Opportunity Lost on a Divided Community
Dear editor:
In a September 29 editorial, "Ask
the Experts," the
Item described as "unfair" a list of questions
sent on September 20 to the Millburn Board of Education
("BOE") regarding the proposed $40.2 million
school construction bond. Because I authored several
of these questions, I voice my strong disagreement
with the Item’s opinion.
First, it is wrong to
suggest that asking these questions was "unfair." A
member of the BOE requested
that questions be submitted to the Superintendent,
which the Item reported on September 22 — a week
before the editorial.
Second, asking government officials
about expenditures is never "unfair". It
is our right as Americans. The Item, as a member of
the press, should support
that right and, more importantly, to receive meaningful
answers.
The Item's editorial argues that answering
the questions would take an "unreasonable amount
of time to research" and that "much of
the questioning that continues to linger in the air
was already addressed months ago by the schools." These
statements are wrong.
As the editorial recognizes, these
questions go to the heart of the BOE's alleged justifications
for the referendum. They address only five subject
areas: 1) prior BOE proposals, 2) alternatives, 3)
tax impact, 4) optional upgrades, and 5) enrollment
projections. Shouldn't the BOE already have researched
these issues? If not, then the BOE should take the
additional time it needs to do its research.
These questions
were not adequately addressed months ago. The Superintendent’s
January 18, 2005 powerpoint presentation and his July
20, 2005 newsletter are the
only documents available on the BOE website addressing
why the BOE rejected various alternatives to the proposed
bond. I also have read numerous non-public documents
obtained through records requests. These documents
simply do not contain in-depth reasoning explaining
why various alternatives were rejected. In effect,
the BOE appears to be saying to voters, “trust
me on this one."
Some claim the BOE explained why
it rejected various alternatives orally at public meetings.
Such purported,
oral and unrecorded explanations — assuming they
occurred at all — cannot justify spending $40.2
million or refusing to explain rejection of alternatives.
More
than 12,000 registered voters reside in Millburn, 99%
of whom did not attend these alleged meetings. These
voters deserve an explanation.
Moreover, none of these
purported meetings occurred when the unavailability
of State aid was known. As
it now turns out, the proposed construction discussed
at these meetings will be funded solely by Millburn's
taxpayers.
The BOE cannot rubber stamp the reports of
the Long Range Planning Committees. The LRPC reports
only mention
perfunctorily various alternatives In any event, members
of the LRPC's are neither elected nor equipped
to make decisions regarding our childrens' education.
The BOE cannot delegate its fiduciary duties.
The voters
will decide whether the BOE has justified its $40.2
million proposal. However, before simply
accepting the Item’s characterization of questions
about the proposal as "unfair", the public
should read the questions set forth at www.welovemillburn.com/questions_for_BOE.html and
decide for themselves.
While I believe capacity issues
need to be addressed, and there is a construction proposal
that may merit
approval, the current $40.2 million bond is not such
a proposal. Until the BOE answers basic questions,
I urge the public to vote "no" on the ill-conceived
referendum.
Nicholas J. Pappas
October 4, 2005
