As state legislators continue to bang their heads against the wall in an effort to fix the State of New Jersey's long festering fiscal problems, Gov. Jon Corzine has suggested another manner in which municipalities might boost revenues without jacking up property taxes even further: local sales taxes. While beleaguered local governments might welcome the addition of a new weapon to their tax levying arsenal, most would be well-served to politely refuse this present from Trenton, including Teaneck.

To be sure, Teaneck must find a way to alleviate the homeowner tax burden. However, imposing a sales tax is not the answer. One can easily imagine the consequences of an additional percentage point or two tax on the shops of Cedar Lane or Teaneck Road, and they ain't pretty. Do we really want to give shoppers further encouragement to spend their money in Paramus? The short term revenue gain from a sales tax would be wiped out by the long term damage to Teaneck's business districts.

Instead of looking for ways to shift the weight of a crushing tax burden, we should look for ways to actually lighten the load. That means reducing spending. Gov. Corzine should be using his influence to hammer away at home rule and to hold the line on pay and benefits for public employees. And Teaneck's Township Council and Board of Education should assume that no help from Trenton will be forthcoming and that belts need to be tightened now.