Time for teachers to stand up behind the rally call they often preach when fleecing the taxpayers during contract negotiations, "it's for the kids". Cut the out of touch with reality raises and schedules that pay teachers to teach a half day and get paid for a full day. That won't happen. What will happen is increased user fees and the cutting of programs. Maybe the board of ed can install coin operated toilets and lockers. Christie's 2% cap is a farce. It pushes the burden onto taxpayers through a myriad of fees.

The Board failed to properly reservefunds for these repairs. Did they just over look this item or was it a way to get around budget choices? In the corporate world this would be considered mismanagement. Who will repay the bonds? They are kicking down to the next generation this expense.Westfield expects more from its elected officials.

I was happy to hear last night that Senator Tom Kean- who lives in Westfield- supports this bond and told the Board that having a bond is the only way they can go for now to get this done. Clearly this should be a yes vote.

Sen. Kean can share his wealth with you. I don't support this bond because the board of education dipped into the fund for roof repairs years ago to give out raises and other ill advised expenditures. For way too long the school board has always relied on going to the taxpayers to find more money when they have foolishly spent the reserves necessary for repairs such as these. I will still vote NO. It's a tough lesson but the board of education needs to swallow the medicine. Wonder if they regret sneaking in Dolan's raise before Christie's tax cap. That wreaked of impropriety.

@David

They did have reserve for this repair. THEY SPENT IT!

Has anyone asked the boe what has happened to the employee contribution to their benefits? This totals more than $1M/year and is increasing each year per the law.
This is revenue or decreased expense that is new to their base line budget. How is this new money being used?

The Legal definition of chutzpah is a defendant appearing for sentencing for the murder of his parents and seeking the mercy of the Court because he is an orphan.In the present case the BOE seeks money for the repair of roofs in an emergent state of disrepair because the BOE allowed them to get that bad.
Please remember the voters have already paid for the budgets in which the repairs were listed. The BOE used that money for other purposes. We are now being asked to pay for all repairs again and to do so outside the 2% Cap which attempts to keep the lid on government spending.
The BOE had no problem finding the money to quickly sign a union contract or improperly increase the Superintendent's salary. It may be argued that the money for the roofs were spent here.Whether correct or not, The Board must be told it must do what all of us do, that is work within a budget. While some of these roofs might be in dire condition,it is due to their mis-management. If some are not so dire, the BOE wants to repair them outside the legal caps. This is evasion of the law.
The BOE's prophesy of doom must be assessed by its credibility. After the last referendum, it has very little credibility.
A.John Blake

just petitioned the Patch to change the flag as inappropriate to just, "flag as stupid"-- that would likely get much more use especially on this board.

The board of education will use "the sky is falling" approach to get the flock to succumb to their demands. So will the teacher's union and Schooschmucker. In the end, if a bond does not pass the kids will suffer for the board of educations mistake in not reserving the funds and the teachers union's greed.

The U. C. Improvement Authority fully funded new roof projects & repairs for
these schools: Berkeley Hts, New Providence, Garwood, Linden, Plainfield, Roselle, Rahway, UC College, Cranford, UC VoTech and Hillside. Does anyone know why our town of Westfield was LEFT OUT of the money? The article stated that this saved taxpayers quite a lot of money. In the event this bond doesn't pass, perhaps we can get on that train...

I am amazed that none of my detractors has corrected any of my assertions that the BOE has mismanaged the maintenance of the buildings and has now lumped together every single bit of school maintenance into a Bond and outside the spending caps.
The BOE has been notorious for "knowing better " how to spend our money. When they get " caught" they claim that it is done and to rectify the situation would be bad for the children.
The BOE has been " in bed" with the Union and has , for years, handed out the NJEA's Kool Aid that " it is for the children". Now that they have been caught in the mismanagement of the building maintenance, they claim that disaster will ensue. We should judge this with the credibility the BOE earned when they told us a turf field was a necessity.
Nothing will return the BOE to fiscal responsibility faster than an electorate that requires the Board to do so.
Without a hint of remorse for the duplicity of the last referendum, the BOE seeks an identical amount of money for 77% of the roofs in the system. The Board didn't take the hint that the rest of the world is having money problems and that its credibility just took a big hit. It still wants to lump every bit of repairs that should normally be subject to the spending cap and remove it to a Bond. This is an evasion of the spending cap. The bonding authority of the BOE was never meant to cover simple maintenance.
Tell me where I am factually incorrect.
A.John Blake

To Ay John,
I saw the Mayor over the weekend and had the pleasure of telling him I thought the Town was doing a good job on the clean-up.
A.John Blake

The UC Improvement Authority article with info on the free roof work was on the Berkeley Hts & N.P. Patch or in the Suburban News, weeks ago .

$1m of iPads, unnecessary wireless and other tech gizmos would've brought a few lumps of roof. A year ago iPads were more important than roof replacements.

I will still vote NO to send a message to the Board of Education that I am tired of the assumption that parents will pay anything when they are held hostage.

Fooled Again:

-- Please first take the time to look back at all of our public communications over the past year - especially the communications about all the maintenance work we have undertaken - and add up the numbers. If it still does not make sense, please explain what you found and I will try to explain your disconnect. But I think we all would agree you at least have to make an effort to follow along.

In tomorrow's Westfield Leader which is online tonight at www.goleader.com the principal of Edison Intermediate School jumps on the paranoia bandwagon, in a letter to the editor, leading voters no alternative but to vote Yes for the bond. He talks about cuts in programs, sports, staff, and increased class size. Nowhere does he mention cuts in employee raises to find money to repair the district's roof problems left in disrepair for years while money earmarked for the repairs was spent elsewhere, like raises in his own salary at percentages well above other districts going through a financial crunch over the past 3 years.

If this bond is approved what is the maintenance plan? Will there be any maintenance? Or in 10 years will we be in the same situation again?

To Mr. Slater,
I'm sorry you feel slighted by my comments. The we're directed to the generic body called the BOE not to the any individual. The BOE has demeaned itself by its own conduct. If it has allowed the maintenance to deteriorate to an emergent state to the tune of $ 13million, there has been bad mismanagement. If the maintenance is not all emergent, they are misrepresenting to the public and evading the 2% Cap by including in the Bond request the regular maintenance they should pay for inside the budget.
The duplicity of the Board in presenting and staging the last referendum was reprehensible and ,in my opinion,badly damaged the already tarnished credibility of the Board.
I did not mean to insult you personally but I feel the actions of the Board when it signed the last contract were underhanded as was its actions and press releases surrounding Dr. Dolan's raise. Both matters left a bad taste in the public's mouth and added to your credibility problem.
The present doomsday prophesies being proffered by the BOE and its surrogates suffers from the gross conflict of interests of the Board, and the union.It sounds ugly when you are telling the public they must assume a debt caused by the failure of the BOE to maintain the buildings or the BOE will cut back on the children.
From a public relations point of view Mr.Slater, where am I wrong?
A.John Blake

Fix the problems with roofs within the budget and cut other costs including salaries instead if having sports, academics, and clubs taking the brunt of the cutbacks.

To Time For Change,
I do not put much stock in the credibility of this BOE given its track record with the last referendum. The present prophets of doom are the principals and teachers who stand to continue to profit from the removal of these maintenance costs from the spending caps.The BOE was responsible over the years to keep the various roofs in repair.They did not do so even though there was money in the various budgets for that purpose.Are you asking us to believe that , all of a sudden, 77% of the system's roofs are in an emergent state or is it not a fact that the BOE finds it convenient to lump all roof maintenance into a bond and outside the 2% spending cap?
If, after the last debacle of a referendum, the Board said it needed an emergent appropriation of $4 or $5million,to take care of the most dire roofs, I would have agreed. When the voters rejected the last BOE referendum, they didn't just reject a turf field, they rejected the representations of the BOE that these items were necessary. The BOE has ignored this blow to its credibility as if it didn't exist. They are wrong.
A.John Blake

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.

Ay John? You reply like you and the Mayor are old pals..."the pleasure of seeing the Mayor..." Just more deception on your part...we all know it's personnal with you Ay John...you pick conflicts with any town official who HAS TO LISTEN!! No coincidence you were Kasko's lawyer. So step down off your self made pedestal Ay John...you question the boards credability? Hilarious....maybe you should ask yourself why constantly play the role of "fly in the ointment"...look deep Ay John...try to see what we all see...you're the one who has no credability!!

To Time For Change,
A demonstration that the Board heard would have been, as suggested, a request for the most dire roof repair,( $5 million possibly) with a statement that there would be an attempt to comply with the law that regular maintenance be done within the budget.I read what the Board says and wish I could cross examine some of the statements since many contradict previous statements. Considering the BOE statements, are you willing to believe all the statements made by the BOE in support of the last referendum? The duplicity spewing from that campaign was reprehensible.
If you read the law on the power of the BOE to issue bonds, you will find that major new projects or damage from some catastrophe is contemplated. I accuse the BOE of mismanaging the funds set aside for the maintenance of these buildings until their mismanagement has become acute. They now want to lump together all maintenance into one " declaration of emergency" so they can not only rectify the damage done by their mismanagement but benefit by removing from the 2% cap, all the roof maintenance in the system. It is an evasion of the cap.
Usually, you maintain a reasonable level of argument on this site. I seldom find you lowering yourself to the level of ad hominem attacks.Please stick to facts. If you knew how little time I actually spend on the computer, you would be surprised.
A.John Blake

Ay John?? So you're proclaiming all bond referendums are now illegal and an an intentional evasion of the 2% cap which was only installed a couple of years back? I'd like to hear some of your examples from this board of contradiction Ay John...give a few please. State the source of these contradictions Ay John. Stop talking in generalities as if this board has been making decisions for the last 10 years Ay John. What board are you on Ay John? What government volunteer work do you do for the town of Westfield Ay John? You reply as if all these decisions were recently made in a vacuum...that bonds were not a normal practice and that the 2% cap has been around for years. That's not much to hang your hat on Ay John.

I tend to agree with A.John Blake. The BOE has historically put minimal maintenance dollars in the operating budget. This strategy has worked for them over the years, as it has allowed more money for instruction and other extras that our community has wanted. There have been other bonds over the years and the voters have approved them.
In these difficult fiscal times with the state no longer kicking in for part of the capital costs, the BOE is now met with an electorate that is no longer rubber-stamping their requests. My personal belief is that the physical plant is a part of any enterprise and should be handled within an operating budget. This has not been the case of our school district over the years.
I would like to see a reduction in some of the true "extras" and see a multi-year plan developed for these roofs. It should include a combination of patching and replacing based on a priority of needs and safety.
Of course this will be viewed as taking away from our current students some of the "extras" that our community has now come to expect. I'm sorry, but as Mr. Blake has pointed out, the way and reason for this bond has been to circumvent the cap. No amount of personal attacks against Mr. Blake will change that fact.

Ay John! Still waiting for those contradictions? Produce a few Ay John. Contraction: "a statement that is necessarily false." While I was against bundling the turf fields Ay John, and did not agree with the board...it was the majority "opinion" of the board to do this...and left it up to the voters. As no point did they purposefully state a falsehood Ay John. So where are their contradictory statements Ay John...as what point were they saying one thing, saying something else. Is posting your community service Ay John. Clearly you have opinions and experience to fill an office within the town Ay John! I'm also thinking that you have the time in your sunset years. I'll vote for you Ay John!!! Just so you can see that these jobs aren't easy...but what is easy is posting comments about any and all town officials. Come on Ay John!!!, I'll be the first to sign-up on your campaign staff. Do it Ay John!!! Run for something, anything...we're all behind you...because you apparently can do a better job!

I'm trying to understand the point you're attempting to make Ay John?.
You seem to just want to attack Mr. Blake without defending the bond.
I'm not really concerned about a local gadfly as much as I am about the management of our tax dollars and a solution to this multi roof issue.
It's coming across as you just wanting to attack the person and not his point. It's your obvious right to do that, but it doesn't bring anything to the discussion.

David-
Not really sure what your point was but I think it is a matter of record that I do not always agree with my fellow Board Members- The only higher authority I answer to is my wife and kids.

CJC - If Ay John? can openly attack the board's credibility, I'm simply stating that we also look review his credibility. Had Ay John? ever supported any town official, maybe his comments could be taken more seriously. The schools are leaking, the board is trying to get this remediated. Ay John?'s comments should be taken in context with his overall opinion for town officials...that's all. David, thanks...I do take this all with a grain of salt and think that postings are mostly people just wanting to hear themselves, ...very little constructive thoughts, mostly destructive like Ay John?'s. It would be more substantive if officials like Mr. Slater continued to comment. I like to poke at Ay John? only because he's so obviously slanted against the town...take a look at his historical postings and you'll see my point. That's not to say he's not intelligent and makes some valid points, but it's a farce that he can call into question the board, when in fact he has an apparent ax to grind as he has demonstrated at town councils time and again. Glad to provide the entertainment. And appreicate Ay John?'s entertainment as well.

Ay John? I believe there is a consensus that there is a need for roof repairs. I'm not sure if Mr. Blake's credibility matters much if he is presenting an opinion or facts. I would hope that those opinions or facts should be able to be refuted or debated on their own merit without personal attacks or trying to come up with a motive for them.
As I replied to Time For Change, I believe that $4M/year can be found in an operating budget of $100M. It would have to include the +$1M/year of new employee payments for their health benefits, as well as a review of current expenses that we have come to expect. A review of number of stipend positions should be evaluated, the auxiliary learning tools that the now pays for, as well as services that we may contract for. Go through through 3-4 years of this and you would be suprised how "a new normal" would not impact the district as much as the doomsayers believe.

sticking to the facts AJB-
This is a town that wants and demands that our students be given every opportunity to succeed and they support that need by passing almost every budget that has been put out there over the last 20 years. The parents require that we have small class sizes, technology, a broad array of programs, extracurricular programs in sports and fine arts, a very large special education program and the list goes on and on. Over the years, the BOE, I believe has given the parents of this town what they want. That is, money for teachers and programs, academic and extra-curricular. It worked for a long time because large scale maintenance projects like roofs were planned to be handled with bonds. It is NOT just Westfield that planned like this, most other NJ districts managed their finances this way. The state supported it big time as they offered 40% of the costs back to the districts to support these initiatives. Then, the rules changed. A district was capped at 2% on the budget, bonding went by the way-side because of the economy and the state took away their funding. Oh, and you want more facts. During the last 5 years, the annually state aid for Westfield schools was cut dramatically. Yes, this past year, the district got some back but they are still behind where they were 5 years ago. So, there are some of the facts, that you always seem to neglect to speak about.

Move out of Westfield if you don't want to pay
Taxes- you are pathetic already

Mr. Blake, As I have mentioned, I just don't think that you are watching. Have you watched the BOE make cuts when state aid was reduced? Have you been re-living through the Board presentations recently that remind us of the huge cuts they made to teachers and other expenses when they needed to close that massive hole? You refer to EVERY bit of maintenance they could lump into the bond. What maintenance other than the roofs are you referring to? There is not a dollar in there, according to the presentations, for anything other than the roofs. And to the contrary, if you were watching and reporting the "facts" as you like to call them, you would see that they have spent millions in the last 12 months on maintenance items---furnaces, paving, windows, etc, all so that hopefully down the road, the need for bonds in the future will be mitigated. THIS current make-up of the Board is working within the rules that exist today, and I for one applaud their efforts. They have used funds to start building the technology infrastructure so that our district can catch up to what had been neglected for so long. So, when you talk about the facts. put them all on the table, not just the ones that support your point of view. As for the teachers contracts, honestly, I cannot speak to that one, know nothing other than it was not their finest moment. And for Dolan, well, if you followed along, they had the approvals that they needed. Read the lawsuit.

I do not condemn all the things done by the BOE. In fact, they administer quite well. The problem I have is when it takes a situation such as the truly deteriorated roofs and declare them to be in need of emergent repair as is basically necessary for bonding. These roofs have needed repair for years and the Board did not want to forgo some other project so they allowed the roofs to go downhill.
I have no doubt that some of the roofs qualify for emergent repair. I also have no doubt that some of the roofs need ordinary maintenance. The Board, I believe, has lumped them all together so they could remove from the Cap a large bill for ordinary maintenance. This is an evasion of the cap laws in my opinion.
The fact that they are doing it for a good purpose is irrelevant. The BOE was , at best, duplicitous in the presentation of its last referendum. Was it done for a good purpose? Of course it was, but that probable good purpose did nothing to rectify the incredible position taken by the Board.
During boom times, the Board can do much to create the finest education possible. When the economy turns down, the Board must recognize reality and hang on to what is possible.
After the last referendum, why didn't the Board seek only enough money to fix emergent repairs. The argument that all $13 million is absolutely necessary for emergent roof repair is an indictment of the Board for mismanagement. I don't believe that.
A.John Blake

To Time For Change,
I understand your argument and respectfully disagree. The fact that the State allows the bond merely means the application most probably complied with all the necessary language. In all probability the bond issue would be legal.That doesn't mean it should be done.
The argument that this is good for the real estate values is tangential at best. This bond issue will not increase or devalue our homes and, the alleged profit is theoretical until you sell.
Yes, we have low interest rates but the cost of this interest and principle is being added on to the normal bills of the Board as far as the taxpayer is concerned. This is another bill being faced by taxpayers who are already being overwhelmed by a terrible economy.
Your " chosen name" here is Time For Change yet you continue the same old attitude of the Board that they only have to work for the parents of their students and ignore the general taxpayer. The debt for these roofs are merely being pushed down the road and piled on top of the other expenses of the taxpayer.
I have no doubt that you wish to further the educational system of Westfield. Whether you believe it or not, so do I. I just think that the BOE has a duty to the taxpayer that it has ignored for years which has finally come to roost.
The Board can't tell us that a lighted field is a necessity a few months ago, be soundly rejected and assume its credibility is intact.
A.John Blake

How much of this cost is to increase the bearing load of roofs to support the Solar Panels the BOE mentioned. This cost should be broken out separately by the board. These numbers dont make sense. I suspect this aspect has been buried in the engineering notes, and definately not included in the presentations to the public.

The BOE should budget for capital maintenance costs and not issue bonds. Now they are forcing the choice they created on us.

They need to be replaced. Too bad nobody ran in opposition in November. A crying shame.

Lets not buy $13.3 Million in new roofs, and then drill them full of holes.

Thanks.

As a side issue, may I also disapprove of the use of public assets by the BOE and its surrogates to campaign for the referendum. The parents of schoolchildren are receiving letters from school officials telling them of the terrible things that will happen to education in Westfield if the referendum does not pass. The author of the letter does not mention the conflict of interests he has in writing to the parents. His salary and any increases he may be seeking have to vie for the same dollars as the roof maintenance and if the BOE removes the maintenance from the spending cap, there is more room for salaries.
I would also love to hear the reaction of the BOE if one of their employees used the same public assets to campaign against the referendum. This is a biased use of public funds by the BOE and should be stopped.
There is no pretension that these messages are fair representations of the truth. Remember the source of this propaganda are the same people who represented that lighted turf fields were as "necessary" as roofs on buildings.
The BOE is supposed to represent all the people of Westfield. The Board has made its recommendation and should not use public funds to campaign on a subject before the people of Westfield. The Board's duty is as much to those who may end up opposing them as it is for those who agree with them. To use public assets to send out biased letters to the parents, not all the voters of Westfield, is not proper and should be stopped.
A.John Blake

Seems like the letters are the facts of what will happen if the bond does not pass. Pretty simple.

Yes WT- you are correct! The kick backs pay off the true killer of JFK - they meet on the grassy knoll in the wee hours of the morning....Im sure the Board of Ed has nothing better to do than come up with "Faustian" Choices all day long-
Get back on your meds.....your bi-polar is out of control- Perhaps if Joe Kennedy was around he could get you a lobotomy.

A few people have questioned whether there is a cost associated with solar installation built into the December 11, 2012 school bond referendum. The answer is no. Not a penny. There is no solar related cost in the proposed roof work. I am not aware of any Board member or member of the Administration ever saying that there would be such a cost. Regardless, the fact remains, there is none. The bond referendum is for the replacement of roofs. Thanks.

Rich Mattessich
President, Westfield Board of Education

Thanks. But how can you conclude that I “dodged a question” when you were not part of the conversations where the question has been asked?

Several people have asked me personally whether there is any cost for solar in the proposed bond referendum. The simple, truthful, straightforward answer is no. There is none.

Your statement that we are tearing up good roofs at a cost of $3.9M is simply not true. The fact is we will replace 77% of our roofs. We are not replacing 100% percent because the remaining 23% still have useful lives and are not leaking. You did send a link to an entire newspaper to support your point. But there is nothing in that paper to support your point.

One of the reasons Board members don’t read these sites and don’t post on them is because a small number of the members of the public feel the need to make sarcastic posts that are not simply a discussion of facts, or to spread mis-information to achieve their particular purpose, which may be at odds with what is right for the 6,300 plus students to whom this District provides an outstanding education. It is simply unproductive if the facts are to be ignored.

I accept that you feel uncomfortable having a public discussion on this matter. But you are welcome to contact me privately if you would like to discuss further. You know how to do that.

Rich Mattessich
President, Westfield Board of Education

Page 2, bottom of 3rd column.
"Mrs. Clancy also gave a solar panel update. She noted that since the first
attempt made last November resulted in no bids, the facilities committee, along
with engineering firm of Gable Associates, is ready to go out for a second
bidding process. Mrs. Clancy noted that the solar panel project would bring a
“considerable” energy savings to the district. She also noted that the project has
been hard to attract bidders because of the extensive roof repair needed."

So once again, why the rush to do all the roofs at once? Ah, the Solar Panel Pet Project. RFP's waiting in the wings. The material released during the last bond scheme included a PDF of the roof analysis of each building. Some were not at the end of their life. Preventative maintenance had been deferred; perhaps conveniently to make sure the leaks remained a hot-button issue.

"Give us the money or the kids get it!" is not winning any votes, it just causes you to lose credibility.

If you have to cut programs and teachers to include MAINTENANCE in your budget, then we're spending too much on programs and not enough on Maintenance. Don't blame US for BOE past mistakes.

The BOE can't even manage maintenance on the existing buildings, and you want to add Solar panels to the problem? Bad Judgement!

No more money for More Mistakes.

Thank you. I did read that article when you sent the link, but it does not support your point. The take away from that article and all that occurred when the Board looked at solar is that the vast majority (77%) of our roofs need replacement.

The simple fact remains – this bond has nothing to do with solar and there is no cost related to solar contained within the bond referendum proposal. Nothing. Not a penny.

Rich Mattessich
President, Westfield Board of Education

Rich,
Thanks for the answer. Ultimately, its disappointing that we have to pay interest and bond costs for maintenance. Ultimately, after the roofs are done, I'm also pretty confident BOE will resurect the Solar Panel Pet Project. Drilling holes in a brand new (and flat) $14M roof is a really bad idea. After the Turf Field fiasco, BOE has used up a lot of crediblity, and really not demonstrated any concern for the taxpayers in Westfield. Many residents are hurting financially, and yet BOE, along with Town, County, State and Feds are raising taxes and debt. It hurts Westfield friends and family, hurts our kids, hurts our economy, and hurts our country. We're all wearing patches and making due. Except the BOE who wants a new turf field, new roofs on every building, and Solar Panel Pet Projects.

We can't afford it. You have a budget, use it to accomplish your educational objectives and maintain OUR schools. Make due. Forget the Pet Projects.

Thanks. I understand that you will not support a referendum to fund new roofs for our schools. Even if solar has nothing to do with it.

Rich Mattessich
President, Westfield Board of Education

Ed, in my opinion your message is right, your method is wrong. Voting no will accomplish nothing but cause the cuts that the board has told us they will make to fund the roof repairs. You obviously do not have kids in school any longer because you don't care what happens. The way to send the message that you would like to send is to go to a meeting and make your message heard.