Courtesy Busing Changes

[James_Obrien]

The cut to courtesy busing by the BOE administration is another form of a ponzi scheme.
Here is my understanding, the administrations cuts $200,000.00 thousand dollars from their budget by eliminating courtesy busing. State law requires the municipality to provide crossing guards for the safety and welfare of the children. The Police Chief estimates the cost for crossing guards to be over $800,000.00 thousand.

Who is going to foot the bill? The taxpayers. The only solution is for the Council to reinstate the cost of the courtesy busing because it the cheaper way. So once again the administration passes the buck and didn't make the tuff cuts that wouldn't hurt the children and help the taxpayers pockets.

Rob are you kidding? Ponzi scheme?


Mr. Sanasac made it clear at one of the meeting that cutting courtesy bussing was not a saving to taxpayers. Only a savings to the Boards budget. This was no secret.

However the first thing that the county or State will look at when it comes your failed budget is Courtesy busing. If you have they will direct you to cut it

The council new where the cuts were coming from. If they wanted to be part of the solution they could have asked the Board to continue to absorb this cost and reduced the number they cut the budget by o help. But they were more interested in pleasing the taxpayers with a big number then they were with being fiscally responsible.

[Jeanette_Smith]

The Police Chief estimates the cost for crossing guards to be over $800,000.00 thousand.

Rob . . . just a question, why would it be so expensive? By my calculations if the rate of pay was approximately $10/hr (high I know but its government work) that would mean they were looking at hiring 115+/- crossing guards or 1 crossing guard for every 5 walking students. Does that make sense?

[Phil_Sanfilippo]

Ok folks,
          It looks like the silly season is in full swing. I grew up in the one of the toughest cities in the country Newark New Jersey in the 60's. No busing. My mother took us to school. In those days we had patrol guards who were usually in the 8th grade who wore a white patrol belt and were positioned at the corners to cross the kids who walked across the street. In all my years we never had an incident. I believe time people were more considerate back than. I am all for crossing guards and have expressed my opinions to the board however I believe before we go on a tangant and try to get back to 100% busing  by using high off the wall costs for crossing guards perhaps the board should take a deep breath. I agree that today many nuts are out there on the street and folks drive like they are in a Indy race, however one thing is certain if cost are not reduced we will all be in for a ride ride and not on a bus but on a ride to the poor house. If administration and the union is that concerned than perhaps they should share in the sacrifice and look at alternative ways to fund safety busing not at the taxpayer expense, perhaps a pay as you go like they want to do with sports they can start by contributing more to health care, pension, salary freezes.
                                my opinion
                                phil

[Rob_Nicastro]

   
Jamie, Hope all is well. No, I'm not kidding. Your recollection and mine are different as is our opinions on this particular subject. Everyone is entitled to there opinion and come to there conclusions. We should leave it at that. Be well.

Jeanette, I also wondered about that dollar figure, but that’s what was reported at the Council meeting. Hopefully, we can get a better understanding of the study that was conducted to get to that figure.

Jack, First, I appreciate the dialog that this forum creates on important issues such as this. In making my previous comment, I was not professing to have all the answers. What I do have is the willingness, as many concerned parents and taxpayers do to ask the hard questions and offer logical and sometimes innovative suggestions to the board and administration. In fairness to the board and administration, some questions have been answered and some suggestions have been implemented.

We must by Constitution provide a Thorough and Efficient education. We have 6900 students enrolled and over 800 employees. The last time our enrollments were at this level was about 1996 according to State data. At that time we had approximately 100 fewer educators and fewer administrators. Staff levels increase, while enrollment level decrease.

The district operates the central administrative office of 4 top administrators with over 25 support staff. Do we really need that many staff or can we effectively perform the same functions with less? I don’t think cuts in this area will significantly affect the children yet can produce a savings to the district that will carry forward year to year. We cut and consolidated busing routes and cut courtesy busing yet still have a transportation supervisor and an assistant transportation supervisor. Why do we need both? I don't want to single out individuals, but there are still positions that wouldn't have a direct impact on the children.

We must now question every expenditure including whether we need to pay salaries for top administrators at the level we do or weather we need more administrator’s positions than are required by law? We can no longer accept statements like these are comparable salaries to other towns within the area. I submit that the reason we have "home rule" is so we don't have to be like other towns. We can be uniquely Howell Township, educating our children according not only to State mandates but also our priorities consistent with our community ability to pay.

I did not intend to make this topic go off course of courtesy busing issue. Many have opinions and different views. Mine is just another and I thank you for the opportunity to share it. We all have a stake in this and have to work together toward solving these tough economic challenges.

[Al_Miller]

It looks like the BOE will be approving a Resolution the Town Council made to restore Courtesy Bussing at its 7/21 BOE Meeting.

[James_Obrien]

Rob,

If you know this to be different please share it. But I was at the meeting when Ron pointed this out.

Al,

Thanks for sharing. Looks like wiser heads prevailed. I guess it's not as cheap to walk as people thi

[Gene_Tanala]

To all:

There is a "Special" BOE meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 21, at MSN to discuss the Extra and co curricular pay to play options and discuss Courtesy Busing. 

Respectfully,

Gene Tanala

[Phil_Sanfilippo]

Gene,
       I don't get it. Where is the money coming from and why has it come down to this when we all know full well what the fall out was going to be.
                                                             phil

[Jack_Giannattasio]

Gene,

That's great - is the meeting at the usual time (7pm?)

Rob,

I appreciate your answers - I agree with much of what of said, unfortunately, when it comes to logic and public policy  - it might as well be oil and water. A big part of the reason there are more staff and administration for less students are state and federal mandates (most of which are underfunded or unfunded).  I'm glad you acknowledge the concessions made by the staff and that you appreciate the complexity of the issue. 

No one ever wants to have this conversation, but the crux of the issue is the disastrous Abbott decision by the NJ Supreme Court. 

Currently Howell spends in the neighborhood of $12k per student - almost all of which comes from the local taxpayer  - you and me - property taxes. 

Currently Asbury Park spends in the neighborhood of $24k per student - almost all of which comes from the state - you and me - income and sales tax. 

The system as currently constituted is inherently unfair to suburban schools, but as I said, no one wants to have that conversation, lest they be labeled uncaring or racist.  Local property taxes have exponentially increased since the advent of this legislation, as less and less state monies are available for suburban districts.  Can cuts be made? - of course; is there waste? - sure.  Will making these cuts, and eliminating waste cause our property taxes to decrease - does anybody really believe that?  Until schools are funded in an equitable manner through an equitable tax, the situation is only going to get worse. 

[James_Obrien]

Jack,

I don't think it has anything to do with people not wanting to have this conversation. It all comes down to the State Senate and the fact that a majority of our State Senators represent Abbot Districts. Plain and simple it's all about votes and staying in office.

[Jack_Giannattasio]

Actually, it has very little to do with state senators.  This was a Supreme Court Decision, not legislation passed by the Assembly. 

This is the same Supreme Court that gave us COAH and most recently, the directive that police must speak to individuals they pull over in their native language, or a translator must be obtained (that decision will sure help keep property taxes down, huh - can you imagine the cost of obtaining a translator on a regular basis - this is precisely the type of unfunded mandate of which I speak, albeit in the realm of the municipal government). 

By all means, the politicians are exacerbating the situation by refusing to move school funding from local property taxes to a more equitable tax (sales / income), however, the path that led us to where we are now was, most certainly, paved by the disastrous Abbott decision.

[James_Obrien]

The courts may have made the decision, however it remains in place for just the reason you stated. Taxes, and the district the house the Abbott's also house the control of the State Senators.

They will never risk the votes by having their voting block pay their share of taxes!

[Rob_Nicastro]

The funding system is flawed. The courts are too liberal and Abbott districts are an unjust, most will agree, but numbers such as these are unsustainable as we are now seeing.

NEW JERSEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FACT SHEET

Total Number of School Districts 2009-10   605
   
Mean Salaries** (2008-09)   
 
      Administrators and Supervisors   $112,565
 
      Classroom Teachers   $57,465
 
      Educational Support Services   $70,296
 
      District Superintendents   $158,400
 
      Principals   $113,769

      Abbot Districts 31

[Jackie Everitt]

What's wrong with this picture - The ones who directly shape our Children's lives are at the bottom of the pay scale - Those figures show just how wrong our system is.

[Thomas Jennings Jr.]

I agree with mr. G here....the money we lose is hand over fist on the abbott districts. They spend foolishly because its not their money. Those are schools they should experiment with privatization with. I feel many suburban districts in our area are mostly responsible...but in abbott districts they get away with a lot. They are just happy when their kids show up to school. No kidding.

Someone needs to bring this conversation up.