BOE Delays Decision on Moving School Board Election Date to November

When deciding between acting efficiently or allowing another two weeks for transparency, the Westfield erred on the side of caution Tuesday night and opted for the latter.

After a half-hour discussion about whether to move the school board election from its current date in April to the November general election, the Board voted 7-1 to delay its vote on the matter until its next meeting on Feb. 7.

The Board’s decision, made two weeks after Gov. Chris Christie signed a law permitting districts to decide whether to move their elections from the spring to the fall, was primarily done to enable Board members to solicit community input and gauge public opinion prior to voting on whether to keep or change its election date.

“I have always been a big proponent for community input and outreach,” said Legislative Committee Chair Ann Cary, who made the original motion to not conduct the vote last night and instead to have the Board make an effort to communicate the contents of the law to the public and collect feedback during the next two weeks. 

The new law, passed on Jan. 17, establishes procedures for districts, municipalities or voters to opt to move the annual school elections from April to the general election in November. It also eliminates the vote on school budgets for such districts – except for separate proposals to spend above the 2 percent property tax cap.

The legislation was passed by a bipartisan majority and takes effect immediately. Rather than requiring towns to move the date, the law allows the decision to be made by one of three bodies in a given community: by a Board of Education resolution, a Town Council resolution, or through a public vote if 15 percent of registered voters who participated in the last general presidential election sign a petition. Additionally, the law holds that, should the election be moved to November, it must remain there for a minimum of four years. 

As of noon today, 45 school boards from around the state had already voted to move the election date to November, according to the New Jersey School Boards Association website. That represents a little more than 10 percent of the state's districts. 

In a presentation to the Board last night, Cary discussed the most popular arguments both in support and opposition of the move. First, Cary said data suggests more people will vote in a November election than an April election. The last general election attracted about 44 percent of eligible voters, whereas only 18 percent went to the polls for the last April election.

Second, moving the date would eliminate the current risk of programs being cut due to districts voting against budget approvals. Additionally, Cary said the district will save about $30,000 per year by not having to organize and conduct a separate election in April. Finally, Cary said moving the date would allow candidates and voters to focus more on education and less on passing the budget during the days leading up to the vote.

However, Cary also noted the concern felt by some that moving the date to coincide with the general election might seemingly mix the non-partisan Board elections with the partisan Town Council elections, resulting in the potential to politicize Board member candidacies. The new law does note that school board members will be listed on their own ballot – i.e. one separate from partisan candidates – “whenever possible.” 

Additionally, approving the change would mean that there would no longer be a public vote on the school budget (assuming it remains within the 2 percent property tax cap). Voters would only be electing people, with no say on the tax levy, Cary said. Any approval of above-the-cap spending would be voted on in November, limiting the time and manner in which the funds can be allocated (since it would already be four months into the fiscal year, which begins in July).

Vincent Yaniro, the interim Business Administrator of the Board, provided some more detail on how the budget process would be effected if the election was moved to the fall. Districts would still have to submit an at-cap budget to the state Secretary of Education in March, which would be a continuation of the current practice. If an above-the-cap budget is proposed in a given year, it would then be voted on in November. If passed, the budget would be recertified and the district could then adjust its spending to the above-the-cap budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. If rejected at the November polls, the district would have to continue operating at the originally proposed at-cap budget for the remainder of the fiscal year.

As of Wednesday morning, a measuring public sentiment on the issue indicated that 54 percent of voters supported moving the election date as well as the elimination of votes for limited tax increases. Thirty-four percent supported moving the date, but favored a separate vote for any budget changes. Ten percent did not “like this bill one bit,” the poll indicated.

Board member Mark Friedman asked if the new law specified if districts were required to collect public sentiment before making a decision and, if so, what methods were suggested. Cary said the law did not require districts to do so, but mentioned a few examples of what she thought would be effective. She suggested that Board members solicit emails from members of the public; that the matter be discussed with PTO presidents when they meet with Board members on Feb. 2; that a notice be posted in local media publications as well as on the Board's website; and that the Board publicize that the matter will be discussed and voted on at the Feb. 7 meeting. 

The common sentiment among the Board seemed to be that moving the date to the November general election was a “no-brainer.” But as the discussion continued, there was a growing reticence to acting in a manner that might come across as rushed or one that failed to welcome public input. 

Board member Gretchen Ohlig, who quickly seconded Cary’s motion to hold the vote at the next meeting, warned that transparency is part perception and said that the community might perceive the Board as acting too swiftly if it voted on the measure last night.

Board Vice President David Finn, the only member to vote against waiting until the next meeting to make a decision, disagreed with Ohlig. He noted that the topic has been heavily discussed in the news for some time and suggested that any members of the public who felt passionately about the issue would have expressed their opinions by now. 

"There's not much we don't know about this," Finn said. "It's been covered ceaselessly.

"To say we are acting swiftly - I don't think we're doing that," he added. 

Though Cary agreed with Finn that the topic has been heavily discussed on the larger level, she said the Board has not necessarily solicited and listened to the opinions of those within the district. 

"It has been in the public domain, but it has not been in our domain," she said. Cary acknowledged the possibility that no members of the public would attend the Feb. 7 meeting to speak to the issue, but said she did not see any serious harm arising from the Board waiting another two weeks to make the decision.

"I just don't see the urgency for why we have to pass this today," she said.

Ohlig asked the Board what detrimental effects would result from waiting another two weeks before making the decision. Finn noted that there is a Feb. 27 deadline for candidates seeking to run in the next school board election to submit the required amount of signatures, and that those candidates deserve as much notice as possible as to when the election will be held. 

But Finn suggested that the larger drawback was that, by not settling the issue last night, the Board would not be using its time efficiently. With budget proposals due in March and many other items on the agenda, the biggest cost to not making a decision last night is that the Board will now have to devote time to more discussion on the issue at the next meeting. 

"We have a lot more important things to do," Finn said. 

Board President Richard Mattessich also acknowledged such a sentiment. 

"We've now spent 25 minutes talking about whether to talk about this more," Mattessich said toward the end of the discussion.

Mattesich also supported Finn's point that the Board has not been acting too swiftly, that the issue has been topical and the Board has welcomed any views on the subject at its open meetings. 

"I don't think we're operating in a closed box," he said. 

Board member Mitch Slater was absent last night, but submitted a statement to the Board prior to the meeting that offered his support of moving the elections to the fall.

“I strongly support the legislation and governor on moving the elections to November as we as a district continue to operate with fiscal accountability and plan on continuing that with our new budget discussions underway now,” said Slater, in a statement Mattessich read aloud to the Board. “Whatever savings the district can garner with this move as well as increasing voter turnout is a win-win for all taxpayers.”

When contacted by Patch this morning, Slater confirmed that he would have supported Finn in the decision to settle the issue last night and not push the vote back to next month. 

However, by the end of the discussion, the majority of the Board favored waiting two weeks before voting on the matter. 

"To heighten awareness in the public eye is important," Board member Ginny Leiz said. 

Board member Rosanne Kurstedt said that though she had reached a decision in her mind on what is best for the Board and for the district, her decision resulted from having time to understand the new legislation and to consider the options. She expressed a desire to allow members of the public to be notified of the law, to digest it and then to express their opinions on it should they choose. 

Board member Jane Clancy noted that, though changing the vote would eliminate a direct vote on the budget, the public would still be able to have their voices heard by the Board."

"It's critical for the public to know that losing a public vote is not losing a voice," she said. 

The Board's next meeting will be Tuesday, Feb. 7 at 8 p.m.