The mighty BOE apologist, TFC is the first one to the keyboard

I take the over on Ay John?...my guess is he'll reply after his morning nap, but before noon.

Short history of Westfield BoE budgeting
- On a per-student basis, Westfield’s operational costs are lower than average, both for the county and district type
- Westfield has traditionally bonded significant maintenance, improvement and building projects to take advantage of prior 40% state aid on debt service. This has saved Westfield taxpayers millions in past projects, and was to be a method of funding going forward as older bonds are paid off.
- In the 2000’s, the state has limited both the amount of a reserve fund and yearly operational budget increases, inhibiting the ability to fund large projects from reserve funds (again, due to tight operational budgeting).
- Christie’s reduction in aid in his first term caused further reductions in staff, programs and ability to fund improvements via the operational budget
- Recent operational budget savings (fund balances) have been used to pay for much-delayed technology upgrades
- Recent changes in guidance have allowed fund balances to be set aside for specific capital improvements, but will not be enough in the short term to fund a project such as district-wide roof repair. In the interim, such projects will incur reductions in the operational budget if not bonded, or will incur “patchwork” roof repairs that would be lost money once the roof is eventually replaced.
- New roofs will be able to support a district wide solar power initiative which has provided other districts positive returns the investment.

Katie - If the bond passes it just means more money will be available for further raises for teachers, administrators, etc. So if you really want those newer contracts to be without raises or with reductions, you have to vote NO on this bond.

the BOE should have addressed the roof issue by putting $ in the budget. Instead they had set aside less than $1000 of a $95,000,000 budget. Let the BOE spend next years 2% increase on roofs ($1.95 million) and the following years 2% increase ($1.95 million + $2 million) and the HS roof is paid for. No bond issuing and interests costs.

Walkin Westfield

Do you attend the meetings or read anything but blogs with false information? They are not permitted to hold onto enough cash to cover the costs. It can not be part of the budget savings, not permitted by the government. They can save 2%, period. And the roof costs 4 million dollars. And that is only one roof. There are several more that need substantial, if not all, replaced. And what shall they do if a school's boiler bursts or some other unforeseen expense? They need to maintain some emergency funds. Stop trying to make it look so simple when it really is not.

CK, what do you get if you add 2 plus 2? 4? 2% put aside one year is just under $2m. Next year you budget the other $2m and voila you fix the high school.

It's called budgeting. Everyone else has to do it, it's time for the BoE to learn too.

Walkin Westfield is exactly right. The 2% he references is the 2% state cap. Since the roofs were ignored for so long, take the entire 2% cap and use that for the next few years to do the roofs.

The money for the roofs should have been in previously budgets going back many years. Then there would be no need for this bond.

okay, those who want to make silly statements about math (pete). one roof, the high school = 4 million. Great, address it over two years. And one of the schools that needs 100% new roof and has an administrator with a bucket on his desk catching drips...how long does that last? 14 million = 7 YEARS x 2, let's hope we don't have to replace a furnace, toilet, or sink for 7 years in 75 year old buildings.... and we aren't allowed to save any more money via state mandate. Do you understand what an absurd solution is that you have supported? Do you own a house and have any understanding of how this works?

CK seriously? Of course I own a house, otherwise why would I be so tired of the BoE's continually having their hand out for more of my money?

Do you really have no capacity to extrapolate? You can't see that you could make repairs to the roofs in the short term then ACTUALLY PLAN and replace as the future budget allows? That if a "furnace toilet or sink" failed you'd either have money there because you PLANNED or you'd have to cut something out of the budget to pay for it. The difference being you could cut one or two items not the dozens of items the BoE is currently threatening.

This all-or-nothing approach is the absurd position.

It is not a knee jerk response. We already spend less than the state average average per student. The government caps savings and wants the schools (and other municipal projects) to be funded through bonds. Taxes are how we pay for public schools, it is their ONLY source of income. They have no other way, for goodness sake. Please learn a few facts and then come back with a responsible answer and perhaps some true, useful suggestions for the BOE.

So riddle me this Batman (or voting no again)- why did you choose NOT to run for 2 open seats in November to actually DO something about the BOE WAY! - There would have been an open seat for you at the BOE finance table to actually find out what everyone else on the BOE already knows and has said at 10 different meetings- Its so easy to throw your crap out there on Patch-isn't it- instead of actually doing the dirty work.....All talk- no action-guess you have heard that line before.. Will we see you run next year? Or just continue to RUN YOUR MOUTH without having the facts to back it up...

Have you been reading? It is NOT $2 million to fix the HS. It is $4 million.

busing is usually 5% of the annual school budget. Because Westfield does not offer busing it makes it appear that we spend less that the state average per student. The schools increased enrollment is a temporary blip. The BOE doesn't need more money they need to make wiser decisions with the $95 million that they already control.

I so agree with this person's response. It's difficult to believe that every school building in Westfield needs a new roof in the same year. Most competent organizations would take a realist approach and replace a roof when it needs to be replaced or replace one roof per year as part of a normal budget process. Did someone in forget to include roof repair in the yearly budget? One would think that an annual school budget would include everything that is needed to manage buildings and facilities. The only way to get the school board to begin setting priorities and identifying the things that are really need is for them to begin living within their means and to stay within their approved budget. NJ is one of the most expensive places to live and the cost of our school system is one of the reasons. It's not as if a Westfield graduate performs any better than someone who graduated from any of the surrounding NJ school systems or from a school system in any other state in the US. I've raised 3 children through the Westfield school system since moving to this area in 1982. Westfield's school system is more expensive to maintain that most of the surrounding school systems either in NJ or other states. This simply means that the people in Westfield aren't getting their money's worth in relative terms. This doesn't mean that a school doesn't need a new roof but I think they could find the money somewhere in the existing budget. Or put roof repair in next year's budget.

Same here we are voting no. The school budget has been totally mismanaged over the last 14 years since we moved here.

To Allen Hatfield- "Westfield's school system is more expensive to maintain that most of the surrounding school systems either in NJ or other states. This simply means that the people in Westfield aren't getting their money's worth in relative terms." This was your statement and you are just WRONG! Are there schools where Westfield is more expensive than, absolutely but you are letting your "perceptions" be your reality. The facts are available for you to see should you want the truth. The Westfield school district has an average spend per pupil far lower than the state, lower than many of the school districts that WF normally is compared to-- could it be better, sure but sorry sir, you are just wrong. It might not change your opinion but at least be informed.

Jeff- I believe that THIS Board will still not grant raises so easily this time- irregardless of the bond vote- From my sources and from attending the meetings and hearing all the presentations it seems this referendum at this time (with 2 percent or below interest rates I read) absolutely makes the most fiscal sense. Agree with you that the next time the Teachers Union comes looking for raises that the people of Westfield will say no- and the elected members will agree- But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater first- or the baby will have a roof crashing down on its head..

Jeff B - you are right the BOE is trying to cover up serious financial management and is holding our children hostage. The Westfield Leader supports what many here, including Mr. Blake, have been saying about the nonsense the BOE is selling us right now.

Jeff, you should be appalled, but at the poor reporting and the blatant manipulation of the facts that the sorry excuse of an editor for the Leader used in his editorial. And, your "understanding" is wrong. Read the plans again and the details given by the consultants who have reviewed the roofs. Sure, based on what was said, they could hold off on doing some of the roofs and take the risk that there is an issue that causes further damage. The rates of this bond make it a prudent thing to do now. You and many others forget, the entire infrastructure is ancient and will require a greater committment going forward than has ever been under taken. Fix the roofs now and hold this board accountable to work within the rules of the State. If they don't do what they should, don't vote them in and you can actually get off your butt and do something about it. You claim that your great, great, great grandparents settled here in the 1700's, right? Well, make them proud and run for the school board.

The Leader needs readers - which is why they have to report as they do. Everyone just gets their town info from Patch now...

Instead of being a location to hold the student art exhibit, the former high school has been allowed to become a cluttered mess under the tutelage of the BOE

So you do not think that that parents of children in the schools should be notified of the consequences of the vote? The numerous postings on the school board website, the publication of several of the principals letters in the newspapers, and open to the public meetings (over and over again) do not reflect trying to get the information out there for all to know? They have given the same facts out through numerous venues. And, by the way, the wording was very carefully managed to provide facts and not "side taking". If you choose to think what they consider facts to be lies, so be it. If they turn out to be lies then they should not be re-elected. But they are represented to be the truth, and they are our publicly elected board and we need to pay attention to what they are saying, not the unfortunate information handed out by those who have obviously not spent any time at all attending meetings or researching issues, and who just want to complain and hear themselves talk.

Public funds---Pleaase-- you have let AJB brainwash you; well maybe that is in fact not possible. There were NO funds spent sending any messages. They sent an email to inform a portion of the voter community. They have told the ENTIRE voter community what they are doing, want to do, will do for months now. You people just don't choose to listen.

@Time for Change, someone had to send the email and their salary is public funds on the taxpayer.

NR9, your statement "I think we should just pay the money, get it done" is exactly how the Westfield Board of Education has operated for decades. When they need money above and beyond, they go to the taxpayer and say "gimmie more". All the years that the school budget got passed as it slowly crept towards $100,000,000 is what got us here today. The Board got comfortable knowing that the taxpayer would open their wallets anytime they cried poverty. It has to stop. VOTE NO

At the end of the day the roofs will be fixed. Do we want to spend another $17+ million or ask the BOE to be more judicious with the $95 million budget they already control.

Whether you vote yes or no - your tax bill next year, and in future years, will likely not change one iota. I find it hard to imagine a case where they will not require the 2% increase allowed. All a vote against the bond referendum does is force cuts in teachers, activities, etc, instead of funding capital improvements over the life of the improvement, as most businesses do. THe roofs, once replaced, will benefit students for the next 20 years. Why should that be funded entirely by next year's students/parents?

Again - this will have no impact on your tax bill, unless you somehow think that by defeating this, they won't use the 2% increase they are allowed. All of these arguments against the bond are pure vindictiveness - and won't save any of them a dime.

All you are doing is trying to weaken a great school district by reducing resources available for instruction. That would be a terrible decision.

JN- I think one Board Member, Slaytor- has pubilcally said at other meetings and when he ran I think that he will not vote for any raises- I wonder if he will keep his word....I think he voted against the last contract for Principals as there were 2 percent raises.- But I am voting yes on the Roofs as I have read what's out there and believe its the best choice at this time-

Doogie, the 2% will happen regardless - you're right there. But it'll be 2% on top of the amount bonded or just 2%. Time for the bloat to stop - and time for you to stop clouding the question by posting nonsense.

Pete -

I believe that the debt service on the bonds is paid out of the operating budget of the district. The debt service on the current outstanding debt is not in addition to the budget. As I said, the tax bill for each and every taxpayer if the bond passes will be the same as if it fails. All defeating this bond does is force the resdiednts of the next 2-3 years to pay for roofs in their entirety even though they will benefit the residents/students for the next 20 years.

People should be insisting that long term capital projects are bonded - it's a silly debate. Maintenance is an expense - replacement is a capital improvement.

neither--just someone who pays attention, has kids in the schools and who speaks with so many others in NJ who would love to live in Westfield because of the programs that we provide to our students.

JN - Time for Change could also be the disinformation officer that is employed by the district.

It should read an add'l $21m of budget growth in 10 years.

Jane, because all of the roofs need to be repaired over the next year or two, because the interest rates for the bonds are as low as they will ever be and because despite what so many people think, with buildings that are 75 years old in some cases, there will be loads of other things that will require repair and replacement in the years to come.

Haha, you have clearly not read any true information on this topic. In what world can they just come back with a 3 school, 3 million replacement? Do you think they are off by 10 million?

WW, care to share what those alternatives might be? Why is it that you think that people that perhaps you even voted for, have anything to gain but what they think is the right thing to do, with respect to this bond. Those board people live among us, you might even hang out with them occasionally. Why on earth would they be willing to tax themselves even more than they already have, if they did not feel like it was the best alternative. Go down the list of current members and a few of them don't even have kids any longer, some will not soon enough and yet they have analyzed the situation and have come to the community with not only a well thought out plan but many alternatives, every single one which has been discussed in public. All you negative folks make it like its an "us vs them" discussion. It is not. The Board, the teachers, the administrators; they all look out for OUR kids. And for those of you that don't have kids in school any longer, just remember what it was like when some one paid for your kids while they were in school.

Time for the same: the administrators and teachers are clearly looking out for #1 - c.f. their raises, which could've been spent elsewhere (give you a clue: roof repairs).

Mitch had his pointless pet technology project, which sucked away $1m that could've been used for roof repairs.

The BoE could've made better choices in the past (the very recent past - the tech project was this year, long after the need for roof repairs was known) and their unchanging hands-out approach says they don't want to make better choices going forward either.

@ Schmooschmaker, the posting above was not made by me. There is a problem with The Patch that enables people to post under other people's names. I have had to change mine twice.

In any event, I have been very critical of Mr. Slater and I still don;t agree with him on a lot of things. I am not a union rep - far from it. But, Mr. Slater's focus on technology is spot on - we need more technology in the schools for both students and teachers.

I have no problem with paying teachers since they are the ones who are developing our children and preparing them for their futures. I firmly believe we get what we pay for and I hope that my kids are out of the system and we are long gone from this town before the attack on teachers gets any deeper and the quality of education slips any further.

And that school system that you describe produced the jerk that you are. No wonder we all want better for our children.

@Doogie Howser. That's just uncalled for. Debate the pros and cons of the bond referendum as it is currently written but there's no need to engage in calling a person who disagrees with your points a "jerk."

Schmoosmachmaker,
I am pretty old school, and in many ways wish it was the way it used to be...Unfortunately it is not the same world you grew up in. Ignore if you like, and probably doesn't matter that much to you if you don't have children being educated right now. But it's just now an apples to apples comparison.

sorry I destroyed your ID there....

I interview software engineers almost daily. The ones turned out 10+ years ago when there were far less computers in the schools and no iPads were light years ahead of the mindless robots being churned out these days. It's not *having* technology, it's what you use it for. If it's being used to make the teacher's life easier, that isn't really a benefit.

Pete, to your point of "having" technology. Do you really think for a second that the enhancements to technology were made so that teachers could have it easier? Yep, that was the reason that the Board gave in public-- Do you really believe what you write? Get off The Patch and go talk to your kids and find out what they are doing in school. Oh wait, you likely no longer have kids in the school system which is why you are so up to speed on what goes on.

that is absolutely pathetic and if you really feel like that, you should move away now, never to be heard from again in Westfield. Have some guts, have some honor; and teach your kids self respect. Obviously you have no confidence that you could stand up in front of the public and make an intelligent statement about what you believe. I feel badly for you.

TFC, you just made the above poster's point for them. You're being a bully just like the BoE - and last I heard bullies weren't supposed to be welcome in the Westfield Education system.

It would be irresponsible of the board to promise or even mention how they intend to change salaries during collective barganing. Due to the mediation process an impass can end in, the board can't simply freeze salaries - they would functionally be set by comparisons with other districts.

Jeff B... to be honest I am very interested in managing the union and keeping salaries and raises (as well as tenor, another issue all together). However, it is really not possible for these issues to be presented as part of this bond. The union, benefits, salary....if you haven't been involved in this process with the union first hand you do not understand the power that is involved here. It would be very irresponsible to try and approach this issue in regard to the bond.

Also, having been to all of the meetings relevant to this issue, please understand that there is really no reason for the BOE to try and "fix" roofs that don't need fixing. Why would they do that? They have no power to reallocate the funds to another project....and they really DO NOT want to make the cuts to the districts so what is their motivation to put roofs into this bond that they do not need to? They are more likely to do what they can to reduce the bond if possible and not risk cuts to the district.

BTW, I appreciate your approach, providing some info for me to think about. So tired of the uninformed, and happy to discuss things from different perspectives.

Bond votes are only able to be held on specfic days provided by law - the district cannot schedule them otherwise.

You can run an analysis as well on the ending salaries - in most districts like Westfield, the salary can top out at a higher level, the main difference in an average salary is the average experience of teachers. Actual salaries do not reflect the state of other givebacks and benefits, which should also be calculated into the mix.

In the last contract cycle, starting salaries were not increased. In collective barganing, it is very hard to get multiple reductions/givebacks. The last contract provided a major health care giveback.

The contract approved by the BOE and the Westfield Education Association in March 2010, includes a 3.9-percent annual raise for teachers. Gary, is right the only response to the BOE is to Vote NO

there must be another Gary, *I* never said to vote no.

Yes, timing was really bad on that last contract, but all indicators were pointing to that the BoE had gotten a great deal with the healhcare give backs and raises a little bit lower than the average of other districts.

The simple answer is you (the fine people of Westfield) "hired" the BoE to represent them to negiotiate with the teachers, in private, as is done in any professional organization. You can vote to replace them, if enough are brave enough to run unopposed.

The process is not enhanced by lots of public annocements about any part of the negotiation - it just makes it hard for a compromise to be reached (see "fiscal cliff").

And there are economic restraints - you have the 2% and the upcoming vote.

Or how about those who have great alternatives and ideas come forth with them and initiate calls themselves.

Comments from people like Voting No and Pete and Tom Turkey prove one thing...

"You can't fix Stupid"

To correct Voting no
- it was days, not hours, before Christie's decision
- The contract for Dr. Dolan was already before the county superintendant before the rules changed on the superintendant's salaries
- The dates for bond votes are mandated by law, and do not include the general eleciton date.

Gary, you're half correct.
I cannot comment about the timing of Dr.Dolan's contract, nor Christie's aid cut.

However, the state lists 5 dates for special school elections (bond votes). You are correct that the November general election is not one of them. But by definition, a general election cannot be a special election.
The other half of the truth is that there is no prohibition on the inclusion of any public question on the general election ballot, provided such a district has moved their elections to November (see. NJSA 19:60-4, included below). In fact, 16 districts placed such questions on the ballot, three of which presented construction bond proposals. (see. http://www.njsba.org/news/press-releases/voters-decide-school-ballot-questions.php)
NJSA 19:60-4 reads: "The secretary of each board of education of a school district in which the annual school election has been moved to November pursuant to subsection a. of section 1 of P.L.2011, c.202 (C.19:60-1.1), not later than 10 o'clock a.m. of the 60th day preceding the November school election, shall make and certify and forward to the clerk of the county in which the school district is located a statement designating any public question to be voted upon by the voters of the district which may be required pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1995, c.278 (C.19:60-1 et al.) or Title 18A of the New Jersey Statutes."

J.Brendan Galligan,
thanks for the update - the last time I researched this was a bit before the first bond vote, and the web-published information from the state then did not appear to be clear on election day being a possible voting day.

Checking out the page you linked to above, I find it interesting that the most common question was to reduce the number of school board members in those districts. For some reason the job does not appear to be popular - good luck in your upcoming term!

Thanks Gary!
I have seen so much misinformation -on both sides of the issue- that I felt it necessary to go to the primary sources and actually cite them (god forbid).
It would be nice if this information were a little easier to track down for the average person, but that'll never happen in Jersey.

I, too, found it interesting that most of the questions were to reduce the number of board members. I was not surprised that nearly all of the spending requests were rejected (both bond and budget), that tends to happen when voter turnout increases.

Au contraire, The new law allows school districts to move their April elections to the November general election, either by asking voters for their OK — or by a resolution of the local school board or governing body.
In districts that move elections to November, boards will also no longer have to seek voter approval for budgets that fall within the state's 2 percent tax levy increase cap.

In June the BOE could very easily dedicate a portion of their allowable 2% budget increase for the 2013/2014 school year to fund a lease purchase agreement. In 2014/15 the lease purchase agreement could be financed by the current interest payments on bonds that will be retired. There are substantial bond expirations in 2014/15, 2020/21 and again in 2022/23.

I'm certainly not defending the statements by the BOE, I actually mention that before yours.

I think the vote is rather simple. How do you want to fund the roofs? I agree it is important, it does set a precedent moving forward about how the BOE will be able to fund bigger projects in the future until things are changed again. A no vote here clearly changes past practices.

However, I don't like your sentiment of relating this vote directly to union negotiations. They will get a raise of less than half of their previous raise for sure. However, I think that has more to do with the people who have been voted in since then and since there doesn't need to be another health care/pension giveback since they were double hit with their concession as Slater said and a Christie mandate. So, the board in collective bargaining will likely just go for one thing which will be the raises. That will happen regardless of the vote. You have to go after 1-2 things in on going collective bargaining. If you go for too many things, you end up like the NHL this year (or NBA last year).

Do you think anyone really cares how you voted? You want a medal? Should we have a parade down East Broad honoring your vote....For the record- The Bond will pass and you should skip town.

That's wonderful, no please contact your neighbors and remind them to go to the polls and do the same.

Captain Obvious,
I am merely answering the question that the author or the news story has asked. The title asks a question, "How will you vote?" I voted NO and I am answering the obvious Captain Obvious.

Not fair, if you don't like it, quit. If you are already over paid would you expect to get a raise? There is more to job satisfaction than money.