Incredible
"We knew that we did not have the funds or the ability to save for work of this magnitude,” Clancy said.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS, THEN DON'T DO IT!! These 2 things are not equal in necessity, Leaking Roofs = Necessity. Turf field = Luxury. If you need to borrow money to fix a roof, does any homeowner in their right mind ask the bank for extra money to buy Ferrari. I don't think so

I will be voting yes for fixing our roofs so we can save energy and I absolutely feel having another Turf field is not a luxury but a must to keep our town moving forward. I just wish their were two bonds and I am glad to see at least some others on the board of education felt that way. Thank you patch for this coverage of the meeting.

Does anynone else feel that the BOE is using deception and manipulating the public? Shame on the members of the BOE who voted to combine the proposals and obscure the need vs the want. If both projects are necessary and important then there is no reason why the BOE should not be able to inform voters to push two "For" buttons at the polls instead of one, unless they are afraid of what the result might be if they give voters a choice.

I live in Scotch Plains-Fanwood. It is sad that, in linking a bond for roofs with that for a turf field, proponents of a turf field may lose something of greater value: the "benefit of the doubt" that Board members can in fact objectively assess and prioritize capital projects. The cynicism that would foster would only make it that much more difficult to fund capital projects with bond issues going forward.

It also sends a message as to exactly how much faith Board members actually have in the electorate to "do the right thing" in terms of balancing the needs of children in the town with their property tax burden (which, by the way, is ALSO a legitimate quality-of-life issue).

If you look at this in black and white, then obviously the turf field is a luxury. Here I agree with Scott. But in real life things are not black and white. I have been at numerous girls sporting events at the WHS field as well as the surrounding towns. Our field is in need of updating. I have heard visiting team parents comment on the field in a derogatory way. Not that I care what they say, but they are right, our facilities do reflect on the town of Westfield as a whole. School sports are part of our children’s education. Our education system affects our property values and is likely the main reason people come here to raise families. Here I agree with Sally, We must keep our town moving forward and I agree that two bonds would have been the right way to proceed. Updating the WHS field is good for Westfield.

For the 2012-13 budget the BOE has approved a 2% increase in their 93 million dollar budget. This additional budgetary funding should be used to finance the roof repair over the next couple of years. The last thing the homeowners need is sky high property taxes because of an unnecessary BOE Bond on top of the 2% increase. The homeowners are already burdened with the new annual sewer fee which is likely to rise every year. Westfield is probably already trying to justify other additional fees.

Time to get out the NO vote and vote out those who voted to combine the bonds. What a farce.

It did not need to be two distinct bond issues, just two distinct votes. Given that these are unrelated projects as to actually making the improvement, if the Board could not have persuaded the community of the merits of each independently, then any project failing to get the votes should not have proceeded. This is just a transparent attempt by the 5 Board members voting for it to piggyback a luxury onto something more necessary, showing contempt for the public's right to make the decision.

I recommend voting down the bond issue as I believe there is nothing more important than providing a lesson in democracy - that asking us to pay over $2,000 extra in taxes over the next 20 years comes with a burden to give the people paying the widest possible latitude in setting the priorities of the community, when there is no cost to do so. (If voted down, the Board could choose to come back with a single project approach.)

Furthermore, we have negotiations with the teacher's union coming up for a 2013 contract. The abysmal 2010 record was huge 3.9% increases for 3 years, unnecessarily granted just a week before the new governor was setting (much reduced) state aid. I am sure they want roofs out of the budget so they have the flexibility to give some more inappropriate raises this time around. A "no" vote on the bond issue could force some backbone on the Board on this material issue.

@walkin westfield- do you actually read what you write after you write it? Where do you suggest that the Board come up with $16 million to fix roofs from a budget that is $95 million? That is just not going to happen. If they choose to make drastic cuts (which will benefit none of us-kids, parents, etc) they could fix one roof a year for the next 11 years and we could spend money repairing and maintaining the other roofs during that time, which would be a huge waste of money. The only solution is to bond for the roofs.

The BOE obviously is very caring of the children of Westfield. Looks like they are very willing to take the gamble of bundling these 2 'needs' play on emotions because they are/were afraid to let separate votes decide this. We all find ways to make stuff happen, their way appears to be a lightly veiled trick. By the way read this very simple article about the 'DANGERS' of the turf field they are promoting. Doesnt feel like that helps your kids or my prooperty values or health. Read on. http://www.greatfallscleanwater.org/Get_the_Facts.html

Town has 2 turf fields. HS Field is empty most days and evenings, has an irrigation system that was installed a few years ago that cost quite a bit of money and oh by the way even runs when it pours rain for days. Majority of Interscholastic Athletics (which is actully related to Education, so the boards responsibility) are over by 6pm. This is not just a field they are building, but another stadium. While they are fixing the roof at the Kehler facility they should just put up lights there solves the problem, but wait.. The residents surrounding (there are less homes directly impacted there then the HS) Kehler complained so loud twice that the Board rejected the proposal

Thank you, Caroline, that was a very informative article. By constructing a lighted turf field, Westfield will be creating a private nuisance for residents on and off the field.

What is the athletic supervisor proposing as a way to accomodate students who for health reasons cannot play on artificial turf fields?

If the BOE cares about the children, how come there are no warning signs on the existing artificial turf fields?

ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER! Come on... SERIOUSLY? That makes ZERO sense. There is only one reason that the board would have done that: Fearing that more folks may vote for the roof repair, and the field won't get approved!! That is unconscionable. Kudos to board members who wanted the vote to be separate. Shame on board members for this contorted logic. Doesn't MATTER if someone WANTS both to pass! They are 2 SEPARATE issues and the TAXPAYERS, who the board was elected to represent, should decide if either, neither, or both get passed!!! If they were RELATED issues (ex, if we needed roofing and windows) a bundle vote could make sense. But not this...!

What will happen to the graduation ceremony that has been traditionally held on the WHS grass field?

I will be voting NO on this issue because the Board decided to combine the two. One is a need the other is a want. Combining the two undermines the taxpayer and the ability to seperate the two. I hope it is voted down and then the Board is forced to vote on each issue seperately. A waste of time and tax $$$. Teachers getting 3.9% raises over three years at a time when town employees and others were receiving less than 2% is just plain wrong. The teacher's association and Board of Ed are in bed together and the taxpayer is forced to pay.

Walkin Westfield, it would NOT take 5 to 7 years to pay for roofs out of your otherwise frozen budget. The 2% increase PER YEAR is worth $1.9 million in the first year; $3.8 million in the second year; $5.8 million in the third; and $7.8M in the fourth year. Counting some extra repair expenses for the ones not replaced right away, it could easily be done through an otherwise frozen budget in 4 years. By the way, it could have also been done through the budget in 3 years if there had been no 3.9% teacher raises for three years in 2010, when they very well knew about this roof problem. In my opinion, it is easy to conclude that this bond issue is a "fast one" being pulled by the board to cover up years of mismanagement and get around the 2% cap.

I'm sure the reason they were combined is that if not we would have dry schools and wet grass. Poor kids might actually get dirty playing on real grass, why not hire outside players so our kids don't even have to sweat or is the BOE considering air conditioning the fields too. Instead of a bond lets pass a user fee(like the sewer user fee) for the fields so the parents of the childern playing on the field pays for it.

"Commuter" (and others), as to teacher raises, it is a little known secret that a zero negotiated raise would not be no raise! In the NY City system (where I have some info), the end of career salary divided by the beginning of career salary (for a given educational attainment level) averages a 2% increase per year over a typical length career. So in NYC, a zero contract increase really means an average 2+% increase from what are called step/longevity increases. (The preceding comment does not even count the extra increases teachers get if they get a Master's degree or even further education.)

Nothing like this exists in the private sector and this goes a long way to explaining why many public employees' salaries have gotten way out of whack with the private sector. If the same amount of scaling applies in Westfield, the teachers in 2010 really averaged over 6% increases for 3 years, counting the built in ones. This was and is totally ridiculous!!

In this economy, I think the board would be shocked at how many qualified teachers would apply to fill every teacher slot in Westfield at the existing salary if they were to become vacant. Although not the same industry, 20,000 just applied for 877 jobs at a Hyundai plant in Montgomery, AL. Until the administration of public funds, at all levels of government, starts to resemble the private sector in any manner, this country is headed toward being Greece.

The BOE has continued the paternalistic practice of "knowing what is better for Westfield" than the voter.It refuses to understand it REPRESENTS the taxpayers of Westfield.It does not tell the taxpayer what to do. It should not place the taxpayer in the bad position of being required to accept the desirable in order to supply the necessary.In my opinion, the BOE has now raised a new issue for the voters to consider. Should we suffer this type of conduct by a BOE? Why are we asked to vote on a subject when the question has been "finessed" so that any disagreement with the all the purposes of the Bond will be met with the argument that we must have new roofs?It is morally wrong to force the acceptance of the lighted fields because we need the roofs. I think this is unacceptable.
We need the roofs because of the improper spending of the past Boards and their warped priorities. They allowed the capital fund to drop below $1000 while they spent money on unpopular employment contracts.
There can be no excuse for bundling the lighted fields with the new roofs except the fear of the Board that the fields would not be approved.The unification of the two questions is an underhanded subterfuge of the Board.
I am all for the new roofs but I am more in favor of reining in a devious BOE.We cannot suffer conduct such as this. The bond should be rejected by the voter.
A. John Blake

Michael Lewis, on top of the project combination issue, what is really blatant and not much discussed is the scheduling of the vote. They are spending scarce taxpayer money to schedule it 6 weeks before the general election and now normal voting time for school elections. I can't imagine anyone believes the specious claim that 8 months lead time is not enough and that the extra 6 weeks is required to get the project done in the summer. I suspect that what was really going on there is that they were afraid that the general citizenry voting en masse in November would have held the Board accountable for years of mismanagement and said no to a bond issue requiring more than $2,000 of extra taxes per average household to be paid over 20 years. That would then have required them to pay for it out of future budgets and squeezed their pet priorities, like more teacher raises. Nice lesson for the children, "Do a poor job on your homework and nothing should happen."

Just another case of not having any money left to fix a priority and pay for a turf field we don't need. Maybe the next time the board votes to give teachers raises above and beyond what the economy can afford, the teachers will remember that the roof above their head may no longer be there but the money in their wallets will be.

Time For Change, our family has been in this town for approximately 100 years. We have volunteered plenty over the years while holding full time jobs; and still do so as senior citizens who once had children in the public schools and still have extended family in them. We are not naive and know how things work here. I would not spend the time I do if I did not care about the town and want things to be run well for the benefit of everyone - from schoolchildren to taxpayers.

Time for a Change is actually NR9 writing under yet another pseudonym.

South Westfielder wrote: "Time for a Change is actually NR9 writing under yet another pseudonym."

Response:

You can continue to think I post in Patch under other names but you’d be wrong as I’ve NEVER done that- not even once. If you’re going to make an assertion that someone is really someone else, you need to back it with SOLID proof.

I'll show you how it's done. Here’s SOLID proof that I am NOT “Time for a Change.”

“Time for Change” recently posted: “ Jeff B-- thanks for continuing to offer "comedy"-- You are a very jaded person and I suspect that nothing could be said to you to change your mind.”

HOWEVER, in the recent Patch article titled “Board of Ed Addresses Upcoming Bond Referendum” (from May 24, 2012 Patch), I gave praise to Jeff B. Here’s an excerpt from my 11:10am Saturday June 2, 2012 comment: “…I appreciate the insight being provided by John Blake, Jeff B., etc. They have brought some good ideas to the discussion that I don’t think I would have otherwise considered and I’m sure there must be others in Westfield who have also found their comments insightful…”

Seriously, South Westfielder… do you really think those two comments are from the same person?

If you’re going to make assertions like that, please make sure you do your homework first.

Go ahead and find/prove all the names you think I post under. Please… go ahead and ask Patch to investigate IP addresses, etc. You’ll find that you are 100% wrong.

South Westfielder true identity: NJEA

Reality Check - 100% wrong. I do not like the NJEA or any union for that matter.

NR9, I would never spy like that. The stupid and idiotic CAPITALIZATION OF WORDS are CLEARLY a DEAD give-away. I

@South Westfielder.

1) Do you really think the comment I posted (NR9) in praise of Jeff B was from the same person who posted that very rude comment (not me) about him as "Time for Change"? Really, do you???

2) Are you saying (in your 6:10 comment above) that I'm "Reality Check" too since he/she wrote NJEA and not njea? What about everyone who wrote USA in any document today-- was that me as well? Acronyms like those typically are capitalized. Same for ASAP, BYOB, RSVP, IOU, OPEC, TV, etc.

3) The reason I frequently use ALL CAPS is because on Patch, you cannot use underline or bold or italics which would otherwise allow for emphasis of certain words. I suspect that's the same reason some others do it as well- it's really the only option when you want to emphasize a word on Patch. Well, I suppose quotes (" ") could work too.

Time for change capitalized three times in about ten sentences. BOE is an acronym so that does not count. He/she also capitalized two other words. Those were STATE and NOT. I assure you, I don't have a monopoly on the use of ALL CAPS. They were invented centuries ago. Anyone is free to use them.

I really, truly have never posted as anyone other than NR9. There are 30,000 people who live in Westfield. Do you really think that everyone who disagrees with you is really me???

To Indigo Blue,
I don't mock those who donate their time. I applaud them. I will not , however,canonize them.They deserve our thanks for trying. There is no guarantee that the actions of a volunteer are always good. They mean well but that is not always the same as being the best for the majority.
You are right that many who complain should volunteer just like everyone who writes in should sign their correct name. To require proper identity would stifle debate. To require that comment can only come from those who volunteer would end debate.
I have good reason not to run for office. They are none of your business or that of anyone else. It is also not for you to judge in the same way I can't judge your desire for anonymity.
I spit on no one in my comment. I will state without reservation that your comments are rude and without facts.
Whether they are volunteers or not, the majority of the BOE finessed a referendum in what I believe to be a devious and dishonest manner. Volunteers or not, they are our representatives. Their actions are reprehensible and , in my opinion, should not be borne by the electorate.
A.John Blake

@South Westfielder. I just thought of something. Even though I’m not all of those people who you keep accusing me of being, let’s pretend for a moment that I am. What would that have to do with the actual issues being discussed - traffic safety at the Cambridge/Clover section of Central Avenue or staffing at the Westfield fire dept. or roofs for our schools or a turf field at the high school? Why would the names different people use even matter? Why do you try and focus peoples’ attention away from the actual topics to this nonsense you keep making up? Or, do you simply enjoy stirring things up rather than adding well thought-out points (on either side of an issue) to the discussions?

I have read through all these comments and I have one question. Did any of you attend any of the board of education meetings to voice your concerns over combining these to items into on bond? Since you all have very strong opinions on this bond matter I would suggest that you try to attend a board of education meeting or email the BOE with your concerns and questions rather than complaining on the patch.

@Pete, why is it the BOE's fault if the people who have been given the opportunity to vote, don't come out to the polls? Also, why is the vote inconvenient? Is it because you will not have enough time between now and then to find the time to get out to the polls? And, if it were 4 people who spoke against it, not sure we could call that a "majority". It seems to me that whether you like the decision that the BOE made or not, they have offered up a load of information. If only everyone read it, there might be less ridiculous comments on the Patch. Jessica noted above one of the more intelligent things on the Board. We all had our chance to speak out in public in a polite and respectful way and it doesn't sound like more than a few people chose to spend the time.

Walkin Westfield- one might think that if in fact your letters went unanswered and that would seem strange since they respond to all of mine, then perhaps your tone was not deserving of a response. I live near Edison and they listened to us about the parking situation more than I expected and they made some changes. My experience is that if you speak to them the way you want to be spoken to, then they actually do listen.

Walkin Westfield- Finally we have found our own Villiage Idiot in Westfield. Tell us about the "agenda" and what special interest groups you feel are clouding the minds of the volunteers on the BOE. Show us the letter you sent -if it was as stupid as your comments =no wonder you didn't get a response. I have an idea Walkin- Walk right out of Westfield and start your trash talking in Garwood.

TIme For Change,
No voter has a valid excuse for not voting in every election unless he is physically unable. Historically the turnout for BOE elections has been horrible. The largest turnout is normally a presidential election ( which will take place this Nov.).
The roofing need of the schools has been known for years. There is nothing emergent requiring a Sept. vote.
I suggest that the BOE desires a low turnout and has scheduled the vote in Sept. to attain its wish. It bundled an obviously necessary financial burden with a desirable one and a questionable one. All evidence points to the desire of the BOE to obtain the least specific vote from the public.
The lack of attendance at BOE meetings to object may very well stem from the belief of most voters that it will do no good. It is generally believed that the Board feels it knows best and should not be questioned.This encourages apathy. The Board then waits until the last minute to send out letters to parents telling them the sky will fall unless the Board's proposal is supported.
The Board does not stop people from voting but it certainly uses every means available to it to make sure its opposition does not vote and its supporters do vote.
You are correct that voter apathy results in what we have now. The Bd.of Ed. Is not completely responsible for that apathy but it certainly takes advantage of it.
A.John Blake

As an aside, when the discussion of moving the BOE elections to November came up in our district, a salient point in its favor (which carried the day for at least one of our BOE members) was the yearly cost savings arising from eliminating a special April election - estimated at slightly over 30k between voting machines, poll watchers, mailings, etc. We would simply be "piggybacking" on the general election.

With a special election for the bond in September THAT cost savings goes out the window this year.

Walkin Westfield first off I am not an apologist for the BOE. I am simply stating that if someone a strong opinion on a matter that the BOE is discussing or putting to a public vote than that person should bring it to them either by email, letter, or attending a BOE meeting to discuss their opinion. Instead of complaining about it on the patch. Also if one is not happy with the current board members then I would suggest consider running for a board seat.

the BOE will tell you that Chatham has 4 regulation size turf fields but what they won't tell you is that private contributions and donations paid for 1/3 of the acquisition cost of Chatham's plastic fields and that 100% of the maintenance cost is paid by private contributors.