BOE and Council meetings broadcast on FIOS!

Finally! I'm so happy to learn that Ridgewood has public access channels on Verizon FIOS. This is something I started working on so long ago with late Councilwoman Annie Zusy, probably in the first month of my term on the Board of Education. From a purely selfish point of view, as a FIOS customer, I wanted to watch Village Council meetings without having to go out to another weeknight meeting. As a BOE member, I wanted to ensure all residents had a chance to see Board of Ed meetings. The Village and Ed Center have now got it all worked out.

Village Council meetings will be broadcast on FIOS Channel 34. BOE meetings will either be on Channel 33 or 34 (the info I saw was unclear...I guess we'll know by the time of the next BOE meeting, which is June 13).

Both BOE and VC meetings will continue to be shown on Cablevision Channel 77.

The future of the library.

I am re-printing this from Seth Godin's blog...I think it is something important to think about as the Ridgewood Village Council proposes underfunding the Ridgewood Public Library, and as the high school talks about evolving the RHS library/media center into a learning commons.

Click here to read the post in its original location on Seth's blog:

What is a public library for?

First, how we got here:

Before Gutenberg, a book cost about as much as a small house. As a result, only kings and bishops could afford to own a book of their own.

This naturally led to the creation of shared books, of libraries where scholars (everyone else was too busy not starving) could come to read books that they didn't have to own. The library as warehouse for books worth sharing.

Only after that did we invent the librarian.

The librarian isn't a clerk who happens to work at a library. A librarian is a data hound, a guide, a sherpa and a teacher. The librarian is the interface between reams of data and the untrained but motivated user.

After Gutenberg, books got a lot cheaper. More individuals built their own collections. At the same time, though, the number of titles exploded, and the demand for libraries did as well. We definitely needed a warehouse to store all this bounty, and more than ever we needed a librarian to help us find what we needed. The library is a house for the librarian.

Industrialists (particularly Andrew Carnegie) funded the modern American library. The idea was that in a pre-electronic media age, the working man needed to be both entertained and slightly educated. Work all day and become a more civilized member of society by reading at night.

And your kids? Your kids need a place with shared encyclopedias and plenty of fun books, hopefully inculcating a lifelong love of reading, because reading makes all of us more thoughtful, better informed and more productive members of a civil society.

Which was all great, until now.

Want to watch a movie? Netflix is a better librarian, with a better library, than any library in the country. The Netflix librarian knows about every movie, knows what you've seen and what you're likely to want to see. If the goal is to connect viewers with movies, Netflix wins.

This goes further than a mere sideline that most librarians resented anyway. Wikipedia and the huge databanks of information have basically eliminated the library as the best resource for anyone doing amateur research (grade school, middle school, even undergrad). Is there any doubt that online resources will get better and cheaper as the years go by? Kids don't shlep to the library to use an out of date encyclopedia to do a report on FDR. You might want them to, but they won't unless coerced.

They need a librarian more than ever (to figure out creative ways to find and use data). They need a library not at all.

When kids go to the mall instead of the library, it's not that the mall won, it's that the library lost.

And then we need to consider the rise of the Kindle. An ebook costs about $1.60 in 1962 dollars. A thousand ebooks can fit on one device, easily. Easy to store, easy to sort, easy to hand to your neighbor. Five years from now, readers will be as expensive as Gillette razors, and ebooks will cost less than the blades.

Librarians that are arguing and lobbying for clever ebook lending solutions are completely missing the point. They are defending library as warehouse as opposed to fighting for the future, which is librarian as producer, concierge, connector, teacher and impresario.

Post-Gutenberg, books are finally abundant, hardly scarce, hardly expensive, hardly worth warehousing. Post-Gutenberg, the scarce resource is knowledge and insight, not access to data.

The library is no longer a warehouse for dead books. Just in time for the information economy, the library ought to be the local nerve center for information. (Please don't say I'm anti-book! I think through my actions and career choices, I've demonstrated my pro-book chops. I'm not saying I want paper to go away, I'm merely describing what's inevitably occurring). We all love the vision of the underprivileged kid bootstrapping himself out of poverty with books, but now, (most of the time) the insight and leverage is going to come from being and fast and smart with online resources, not from hiding in the stacks.

The next library is a place, still. A place where people come together to do co-working and coordinate and invent projects worth working on together. Aided by a librarian who understands the Mesh, a librarian who can bring domain knowledge and people knowledge and access to information to bear.

The next library is a house for the librarian with the guts to invite kids in to teach them how to get better grades while doing less grunt work. And to teach them how to use a soldering iron or take apart something with no user servicable parts inside. And even to challenge them to teach classes on their passions, merely because it's fun. This librarian takes responsibility/blame for any kid who manages to graduate from school without being a first-rate data shark.

The next library is filled with so many web terminals there's always at least one empty. And the people who run this library don't view the combination of access to data and connections to peers as a sidelight--it's the entire point.

Wouldn't you want to live and work and pay taxes in a town that had a library like that? The vibe of the best Brooklyn coffee shop combined with a passionate raconteur of information? There are one thousands things that could be done in a place like this, all built around one mission: take the world of data, combine it with the people in this community and create value.

We need librarians more than we ever did. What we don't need are mere clerks who guard dead paper. Librarians are too important to be a dwindling voice in our culture. For the right librarian, this is the chance of a lifetime.

History of the Fields Committee.

There's been a lot of talk -- and a lot of misconception -- about the Joint Village-BOE Fields Committee in recent months. I thought it would be helpful to take a look back at how the committee came to be.

According to BOE member Charlie Reilly, who was the first chair, the Fields Committee was formed around 1994-95 and arose out of two problems: poor maintenance of the fields and conflicts over scheduling.

The committee worked to convince the youth sports groups to donate funds for sprinkler systems for the fields in order to provide better maintenance. Marriott, which was responsible for maintenance of fields and buildings after 1993 or so, did a great job for many years, according to Reilly, but the fields were beaten up with overuse. Since the fields were owned by the BOE and the Village, Reilly worked with Councilman Pat Mancuso to have Village representation in the form of Village Parks & Rec Director Tim Cronin and the Village Fields Manager. The plan was to meet monthly with the RHS athletic director and any sports group representatives who wished to attend. The Committee worked out which fields would get sprinkler systems as
funds became available, mainly donated by the sports groups. The committee also discussed and prioritized improvements that could help make fields more playable.

Reilly recalls one early Fields Committee project, which was to encourage the Village to dig up tons of heavy debris, such as cinder blocks, that had been deposited at Brookside Field from the time it was a dumping area for construction debris. After digging up the debris, field was leveled off to make it more playable. The Committee tried to do improvements to at least one field every year.

At the request of the BOE and Council, the Committee also worked on the scheduling of fields. Tim Cronin handled all field scheduling for several years until resident Ed Seavers took over that responsibility within the Committee. Before scheduling was taken over by the Fields Committee, sports groups would come to BOE meetings and fight during public comment over what sport should be on what field. Needless to say, it was not an efficient way to manage schedules.

Currently, the Fields Committee is chaired by the RHS Athletic Director Nick Scerbo and Tim Cronin, the Village Parks & Rec Director. The Committee continues to manage the scheduling and allocation of fields, with input from the school programs and youth programs. Each outdoor youth sport has a representative on the committee. I'm there as the BOE liaison, and Bernie Walsh is there from the Village Council. A representative from the District's field maintenance company attends. There are also two "at large" members who are members of the community, not affiliated with any sport. They are there to represent the interests of neighbors of the fields.

As a final note, Charlie Reilly has owned up to being responsible for the 7:00 AM meeting time. His rationale was to ensure that the Village fields manager and Marriott people could come to the meetings before going off to work. This way, the sports groups had the direct ear of the people actually responsible for the work being done. Charlie (and other volunteers, I presume) also wanted to get to work at a decent hour.

What I find most interesting about the Fields Committee is that it is one of the few, if not the only, truly joint groups in town, taking a collaborative approach to managing a complicated set-up of fields, owners and users.

Representatives of the Fields Committee will attend our BOE meeting on Monday night to give feedback, provide information and present a revised draft of the Fields Use Policy. The expectation is that the Board will also hear public comment, and will probably vote on Monday night. If the policy is approved, it will go to the Village Council (tentative date March 23) for discussion during a work session and then for approval at a subsequent meeting. Public comment will also be available at Village Council meetings.

Meanwhile, the snow is melting and the spring sports season -- guided by the existing Fields Use Policy -- opens this weekend. Go Maroons!

Discussing the Planning Board "invitation."

One of the more challenging parts of the job of being a member of the Board of Education is reading the newspaper stories that purport to tell the facts of this or that BOE event, and to see the difference between what is reported and what actually happened. Our small-town press, with a rotating cast of reporters, is imperfect (as is the national press, of course, though not usually to the same extent). Most of the time the facts are correct, but often the choice of quotes can skew the picture.

Anyway, my latest frustration was in reading the quotes attributed to me in the North Jersey.com story about the Board of Ed declining to participate in another Planning Board hearing. A quote from me about "moving forward" made it sound like I wanted to "move on." That isn't what I said or meant! So, I’d like to reprint here my comments from Monday night and, through the magic of the Internet, improve those comments further in order to make myself as clear as possible.

Monday night, I started by looking at the lengthy invitation (resolution) from the Planning Board. There were page after page of whereas this and whereas that. And then on page 5 they finally got to the point:

WHEREAS, although not an "official" action pursuant to law, the Planning Board wishes to memorialize its vote to confirm its intent to create an amicable forum and opportunity for open dialogue among the persons in interest, recognizing that an opportunity to be heard and to have issues vetted is appropriate for the community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Ridgewood does hereby memorialize its vote "to invite and encourage" the BOE to attend an additional courtesy review meeting, together with the neighbors of the subject Properties for purpose of discussing the issues of field lighting for RHS and Stevens fields…

Monday night, I said that if the point of the proposed hearing (or “courtesy review”) was to give persons an opportunity to be heard and have open dialogue, then we don’t need the Planning Board to do that. Yes, I facetiously did say that we have plenty of space at the Ed Center to hold meetings and have dialogue. But I also said to my colleagues on the Board and to Dr. Fishbein that if our position is that we are already working with the neighbors to resolve our differences, then we need to keep working with the neighbors. We need to keep moving forward and show progress.

We tried to meet with the neighbors to get input on the Fields Policy, and they didn’t want to participate – choosing to wait for a decision regarding the Planning Board. Now that we’ve made our decision, we need to answer the neighbors on our own.

My concern is that we “on the inside” – on the Board and in the Ed Center – feel like we’re making progress (and we are), but it doesn’t look that way from the outside. We already know the answers to many of the neighbors’ questions. We’ve taken steps on things like signage at the fields and porta-johns and revisions to the Fields Policy and communicating standards of conduct to athletes. We on the Board know these things are happening – and that’s part of the reason we don’t feel the need to go to a Planning Board hearing. But we have not done a good job of communicating this information.

We have been talking about a “master list of concerns,” with answers and solutions, which will be shared with the neighbors and the entire community. We’ve been talking about the list for over a month, but we haven’t accomplished it yet. (Note: Monday night Dr. Fishbein updated the Board…the list will be done soon.)

I know we have the answers. I know we are or will be taking steps to address everything. I have no doubt and I am quite secure in the “rightness” of the things we’re doing. But I can see that from the outside, the answers and the info aren’t visible.

I don’t want to just keep inviting the neighbors to meetings where we “listen.” There’s really no reason for us to keep hearing the same concerns and the same questions. We have some answers, we'll get some more, let's start sharing them.

As I said Monday night, I am opposed to participating in a Planning Board hearing, but I say that with the understanding that, in my opinion, we need to that we are putting the neighbors’ concerns to bed.

(Note: The Board will send an official response to the Planning Board and I'll post it here when it's available.)

BOE and Village working on arrangement with Verizon FIOS to broadcast BOE and Council meetings.

I'm told by the Ed Center that a deal to get Village Council and BOE meetings broadcast on Verizon FIOS in addition to Cablevision is being wrapped up, and this WILL be happening. I didn't get any kind of an ETA, but I'll check into it after a month or two (if I don't see the meetings on my FIOS).

This will give another alternative to the webcasts for BOE meetings, which are problematic for a few people. (And of course the Village Council doesn't webcast, so adding FIOS will be a great improvement in public access.)

"Other than the lights, are there no other pressing issues in the village?"

Funny thing happened last night at Village Hall. I went to a Village Council Candidates Night, and a Board of Ed debate broke out. (That's supposed to sound like the old joke about going to a fight and a hockey game broke out...sound familiar? Anybody?)

Well, not really a BOE debate, more like a repetitive airing of grievances and misinformation.

I thought it was odd how so much of the conversation focused on the new lights at RHS Stadium and Stevens fields, as well as the Council's handling of the defeated school budget last spring. And by "conversation," I obviously mean mis-statements and vague promises.

Contrary to one of the candidates' statements, at no time did the school district approach the Village for funding of the lights, and the current funding arrangement was not developed following any "heated discussions" of any kind.

It was odd to hear such criticism of the users of the lighted fields, consistently referred to as "them," as those "others" who are somehow benefitting. Hello? They are the thousands of children of our town, children of our taxpayers. They are us, and we are all going to benefit from better, more efficient use of our limited field space.

To those candidates who lamented the short timeframe the Council had in which to cut (or not cut) the school budget (with the implication being, if they only had more time, they could have cut the budget more): Board of Ed members and Dr. Fishbein were all over town prior to the budget vote, offering to review the budget in detail and answer any questions. Long before the vote, the Board invited the Councilmembers to a meeting to review the budget and answer any questions -- in as much detail as desired. And as for the "new" idea that a Village councilperson could serve as a liaison to the BOE -- there has been one for a long time. Anne Zusy was the liaison to the BOE...prior to that Jacques Harlow was the liaison. My point is, there are many opportunities for communication and (no pun intended) education between the BOE and the Council. I don't believe communication or lack of time is what determined the Council's decision on the budget. As I've said before, the leading factor was undoubtedly the fact that we had already cut $6.9 million from the budget. There really was not room to cut more without damaging the district.

Anyway, back to the Candidates' Night: it was surprising to me how few questions there were from the audience. Not sure what that means...more voter apathy, I suppose.

I heard the Stop Valley people will be naming "their" candidate soon (possibly tonight). It should be an interesting couple of weeks till the election.

The Federated HSA-Valley Hospital meeting. What gives?

You may have heard that the members of the Federated Home & School Association (made up of the presidents of each school’s HSA, plus an executive board and member-at-large) will be meeting with representatives of Valley Hospital on Wednesday 9/22. It seems there are some community members who have misinterpreted this meeting, and are up in arms.

As one of the Board of Ed liaisons to Federated (and a former Secretary/Treasurer of the group and former member as Somerville HSA president), I hope I can shed some light on the facts of the situation, and help tone down some of the anxiety.

Wednesday’s meeting was conceived and scheduled by Federated following a brainstorming session in June. They decided to hold a "special" Federated meeting in September, to address the Valley Hospital Renewal project. Federated invited representatives from Valley Hospital, along with reps of the Village Council and the Board of Ed, to address questions and concerns regarding the health, safety and well being of our students should a hospital expansion project go forward. The purpose is simply to learn, listen and gather facts as they exist at this point in time, just as Federated has done in the past at their meetings on all important issues facing our educational community.

Federated’s President, Elizabeth Resnick, has stated that she sees Wednesday’s meeting is a beginning for these HSA presidents (don’t forget, they only started in their positions in June) to “get a grasp of the current status so they can be ready to decide how to best involve their parent communities moving forward.” The only motivation for Federated is to try and keep communication open and work together as a school community.

Some residents refer to Wednesday’s meeting as “the closed Valley meeting,” implying that there is something to hide or something untoward going on. The only reason it was scheduled as a special meeting was so that there would be enough time – those Federated meetings are long! And it’s not “open” or “closed.” It’s just a Federated HSA meeting. A meeting of the members of the Federated HSA. I guess in that sense it’s closed.

Others have questioned why Valley is being presented with questions in advance. Mrs. Resnick is trying to plan for an efficient meeting. Remember, the purpose is to get information, that’s it.

Some have asserted that “the other side,” the Concerned Ridgewood Residents, should have their opportunity to present “their side” to Federated. This isn’t about “sides.” It’s not about whether the master plan should be amended. It’s not about the decision that the Planning Board made, and it’s not about the decision that the Village Council will be making. It is about this: IF the project, in its current form, goes forward, these HSA presidents (and their constituent parents) have questions about how it will work and how their kids will be protected from harm.

Some residents have expressed their belief that Valley will simply present “slick powerpoints” or that they will lie or bamboozle the Federated members. That’s fairly insulting to these Home & School volunteers. They may not represent every single parent in town, but in attempting to do the right thing for their communities, why can’t they be trusted to ask the questions they feel are important and, likewise, to judge the answers they are given?

I find it particularly sad that our Village has degenerated to such a state of mistrust. How in the world are we going to face the challenges that we need to face, if no one trusts each other?

Any resident of this town has the right to pick up the phone or send an email to Valley and ask whatever questions they want. This group of residents, members of Federated HSA, has that same right. And by limiting their focus to health and safety around the proposed project, they are also exercising their responsibility to not get caught up in the politics.

Did I mention that the minutes of Wednesday’s meeting (taken by a professional court reporter, so no worries about accuracy) will be posted on the Federated HSA website? They will be.

Village Council scraps idea to charge students for parking.

Hallelujah, the Village Council apparently got their heads screwed on straight and last night withdrew their plan to charge students for parking at the Vets Field/Graydon parking lot. Seems they heard from a few residents/taxpayers -- and got the facts regarding parking at First Pres church. Good news!

In another wrong-headed (and ill-informed) move, the Village wants to charge students to park at Vets?

Gee, I was hoping this idea, which was floated a few months ago, had died, but apparently it's still alive. What got my attention today was the story on Ridgewood Patch that said that Councilmembers Killion, Walsh and Riche "agreed to impose a parking pass in line with what the Board of Education charges for student parking."

"If it's the practice of the Board of Ed. to charge students for parking on public property, I'm inclined to think we can do it," Killion said.

WHAT THE HECK?

Someone might want to inform Mr. Killion et al that the BOE does NOT charge students for parking at First Presbyterian Church or Heermance. First Pres is private property, and the church charges for parking on its private property. In an arrangement worked out many years ago, RHS has coordinated the collection of those parking fees, and then turned them over to the church. It was done as a service to students, to make it easier for them. But the District is not charging (or keeping) the fees.

As for Heermance, there is no charge for parking there. My daughter used to park there sometimes, when she could get up early enough. It was always first come, first served.

I like this quote from the Ridgewood Patch story: "Council ...wanted the pass to be comparable to the school district's rate, which as of last night they did not know specifics." You can say that again! Who needs to check on silly "specifics" before approving new fees to charge our children?

And, for the record, even if Council had their facts straight, I think this is a terrible idea. What's next, charging 6-year-olds to play on the playground at Vets? Start saving those quarters, kids!

The Big Valley.

I (along with the rest of the Board) received several emails last week from parents or other community members concerned about the Planning Board’s impending decision on whether to amend the Village Master Plan to accommodate Valley Hospital’s intended “Renewal.” The theme of the emails was that the Board of Education should “take a stand” and “protest” the project. Some people are confused as to why the BOE has not done this yet, and imply (or state outright) that we are shirking our duty to protect our students. (See today's Bergen Record for a story about those frustrated parents.) I would like to explain my personal reasons for my actions on this topic. (And this means, once again, that I’m only speaking for myself since it would not be proper or legal for me to speak for the Board or any other Board members.)

I believe it is right and responsible for the Board of Education to protect our students from the affects of a project that could impact their health, safety or education. Right now, there is not a specific project under review. There are ideas and intentions, certainly, but the Planning Board is considering amending the Master Plan. Later, when there is an actual project’s site plan and construction permits being reviewed, then the BOE will participate in the process to create the Developer’s Agreement. In that Developer’s Agreement, all the parties – Valley, the Village, the BOE, the neighbors, the County (I presume, due to the adjacent roads) and other major stakeholders will hammer out requirements, standards and expectations with regard to construction activity. I expect the BOE to play an active role in the process as a strong advocate on behalf of our students. I expect to be firm in our requirements and to participate fully and completely every step of the way, from the initial development of the Agreement through enforcement over the life of the project. That is the correct and most effective time, in my opinion, for BOE involvement.

I realize this is in direct opposition to what some parents/neighbors believe, but I do not believe it is right for the Board of Education to try and influence the Planning Board’s decision regarding the Master Plan. What does this mean? It does not mean I don’t care about children. It does not mean I’m stupid or irresponsible or naïve. It simply means that we disagree. Reasonable people can do that, you know? I am a firm believer that two people, when presented with the same information, can come to different conclusions.

This explanation isn’t going to please most of the people who emailed Board members last week. Maybe some of them will understand. All of them will have received Board President Michele Lenhard’s response on behalf of the Board. (According to our bylaws the Board president responds on the group’s behalf.) But for those who are able to listen, even to information you don’t like, thanks for reading.

Budget resolved. Now on to making it work.

Last night the Village Council voted to reduce the schools' tax levy by $100,000. This was based on the Board of Education's suggestion. (Well, after we suggested that they cut nothing, and it didn't sound like that idea was going anywhere.) Board President Michele Lenhard said last night that $100,000 could be trimmed from the transportation line on the budget. This means no further staff cuts...no cuts of librarians...no cut of 5th grade music...no cut of Learning Disabled Teachers...and those other things that were on the potential cut list.

Where did this $100,000 come from? When the District created the budget, they included an estimate for transportation, based on an educated "guess" (and historical trends) as to how much bus rates are going to go up. Bus rate increases must be approved by the state, and the state doesn't give the rate increase until after our budget vote. (Just another state practice that makes no sense.) So our budget included an increase of 5% in bus charges. Then, late last week, the state finally approved the new bus rate increase, and it's 0%. Revising our transportation line in the budget resulted in about $100,000 savings. This is what was offered to the VC as a way they could (symbolically, some would argue) cut the budget without affecting jobs.

Finally the District can get to work finalizing staff changes and reorganizing departments to cope with all the changes brought about by our staff cuts. It's going to take a lot of work to combine some supervisor jobs, fill holes from retirements, and figure out how remaining staff are going to pick up the tasks and responsibilities left when positions were eliminated.

Also at last night's meeting, the Board agreed to conditionally give our support to New Jersey's Race to The Top grant application. There is so much that is vague in the state's plan, and we are being rushed to sign on without answers to a lot of questions and with many things that will require legislative changes which may or may not occur. We decided that we want Ridgewood to be part of the conversation...to be part of the solutions in improving education in New Jersey...so we will yes with many conditions -- primarily 1) we will not participate if the costs to implement exceed the grant money Ridgewood would receive; and 2) we reserve the right to withdraw if the program is not making sense for Ridgewood.

Other business last night: The Board approved several staff changes, including the retirements of several long-time staff members, including: Elizabeth Bennett (3rd grade Travell, 16 years), Diane Callaghan (secretary, 22 years), Karen Fisher (2nd grade Travell, 37 years), Carol Savitscus (3rd grade Travell, 16 years) and Garland Allen (Director of Wellness, 11 years).

And, finally, the Board approved the Parent Survey, scheduled to take place by around June 1. (More info on that to come soon!)

BOE Letter to Village Council, making the case for no further budget cuts

Following is the letter the Board of Education sent to the Village Council last week, explaining our rationale for no further cuts to the 2010-11 budget. The Council will vote on its determination next Monday, May 17.

May 4, 2010

Dave Pfund, Mayor
Keith Killion, Deputy Mayor
Paul Aronsohn, Village Council Member
Patrick Mancuso, Village Council Member
Anne Zusy, Village Council Member
Village of Ridgewood
131 N. Maple Avenue
Ridgewood, NJ 07450

Dear Mayor Pfund and Village Council Members:

Thank you for meeting with us on April 26 to discuss the Village Council’s next steps on the Ridgewood Public Schools’ defeated budget for 2010-11. Per your request, we have carefully reviewed the budget in order to provide the Council with guidance in determining the tax levy.

As you are aware, this was a challenging budget to craft, primarily due to:
• An unprecedented 30% increase in our health insurance premium;
• An $808,000 cut to state aid this year; we covered this loss by using our surplus, which would have been used for tax relief in the 2010-11 budget;
• A cut of $2.9 million in state aid for 2010-11.

After careful consideration and keeping in mind our responsibility to the educational well being of our 5,716 students, we respectfully ask that no reduction be made to the tax levy in our proposed 2010-11 budget. We make this recommendation for the following reasons:

1. The 2010-11 budget is $1,158,311 less than the 2009-10 budget. Total operating costs are decreased in next year’s budget, and our proposed tax levy is within the allowable 4% cap.

2. We made unparalleled cuts to next year’s budget totaling $6.3 million. In total we cut 30 aides, 22 teachers, 6 administrators and 5 other non-instructional positions. In addition, we significantly reduced capital projects, supplies and professional development expenses. This follows $2.5 million in cuts to the current year’s budget in both staffing and non-personnel expenses.

3. Much of our budget consists of state mandated costs. School district governance and operations are highly regulated by the New Jersey education code and over 215 pages of regulations. Many of these laws and regulations cost the district money, as do mandated activities that require expenses for professionals such as lawyers, auditors and architects.

A myriad of reports must be written and submitted to the state for their approval: five-year capital project plan, a technology plan, a staff development plan, an EEO plan, and a Quality Assurance Plan with measurable goals for each school. Each report requires staff time and expense to draft, complete and implement.

The state mandates that we provide instruction in the core curriculum content areas for our K-8 students and that our high school students meet graduation requirements in English, Math, Science, Social Studies, Finance, the Arts, Foreign Language, Health, and Physical Education. We do not have the latitude to cut teachers providing the required curriculum and instructional programs. The budget includes $201,891 for new textbooks.

The state requires that the district pay dues to New Jersey School Boards Association. This cost is $28,000 next year and is not negotiable.

We are required by the state to provide busing for students who live certain distances from their schools. The state also requires that we provide payments to parents for transporting their children to non-public schools, such as parochial schools or Bergen County Academies. Furthermore, we transport our special education students attending in-district and out-of-district placements. In total we spend $2,996,545 busing our students. This year, we will use one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) money to purchase three buses that our coaches will drive for sports events, reducing transportation expenses by $25,000 for 2010-11.

Special Education is a Federal and state mandated program. The cost budgeted for special education next year is $16,552,654, to serve the 14% of our students who are classified and who require specialized programs and therapies. In the last five years the number of students with autism has more than doubled and we had an increase of 11 autistic children this year. A student with autism can cost the district anywhere from $80,000 to $120,000 a year depending on the severity of the disability and the placement. Each year 80 to 85 students require out-of district special education placements, and we are responsible for their tuition and in some cases residential costs. Tuition costs — set by the state and non-negotiable — for these out-of-district students will increase by 13.01% next year, far above the 4% cap. Our budgeted tuition line also includes the cost of sending 32 students to the Bergen Academy in Hackensack. The per pupil cost is $24,000, part funded through state and county revenues and part funded by tuition costs of $8,000 per student assessed to Ridgewood.

4. Seventy-five percent of the budget funds salaries and benefits. Next year our Central Office administrators (superintendent, business administrator, assistant superintendent, and HR director) will receive no salary increase for the second year in a row, and our non-affiliated staff will receive no increase for the first time (saving a total of $145,000). They all will also contribute 1.5% of their salary for health insurance coverage. Next year our school principals and supervisors will begin to contribute 1.5% of salary for their health benefits. Our teachers and secretaries already contribute 5% or 5.25% of premium costs for their family health benefits.

As you know, the Board has legally-binding contracts with our employee bargaining units. We requested concessions from our largest unit (teachers) three times, finally achieving an agreement with their leadership that included concessions in salaries and benefits and restoration of specific teaching positions. This agreement was rejected by the unit’s rank-and-file membership.

5. Privatizing services and controlling costs saves the district money. Before it was popular, we privatized custodial and maintenance services and saw millions of dollars of savings. Most recently, last year we privatized our field maintenance and landscaping for savings of $335,000. Our Food Services operate at no cost to the district. We join with a consortium of districts to bid supplies, electricity and natural gas. Careful energy management has reduced gas consumption to heat our buildings by 35%. Our new VOIP telephone system has reduced our telephone bills from $100,000 a year to $700 a month. We joined a consortium of districts to purchase our workers compensation and property, casualty and liability insurance for considerable savings. In spite of new charges for services such as sewage and garbage/recycling (totaling $97,000), we continue to reduce costs for many services.

6. Staffing has grown 0% while enrollment has increased 11%. Unlike the average of districts statewide, where in the past decade staffing levels have grown faster than enrollments, Ridgewood’s 2010-11 staffing level will be equal to that of 2000-01, attesting to the “leanness” of the current organization.

7. Recent state monitoring found the Ridgewood school district to be a “high performing district.” Our district was deemed efficient and effective in all areas of operation and student achievement.

8. Excellent educational outcomes for our students. Last year our students had the second highest SAT scores in the county. Our students outscore most of the I and J districts in the state tests for grades 3 through 8 and 11. Ninety-six percent of our seniors attend college and many are accepted to highly selective colleges.

Councilmembers, over the last two years we have cut our budget to the bone (over $9 million) and firmly believe that further cuts will destabilize the district and compromise the instructional program, raising student/teacher ratios, increasing class size, and diminishing education opportunities for our students. It is our judgment that no further cuts be made to the 2010-11 budget.

Recognizing your need to look at all options, if the Village Council were to impose a reduction of the tax levy for 2010-11, the resulting cuts to our budget would likely include items which were restored due to the approval of a new health insurance contract, such as:
207,300 Librarian Staffing
36,900 Public Information Officer
92,000 Middle School Music
104,800 Middle School Assistant Principal
200,000 Elementary Instrumental Music
42,000 High School Library Reorganization
397,600 Learning Disabled Teachers
1,083,300 Total Possible Restorations

It is important to note that many of these very cuts received the most protest from parents during the budget process. Making any of these cuts would adversely affect students’ education on a daily basis, and impede our ability to communicate effectively with the community. Unfortunately, these cuts remain the next most logical cuts to make, if forced to do so by a reduced tax levy.

Our community has demonstrated, year after year, its commitment to quality schools. Based on all that we have presented in this letter, we firmly believe — and hope that the Village Council will agree — that it is in the best interest of Ridgewood, and especially its children, that no further cuts be made to the proposed 2010-11 budget.

Sincerely,

Michele Lenhard, President
Robert Hutton, Vice President
Sheila Brogan, Member
Laurie Goodman, Member
Charles V. Reilly, Member

DEP APPROVES permits for RHS Stadium & Stevens Fields renovations

I spoke too soon! There I was, earlier today, already making excuses for not receiving an answer from the DEP today on our application for a permit to renovate the RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields...and we just found out that the permits have been approved!

I don't have any further details at this time. We still need the soil moving permit from the Village Council, but for now, this is what we know.

Details to come.

BOE meets with Village Council tonight

The Board of Education will be meeting again with the Village Council tonight, regarding the 2010-11 school budget. The Board delivered our recommendation to the Village last week: our recommendation is that, for the good of our schools and our children, the current budget, a reduction from this year's budget, cannot be cut further without harm. (The full letter to the Council will be available after the meeting.)

Anyone who has an opinion about what the Village Council should do with the budget is encouraged to attend tonight's meeting and make your comments in public.

Tonight's meeting is a "work session" meeting, so no action will be taken by the Council.

The meeting will take place at 5:30 p.m. at Village Hall. (No, I do not know why the meeting was set for 5:30. My guess is that they scheduled it before our customary Board meeting at 7:30, however tonight the BOE does not have a Regular Public Meeting scheduled.)

BOE meets Monday with Village Council.

Tomorrow (Monday) the BOE will meet at 5:00 p.m. at the Ed Center, 3rd floor, for a very quick meeting to approve a staffing change and to pay some bills. Then we will adjourn and reconvene over at Village Hall with the Council. That second meeting is supposed to begin at 6:00, and the purpose will be to discuss the school district budget for 2010-11, the failure of the budget to be approved by the community, and what other information the Council needs before they can set the new tax rate.

According to the law, the Council is directed to set the tax levy. There is no presumption or direction that they must cut the levy, although the last time the budget failed, they did make a cut.

I do not know to what extent the Council will want to discuss line items of the budget or where savings might be found or why certain things cost what they do. This is my first time going through this process.

I do not know if there is opportunity for public comment in the meeting at Village Hall. I do know, however, that our abbreviated meeting at the Ed Center will include the customary two opportunities for public comment. Just in case there's anything anybody wants to say to the Board.

I also cannot tell you if the Village Council meeting is televised on Channel 77. I'm sorry, I just don't know about these things. If I find out anything more, I'll post it here.

Municipalities target their school districts: can't we all just get along?

As the budget process for both municipalities and school districts gets increasingly difficult, it seems that municipalities are turning on school districts as the target of their frustrations.

I heard a funny (and yet not funny) story yesterday from a neighboring town. It seems the mayor of said town visited a 2nd grade classroom for a "getting to know you" activity. The mayor proceeded to hold up a dollar bill and say something like, "See this dollar bill? In our town, seventy cents of this dollar pays for your school." Have 2nd graders (what are they, like 7 years old?) even learned about money and cents vs dollars, etc? Apparently the kids were perplexed and this mayor's pathetic attempt at making them feel...I'm not sure, did he want them to feel guilty? -- fell on deaf (but probably cute) little ears.

In Ridgewood, our Village Council wants to reverse the decades-old practice of picking-up our schools' garbage at no charge to the School District. Last year the Village charged the schools an unexpected $35,000 for sewer discharge. I'm scared to think what's next...and you can be sure something will be next.

It's sort of sad to find our officials turning on each other during these tough times, instead of working together.

Ridgewood News: All school news, all the time

Friday's Ridgewood News was a Board of Education newsfest, wasn't it? Is there nothing else going on in town? (OK, there were a few things about the decline of downtown...and a Valley story...and of course some great Jamboree coverage!)

Let's review the school news in Friday's (2/5/10) paper, shall we?

Page 1: Teacher could lose her tenure.
For the first time in many years, tenure charges have been filed against a Ridgewood teacher. I can agree with the quote from Manager of Human Resources Gary Hall: this was not taken lightly. The process is ongoing, so there's not much I can add to the story that was in the paper. Plus, since it's a personnel issue, I'm wary of saying something that would compromise confidentiality...A parent asked me why we didn't announce this before now, seeing as it's February and the charges were first filed in September. As I mentioned to that parent, it's true that much of this is public information, and as you know I'm always looking for ways to increase our transparency. However, it is my personal opinion that no one would be served by proactively making a big public deal out of this. The District will of course respond to questions from the media and elsewhere (and if you have further questions, I recommend you contact Dr. Fishbein directly), but for now, I can say we're following the legal steps to achieve the goal that we think is best for the students of Ridgewood.

Page 2: Residents: Vandalism indefensible.
This is the story about the guy (or gal?) who keeps cutting a hole in the fence between BF Middle School and Steilen Ave. I've got news for you, it's not just the "residents" who find this indefensible. I'm pretty sick of it. The District has repaired the fence over and over. The neighbors have confronted the alleged perpetrator. The police have been notified and presumably are "investigating." But enough already! This person is destroying others' property. And, to make it even worse, his actions are putting children in danger because, every time the hole is cut, kids use it as a shortcut to and from school, causing them to cross two driveways on private property. The adjacent neighbor is right to be frightened that someday he may hit a child who emerges from the fence into his driveway. I'd like to see the fence repaired and then a Law & Order-style sting operation...a van with surveillance equipment, late night stake out...infrared cameras...maybe that creepy Dateline reporter doing the voiceover...and then gotcha!

Page 5: No more free ride on garbage truck for district.
(I like how the newspaper has it under a kicker headline "Budget Woes," like it's a regular feature...Oh, wait, I guess it is.) So, like in many municipalities*, the Village has been picking up our schools' garbage for years, decades, no one knows how long. Now, due to their own budget woes, they want to charge us, somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000+ per year. Obviously, with the millions of dollars we already have to cut for our 2010-11 budget, we can't just absorb another $100,000 expense. So, we'll go out to bid and my prediction is we'll get much more favorable quotes elsewhere. (*Note: I'm researching which other municipalities do and don't charge to pick-up their schools' garbage. More to come...)

I truly don't understand the nonsensical quote from Village Manager Gabbert at the end of the article. He said, " the impact on Village taxpayers will be insignificant if the BOE utilizes the Village sanitation services. If the BOE uses private scavenger services, then the increased expense will be reflected in the BOE budget." Huh? Guess what Mr. Gabbert. If we use Village services or another service, either way, the increased expense will hit our budget. Thanks for your odd analysis, but we'll be shopping around for the best price.

Page 5: School tax increase set at 4% cap.
I already wrote about this the day after our last BOE meeting. Click here to read my post. I can say that I noted the newspaper's lead stated, "In a rare show of discord, the [BOE] voted 3-2 on Monday to keep next year's budget'at cap.'" It's true that the public doesn't often see Board of Ed members disagree. I've said in the past that I think we should disagree a little more in public, if just to boost our credibility. So, I think it was good. The fact is, this budget situation is ugly and painful and it's not going to be easy, no matter what. None of us -- not newbies like me and not veterans like Mrs. Brogan -- has been in this situation before. The dire circumstances and the high stakes are bound to put us at odds again, as we work through the process.

Whew...time to put last week's paper to bed and move forward. Tomorrow I've got some news from Trenton. For now...It's a new week! It's the week before February break! Onward!

Dubious requirements for public office in Ridgewood

I think it's hilarious that in a recent Ridgewood Patch.com story about running for the Council or BOE, they say that Village Council candidates need 165 signatures, must demonstrate "moral turpitude" and must disclose past convictions. For the BOE the only requirement is 10 signatures and we must be able to read and write!

Which is worse -- "moral turpitude" (defined as "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals" -- is that really what Village Council members need?)...or the idea that BOE candidates can't possibly find 155 more supporters? (And I guess BOE candidates don't need to report convictions? hahaha)

Just a little smile to balance the gloomy budget talk. Have a good day.

Village is getting more $$ from County to help pay for Schedler property

Just read this good news on the Bergen Record website: Ridgewood will receive an additional $600,000 grant from Bergen County to purchase the 7-acre Schedler property, bringing the total grant aid to $1.6 million. The remaining $1.1 million will be funded through bonding.

The property, assessed at $2,598,000, is located on the east side of Route 17 and runs parallel to West Saddle River Road. Mayor David Pfund said earlier this year that the village anticipates preserving the property as open space, including (in a plan I saw) a park with fields, jogging path, benches and bathrooms.

Village Council meeting: Well, that was awkward

Members of the Board of Ed, along with Dr. Fishbein and Angelo DeSimone, Business Administrator, attended last night's meeting of the Village Council. Our purpose was to inform the Council about the upcoming Bond Referendum vote on Dec. 8. (Normally we invite the Council to attend a Board meeting for this presentation, but this year they declined. Everyone's busy this time of year and adding another meeting can be problematic. I'm assuming that was the reason. But we really wanted our Village leadership to be informed about the facts of this important issue, so we traveled to their fancy Village Hall digs.)

Anyway, Dr. Fishbein raced through his powerpoint in order to finish within our allotted 15 minutes. Council members asked what have definitely become "frequently asked questions:" 1) Why now? 2) Have you looked at alternatives? 3) Why not re-open Glen School? 4) How did the schools get into this shape? (Click on each of those questions to read my previous thoughts on these topics.) And that was it. Oh, yeah, Councilwoman Zusy thought it would be helpful to have the Village Clerk remind everyone about how the Village's budget was going to increase our taxes this year, too. That was helpful.

We stayed around for the fireworks when the Chamber of Commerce president and other representatives complained about the Village Council's actions on raising fees (parking, sewer, dumpster, health dept, sidewalk, etc.), in light of the terrible business climate in town and 35-40 businesses closed. It was so unpleasant and emotional and frustrating for everyone in the audience, at one point Councilman Mancuso commented that he could tell that the BOE members present were glad we ran for the Board of Ed and not the Council. Right you are, Pat!

People were shouting (on both sides of the lecturn). There were personal attacks. Most of us BOE members left after that. (Awkward!) Needless to say, I'll definitely hit my local Ridgewood stores when running errands today!