No Surrender

Well, we busted out of class
Had to get away from those fools
We learned more from a 3-minute record, baby
Than we ever learned in school

As most people who know me (and as you can tell from the titles of my blog posts), I am a huge Bruce Springsteen fan. However, many people don't realize that part of the genesis of this is the fact that we both grew up in same town and graduated from the same High School (although a number of years apart). Having had a few common teachers in High School, the reputation Bruce Springsteen left behind in school as being a complete slacker and a disruptive force in the classroom is far cry from the man we all know today. On the other hand, I was a rather serious student in school and was glad to have been in all honors classes, finishing #11 in my graduating class of over 220 students. So, as much as I admire Bruce Springsteen today for his philanthropy, his inspirational writing, his values and all he has accomplished, I have to say I am glad we were not in the same classes.

The point is that different people have different needs in school. These differences require varying educational techniques to maximize their academic potential and to motivate students to learn. While Bruce Springsteen has gone on to unimaginable fame & success, he clearly would have struggled with advanced classes in school.

On the other hand, I recall a time when I was accidentally placed in a "College Prep" English class instead of "Honors" and was quickly bored, as well as distracted by the shorter attention spans of my classmates. I was looking for a challenge, yet my classmates needed more attention to get past elements that I found to be more rudimentary. My personal experience is a prime reason why levels in schools have been created and are important to be continued. This is further supported by a study entitled "Detracking America's Schools - Equity at Zero Cost? " (Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v. 15, no. 4, Fall 1996, pp. 623-645 L. M. Argys, D. I. Rees, Dominic J. Brewer ). In this study, the main conclusion was "abolishing tracking in America's schools would have a large positive impact on achievement for students currently in the lower tracks, but that this increase in achievement would come at the expense of students in upper-track classes."

I have great respect for Superintendent Osborne and the members of the Board of Ed, for the time they devote to our community and for the intelligence and good intentions I know they bring to their roles. I fully realize their desire to provide excellence for all students. However, different students need differentiated instruction and trying to combine these students in a single classroom will inevitably result in the teacher teaching to the lowest common denominator, depriving the highest achieving students of being challenged to their full potential.

Let's address the elephant in the room - This is not and should not be about race. There are high achieving students of all races and everyone should be given an opportunity to reach their full potential. However, the changes being proposed in our school district would require significant investments in Professional Development and take a long time to properly implement. I am disappointed that this proposal surfaced this past week and is targeted to be implemented in the upcoming school year, yet during 4 months of budget discussions, increases in spending for Professional Development to address this gap were never mentioned.

I urge the Superintendent and Board of Education to re-evaluate and reject the proposal being discussed and engage the community in a dialog on how best to improve our school district. The current plan sounds like simply the surrender of our highest achieving students in an unproven experiment for which our community will be paying the price for years to come.

Long Walk Home

Tonight was the annual Board of School Estimate vote on the school budget. For those who do not know, South Orange/Maplewood are quite unique by the nature of the joint school district and as a result the school budget is not voted on directly the the residents, but by a "Board of School Estimate", which consists of three elected officials from South Orange, three elected officials from Maplewood and two members of the Board of Education. This year the budget passed unanimously 8-0.

This was my 3rd budget and certainly the most difficult, largely the result of a MASSIVE cut to State Aid by Governor Christie. As a result of the cut, very difficult choices were made by the Administration and Board of Ed to propose a budget with a 3.23% increase in South Orange. Further compounding an increase beyond the original target and beyond the rate of inflation was the fact that this budget delayed the implementation of a technology lab in the Middle School and results in the outsourcing of paraprofessional staff. Certainly any budget that directly impacts people is painful and difficult for everyone involved and not something that anyone relishes. Having been the victim of the budget axe firsthand, I know exactly how it feels. I know it is a minor consolation, but the staff that are being outsourced will be offered a job with the outsourced agency (albeit without health care benefits) and will be reassigned to the District if they so choose.

This is an incredibly frustrating situation all around and the anger can and should be best directed at Trenton for putting the district in a no-win situation. The Superintendent and Board of Ed should be commended for doing the best they could with the limited resources they were provided by the Governor. All School Districts in NJ are dealing with this new harsh reality and in the end I think the decisions that were made were an attempt to minimize the impact on education for the majority of our students. I just now hope that the Teachers Union accepts the zero percent salary increase that was built into this budget, so further cuts are not needed.

Loose Change

It's the peak of Budget season again and there is good news and bad news. The good news is that a tax increase that was once projected at around 29% has been whittled down to "only" 6.8% (so far) at our last Budget Workshop on March 15 without any major cuts. The reduction was mostly due to a recognition of surplus, projected revenue from the new Sterling Properties project and a better than expected tax collection rate.

The bad news is that we learned this week that the new Governor has radically cut State Aid to Municipalities, resulting in an additional cut over of over $400,000, which would theoretically bring the tax increase back up to almost 9%. (To add insult to injury, the Governor also cut state aid to the school district by over 80%, or $5.3M!)

Clearly a 9% Municipal increase is unacceptable under any circumstances (and even more so in this economy).

After a review of all departments, now we are starting to discuss opportunities to reduce costs or increase revenue. At the last Budget Meeting a number of increases to "user fees" were discussed and agreed to. Specifically:

• Increase the cost of Use Permits to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of zoning approvals to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of street opening permits to $138 (from $100)
• Increase the cost of a code reinspection to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of white metal pickup to $75 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of toter delivery to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of mulch/woodchip delivery to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost for household bulk pickup to $75 (from $0)

While nobody ever wants costs to rise, it seems only fair to raise the fee for services that are used by those individuals. In addition, many of these services would still likely cost the same (or even more) if contracted for privately.

In the end, these fees add up over the course of a year and should be borne by the people who use these services. We still have a ways to go to refine and reduce the budget further, but the process is underway and we are continuing to try to find creative solutions to our very difficult tax burden.

Let's Be Friends

It's another new year, which brings a new budget cycle to work through. Already, there has been alot of talk about comments made by Township Committee Member Fred Profeta in Maplewood during their Budget Workshop this past weekend. I commend Mr. Profeta on his willingness to make bold proposals and try to "take on some sacred cows and not worry about the political consequences".

The part of his remarks that seems to have gotten the most attention is his suggestion for increased Shared Services with those of us in South Orange. Mr. Profeta is no stranger to promoting Shared Services as he was actively involved in the effort to pass a referendum in November 2006 to create a joint municipal consolidation study commission between South Orange and Maplewood. At that time, the referendum passed overwhelmingly in South Orange, but was defeated in Maplewood. There are many theories why the effort failed in Maplewood, but many have suggested it was largely due to a concerted campaign by some Maplewood residents promoting "Keep Maplewood Maplewood".

In any event, Mr. Profeta and (many, if not all of) his colleagues on the Township Committee new seem to be in agreement in principal with South Orange that Sharing Services between two relatively small municipalities is a good idea. While any sharing of services certainly has the potential to bring cost savings through headcount reduction, it is not always a guarantee and as such, proper analysis needs to occur. It's also important to realize that reductions (or even suggested reductions) in staff greatly impact the employees and their families. It's imperative that we are sensitive to how these ideas are reported to ensure that the process is fair and that we (and the media) are clear about where we are in the process, being careful to distinguish between "ideas" and "real negotiations".

I certainly don't fault Mr. Profeta at all, as I think he was very clear in saying "None of the details have been analyzed or worked out." I just wish the media and public had realized that and not been so quick to assume these ideas are all a "done deal".

Obviously, this is not to suggest that these ideas won't or shouldn't be explored in greater detail. With the insane tax burden we already carry, we have to continue to look at all options to increase efficiency. I'm just glad that we now have willing partners in Maplewood that are serious about working together with us.

Into the Fire

At the BOT Meeting last night, we had a brief discussion about the SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response) Grant which provides temporary funding for paid firefighters as well as funding to recruit and retain Volunteer firefighters. With the enormous budget challenges we face, we are not in the position to discuss increases to paid staff, however it was an intriguing idea to utilize a grant to acquire Volunteer resources until we unfortunately discovered that this grant could only be utilized to recruit Volunteers if you have a currently existing Volunteer Fire Department (or Combination Fire Department, which consists of both paid and volunteer firefighters).

However, this prompted some research to see what other communities are doing and it was fascinating to learn that in the 22 Municipalities of Essex County, roughly half have ALL paid firefighters and roughly half have ALL Volunteer fire departments. There were also some municipalities, like Millburn and Bloomfield that have BOTH Volunteers and Paid Firefighters, which are commonly referred to as "Combination" Fire Departments.

Looking further at the entire State of NJ, it was shocking to see that fewer than only 50 municipalities (out of 566) have fully paid fire departments as of 2007! The common misconception is that Volunteer firefighters only exist in the smallest, most rural parts of the state. However, it was very interesting to to see that Volunteer or Combination Fire Departments, exist in all corners of the State, including the most densely populated such as Bergen, Essex, Union, Middlesex and even Hudson Counties.

Everyone acknowledges the tremendous work and bravery of our firemen and women and nobody is suggesting that we should eliminate them and replace them with volunteers. However, our firefighters frequently bring to our attention their requests for additional personnel and from what can be seen from other similar municipalities, a paid fire department supplemented with properly trained volunteers is a sustainable model to protect the community while keeping a control on out of control taxes.

Clearly, further discussions still need to be had to determine the official policy of the Board and there is still more analysis and research that is needed to fully develop a plan to implement this migration. However, the time has come to pursue this seriously for the benefit of the entire community - taxpayers and employees, alike.

As always, I welcome your thoughts. (and certainly would love to hear from anyone who is a current or former Firefighter, or anyone who has any interest in Volunteering to be a Firefighter)

My City of Ruins*

With the 2009 Budget now behind us (resulting in a 3.9% municipal tax increase), we are now beginning conversations around the 2010 Capital Budget.

First on the Agenda - discussing whether to allocate funding for the rehabilitation of Village Hall. Anyone who has driven past the building is struck by its unique character and incredibly interesting architecture. However, anyone who has observed it up close has seen the rampant deterioration of the exterior and the years of neglected maintenance throughout the interior. The time is long overdue to do something.

Over the past year or so, HMR Architects have been working on a "Programmatic Analysis for the Interior Renovation and Rehabilitation" of Village Hall. According to a draft, "This report analyzes the feasibility of improved accommodation of specific user groups by quantifying their needs and developing realistic design schemes which could be accomplished through a substantial renovation of the existing building. This report also addresses the physical limitations of the existing envelope and structure."

Last night, during the Budget Workshop, they shared some initial assessments and estimates for the rehabilitation of the building, including an approximate cost of nearly $4M (although I can only imagine that with the unknowns involved until construction begins, the risk of significant cost overruns is huge). They also estimate that construction of a NEW building of a comparable size could cost anywhere from $3.6M-$7.2M.

While I am well aware that Village Hall has become one of many prominent symbols of South Orange, I can't help but wonder if it makes sense to rehabilitate an old building or whether it makes more sense to construct a new modern building on another site in town. Clearly, there are rational, as well as emotional arguments on both sides of the equation. Certainly, the long-overdue rehabilitation of the Firehouse, which took SEVEN years, looms large as a poster-child for everything that CAN go wrong with such a complicated project. There are also the logistics of temporarily relocating all Village Hall staff and services to some other location for up to two years if/when the building is rehabilitated. Of course, the other side of the story is about the history, charm and character of the building. However, the only option NOT available is to continue the current neglect and further deterioration of the building.

This is a very complex issue that will have a significant impact on the residents of the Village for several years, both financially, as well as logistically. Therefore, I really want to hear what YOU think. Post a comment to this blog, or send me an email to mgoldberg@southorange.org. I expect you will be hearing much more about this in the coming months.

* Blog title is based on a Bruce Springsteen song of the same name, which speaks of the "rising up" of Asbury Park. It is not intended to suggest anything negative about the Village.

Across the Border

Just returned from our annual family Summer vacation- this year's destination was Montreal and Quebec City - and wanted to share some impressions.

We were scheduled to leave NJ on August 24, and the week before we were leaving, I discovered my wife's passport was expired! After calling the Passport office, I was told that I would have to make an appointment in NYC, but the next available appointment was August 28. Alternatively, I could go to the office in Norwalk, CT on August 25. I was preparing to delay our trip, when my wife called the Border & Customs office and learned that an expired passport is sufficient. I was a little skeptical, but decided to take the chance which turned out to be the right choice and we had no problems at the border in either direction.

Once we arrived in Montreal, we had a few items planned, but mostly we were just there to explore the city. The highlights of Montreal included: jet boating on the St. Lawrence River, a family bike ride along the Lachine Canal, visiting the Olympic Stadium/Biodome and hiking to the top of Mont Royal.

All in all, we enjoyed Montreal and were surprised what a large city it actually was. We did a ton of walking and even got to brush off my years of French to try to speak to the locals.

From there, we drove another 3 hours and arrived in Quebec City for a few days. We didn't have much planned other than wondering around the old city and fortunately the weather generally cooperated. One day, we decided to explore outside the city and drove up to Canyon St.Anne which is a huge waterfall with a terrifying pedestrian bridge across the gorge. From there, we drove around Ile D'Orleans which is a tranquil little island with quaint little towns and amazing natural scenery.

It was a nice trip with a mix of city, country, old, new, culture, adventure and relaxation which is always the right combination for a successful family vacation. Now it's time to start thinking about where to go NEXT year! :)