Key takeaways
Engaging in painstaking post-election analysis is a popular pastime among political types, and with good reason. Results from actual balloting serve as a once per cycle reality check on all the commentary, speculation, and opinion polls that regularly fill the media. Having gotten our annual reality check from yesterday's School Board elections, it is worthwhile to ask what we can learn about public opinion and the attitudes of Teaneck's voters toward the Board of Education.The outcome of the budget vote, an overwhelming 'YES' (60%-40%) one year after voters rejected a heftier increase by a significant margin, lends itself more easily to such interpretation. Two factors seem to have been at work in this year's passage of the budget. The first of these was a more contained tax increase than last year, due in part to greater state aid. The key number facing voters was 2.92%, which, all things considered, was not that daunting. The second factor (or rather non-factor) was the absence of a major scandal this time around motivating voters to send a message to the BoE. The shock and outrage felt by many in the aftermath of the damning report on lavish taxpayer-funded benefits for a well-paid Teaneck school administrator raised serious questions about oversight and prompted voters to "send a message," as it were.
Which of these was more important? There seems to be an inclination among those who feel that the Board of Ed runs as tight a fiscal ship as possible to believe that last year's budget defeat was in fact unrelated to dollars and cents and was simply a one-off rebuke from the electorate. Some will certainly point to the one-sided result yesterday as proof that Teaneck voters are generally not displeased with the way things are being run and that the BoE was handed a mandate to continue to place among the highest spending districts in the region. It is not clear that this read is the correct one. It is just as plausible that the Teaneck voters have expressed their approval of the fact that this year's annual increases in school levy came in at a much lower level than last year's. Given that last year saw a rash of budget defeats across the state, not just in Teaneck, and a reversal this year, it appears that voters have given a bit of positive reinforcement to the school boards they chastised last year for overdoing the hikes in taxes in spending. A bit more largesse from Trenton for non-Abbott school districts such as Teaneck probably played a role in turning back the tide of 'NO' votes. If that is the case, then the lesson is clear- find ways to keep a lid on taxes and spending and you'll retain popular support. (Note: see here for more on this)
The significance of the school board election results is a bit harder to tease out. The newly elected and re-elected school board members do not represent any clear agenda that I can discern. Was it a strong conviction that the BoE does indeed need to improve communication with the public (the only issue challenger Sebastian Rodriguez highlighted that Barbara Ostroth did not) that led voters to turn a longtime board member out of office? Doubtful. At best, one can say that the voters opted for a personnel change for the sake of change. A campaign that had little to do with substantive policy issues necessarily produces a result that sheds little light on the public's policy preferences.
The only thing one can say with certainty is that the voters resoundingly defeated newcomer Dr. Kate Zatz. Even the few districts that voted overwhelmingly against the budget and presumably are the most dissatisfied with the current BoE failed to embrace her candidacy, despite her numerous professional qualifications and her determination to paint herself as an outsider who would shake things up if elected. It is likely that her admission that she had not attended BoE meetings or shown any tangible commitment to community service within Teaneck (no educational committees, advisory boards, etc.) contributed to her failure to gain acceptance as a serious candidate this time around. There is no reason that cannot change before the next election if Zatz remains committed to impacting education in Teaneck.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:34 AM
10 Comments:
Do you think that Margot Fisher's win represents the revenge of TNB?
Or is it the Revenge of the Nerds?
Well, while Fisher is closely associated with the TNB movement and drew support from it, I would find it hard to argue that her strong showing was a demonstration of the voters' willingness to embrace TNB. First of all, there was no effort to play up the connection between Fisher and TNB during the campaign, and second of all, it is only a smaller subset of the electorate that turns out for school board elections relative to municipal elections.
TB, I was joking of course. The way people speak of TNB in ominous tones, I expect to hear horses whinny every time TNB is inveighed. (a la "Frau Blücher")
In my household we voted for this budget after opposing last year's budget. We believed the message was that the Board should be rewarded for its improved financial planning. That does not diminish our recognition that the cuts submitted last year following the defeat (from the sports programs) were an outrageous abuse of their responsibility and that the ease with which this year's budget was cut back proved that. If there are no further improvements in fiscal prudence our votes can revert back. The new Board should make no mistake in understanding that. Since the school system consumes 60 cents of every tax dollar, frugality and respect for the taxpayer must be a part of the Board's ongoing work.
Any analysis of this year’s budget vote that only considers this year and last year is over simplistic. If one looks at voting patterns over a longer period, the anomalous nature of the 2006 vote suggests that there may be a factor other than simple dollars and cents. The “overwhelming 'YES' (60%-40%)” is actually closer to the norm in Teaneck. The budget results in preceding years are:
2000 60%
2001 60%
2003 63%
2004 65%
2005 55%
2006 44%
2007 60%
I am missing 2002 but I believe it was in the same 60% range. If one goes back through the 90’s, I believe the overall results tended to exceed 60%.
The argument that “last year saw a rash of budget defeats across the state, not just in Teaneck, and a reversal this year,” indicates that this is fiscal does not hold. The “damning report” was not just about Teaneck. It affected budget passage throughout New Jersey.
This is not to say that fiscal considerations did not have an impact on last years budget defeat. In 2005 the 55% pro vote may be an indication that there was some dissatisfaction with budget amounts, but it likely took the “damning report” to turn it into a defeat in 2006.
This really has a lot to do with how much money the candidates and their committees spent. I suspect there is a direct correlation.
If nothing else, the election results highlighted the value of an endorsement by Teaneck Blog.
You don't need to worry about that- I don't make endorsements.
You have to admire the political skill of the Board. They correctly perceived what most people in marketing know, 2.99 is psychologically better than 3 (2.92 even better). So they engineered a sub 3% tax increase and that is what all the headlines said. They were able to sell people on the notion that a 98th percentile budget was lean and you have to tip your hat to their political savy.
Understanding that this number was achieved largely through unusually high state aid and differed capital spending requires a level of knowlege of the budget that many voters do not have. The endorsement of the budget by 3 members of the town council not usually aligned with the town's "old guard" certainly did not hurt. The political calculations behind this endorsement are probably a good topic for another thread on this blog.
Next year's budget is going to be interesting to watch. Most of the town's major costs are rising at least 4.5% per year (salaries, benefits, insurance). They were able to pull out all the stops to get under 3% this year. Duplicating it next year will actually require the Board to make cuts or hold the line on the new teacher's contract.
BTW, one thing that got very little play last year. The teacher's contract signed last June was actually for the 05-06, 06-07 and 07-08 school years. In other words, they only completed the contract one year into its term. Hopefully that will not repeat itself so that there will be some certainty on this key item by the time we vote for the 08-09 budget next spring.
I would like to see the Board gather data from surrounding towns to support their claim that the wide gap in Teaneck's median salaries from those in surrounding districts results from the experience and eduactional degrees of its teachers. I think the residents of Teaneck should be able to see a chart showing what starting teachers earn in each district and then at some randomly selected points of experience and degrees. With teacher's salaries at 60% or so of the budget and the state spending cap in place, you can't keep a commitment to small class size (ie. the same number of teachers) without holding the line on salaries and/or increasing their "productivity" by adding after school activity requirements or even some administrative responsibilities after class hours.
Post a Comment
<< Home