Letter to the Board of Education, the Superintendent and local newspapers about criteria for the next bond referendum.
December 20, 2005
Members of the Millburn Board of Education
and Dr. Richard L. Brodow, Superintendent
Millburn Township Public Schools
434 Millburn Avenue
Millburn, New Jersey 07041
Dear Members of the Board and Dr. Brodow:
It has now been roughly one week since the defeat of the bond referendum. We have received many questions from residents over the past several days regarding what is next and what is being done to move forward. In this letter we set forth some suggestions that we urge the Board of Education to consider now and in the future.
Overall, we hear and want to believe that the Board and administration are working together on contingency/alternative plans. In a letter dated December 16, 2005 to the PTO presidents, our school superintendent, Richard Brodow, said that he is ". . . confident that people will now put aside the past and unite so that [the administration and Board] can quickly present the public with a revised plan that will gain public support."
WeLoveMillburn agrees with the sentiment that it is time to put the acrimony behind us and to begin looking forward. We anxiously await new proposals, and we have formulated criteria that we will use to evaluate the Board's proposals. The end goal is to have new plans that will be ready at the originally anticipated completion time for the previous construction plan.
As you know, one mission of WeLoveMillburn is to communicate constructively to our local government officials regarding issues of public policy, and to disseminate information regarding those issues to the citizens of Millburn. Consistent with that mission, and to maximize the likelihood that citizens will be supportive of the next proposal, what follows are the criteria we will use to evaluate the Board's forthcoming proposal regarding facilities needs:
- Timing: We would like to see the Board make every effort to deliver proposals in time to allow any work on the facilities to be completed by the same completion date as the $40+ million construction plan that was just defeated. The Board can act expeditiously, while taking the time it needs to prepare thoughtful and supportable proposals. The Board should take the necessary time to fully analyze the issues and provide well thought out proposals and not be rushed by any artificial deadlines or any perceived political pressures.
- Content of proposal: We suggest that the Board's new proposals contain only such spending as is absolutely necessary to satisfy the facilities needs of the school district based on reliable, evidence-based projections of student enrollment. The proposals should omit all spending which is not absolutely necessary to house reasonably expected increases in student enrollment and to maintain the appropriate academic standards.
- Alternatives: Regarding the proposals, we ask that the Board follow a creative and thoughtful assessment of all available alternatives. Such an assessment should take a holistic view of all educational facilities in the township. These alternatives should include a full analysis of costs which should be presented to the public. The Board should explain clearly why the proposal it is recommending is superior to the other alternatives.
- Architect: We would like to see the Board open up for competitive bidding the job of designing whatever new plans are proposed to multiple bidders. In addition, the Board should hire an independent architect in an advisory capacity to evaluate the bids, and also to act as a consultant in supervising the architect that is selected to design whatever plans are proposed. Both the design architect and the advisory architect should be paid on a negotiated basis, preferably at a flat fee. We strongly feel that the architect should not be paid based on a percentage of the total construction cost.
- Disruption: We ask the Board to ensure that any work to be done on school facilities minimizes disruption to students at all the schools.
- Allocation of needs at MHS and MMS: We would like the Board to address the needs of both schools, rather than emphasizing the needs of one school over the other.
- Renovations: Our group suggests that the proposals take into account the need for significant renovation at each of the school facilities.
- Communication with public: The proposals should be communicated to the public at a time in the process when feedback from the public can be constructive. Communication to the public should be clear and with sufficient detail to allow for meaningful evaluation by members of the public. All information regarding any proposals should be available on a timely basis on the Board's web site.
- Guidelines for fair and equitable treatment/access to information and the resources of the school system: We would ask the Board to create a process for the development of a protocol governing bond referenda. We would be in favor of a more conservative interpretation of statutes and regulations governing bond referenda and consider surpassing such standards consistent with community ideals. The Board should build in to its proposals time to discuss such guidelines at one or more public meetings. Perhaps the Board can form a special committee of the Board to make recommendations for such guidelines.
WeLoveMillburn looks forward to proposals from the Board that satisfy these criteria. If such proposals are provided and fully meet our expectations, we would be prepared to work to gain public support for the new plan.
We would be happy to discuss these proposals at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board if that can be included in the time frame so the public can share in this.
Very truly yours,
Board of Directors, WeLoveMillburn
info@WeLoveMillburn.com
|
