|
|
Donate via PayPal.
Use the button above. It's a secure
and easy way to donate to this
important town non-profit, grassroots,
informational organization.
Donations, unfortunately, are
not tax deductible. Thank you
for your support.
Or send a personal check.
If you prefer, send a check made out to WeLoveMillburn, Inc., Treasurer, 25 Stewart Road, Short Hills, NJ 07078.
Your local United Way serves needs right here in Millburn/Short Hills. Give today. www.unitedwayofmillburn.org.
WeLoveMillburn.com supports the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund. Specify "2008 Hurricane Season Relief". Contribute at our local American Red Cross chapter, 389 Millburn Ave., Short Hills, NJ 07078 (973-379-4198) or the American Red Cross, P. O. Box 37243, Washington, DC 20013 (1-800-RED-CROSS). Text "Give" to 2Help (24357) to donate $5. Internet users can make a secure online contribution at www.redcross.org.
|
|
|
Three School Board members
discuss their opposition to the Dec. 13th referendum.
130+ town residents came to the Millburn
Library
to hear Board Members speak out against
the $40+ million
bond and to ask questions.
MILLBURN, NJ December 6, 2005 — This meeting
was held by WeLoveMillburn.com. This group and the Board
Members opposed to the the December 13th bond felt recent
town wide meetings, conducted by the Superintendent of
Schools and the PTO's, were too one sided and that there
were too many inaccurate facts misrepresentations about
the need for the bond being made.
Participants for this forum from the Millburn Board of
Education were Brenda White, Board Member elected in 2004,
Josh Scharf, elected 2004 and Scott Kamber, elected 2005.
The Board members explained why they voted NO against the
December 13th upcoming bond referendum.
Below are two reviews of that session:
"The Middle School Plan is just simply a bad plan" stated
Josh Scharf - He went on to say that the Middle School
plan is one that will be
extremely disruptive to the educational and safety environment of our children
for several
years. There were far less disruptive and more cost effective plans proposed
by competing architects and even the Long-Range Planning Committee. These
plans can be implemented quickly. -
"Voting No just means we want a better
and less disruptive plan and we want it within 3
months" stated
Scott Kamber — He went on to say that voting no will
force the Board to quickly come up with alternatives
that are more
acceptable to the community.
-
All three commented that construction will not start for 12 to 18 months,
so a no vote will not in anyway delay construction. As stated in a school newsletter
yesterday, construction will not commence until January of 2007 but according
to all three Board members it is hard to imagine the school putting in a
foundation in the middle of winter. Therefore it may be the summer of 2007 before
construction
starts. This means that a 3 month delay due to defeated bond referendum would
not at all postpone the ultimate construction schedule. In fact a simpler
plan could be done with fewer delays and therefore be completed more quickly
than
the current proposal.
-
All three reaffirmed their belief that the cost of this referendum to
the average tax payer (roughly a $750,000 house) would be $1,200 not $300-400
as the School
Board asserts. The three board members also expressed frustration that the
school administration has refued to give operating cost projections for the
new facilities
to help them fully analyze the total cost to tax payers.
-
"The School Board has ignored our
call to hire an independent architect" stated
Brenda White - It was made clear by all three that having an architect
that is paid directly based on how much we spend
presents a real conflict of interest.
They went on to express concern about various costs of the project that
appear dramatically out of line. Examples included
a $1 million pedestrian bridge
and
more than $700,000 of parking spaces for the High School senior class
($10,000 per parking space). It was suggested that
these items should cost a fraction
of the stated cost and it puts into question the cost of the overall
project.
-
BOTTOM-LINE — All three made
it clear that Millburn can get more educational value,
sooner, with less disruption, and at a far lesser
cost to the tax
payer.
The second review:
The resounding theme:
-
shortcomings of the BOE's plan
-
lack of information provided,
not only to the community but to Board members themselves
The plan was described as "a bad plan" for
two reasons"
-
invasive, potentially dangerous,
construction design at the Middle School
-
poor value received from the project
-
$700,000 for 70 parking
spaces at the High School
-
$1 million unnecessary
bridgework over Old Short Hills Road
The world will not end if the referendum
is rejected:
Per Board member Scott Kamber:
-
despite
statements from Dr. Brodow and others,
voting down the plan
is not the end of the world
-
it is
an emotional fear-based approach
-
they
have misrepresented
the Long Range Planning Committees’ reports
as the basis for
their architects' plan in an effort to give
it credence
-
if
the bond is defeated,
they will have a "fiduciary" responsibility
to work to come back
with a superior plan that can be widely supported
-
he
placed full blame for the division
in our community on our Board and
Administrators by presenting a
controversial, take-it-or-leave-it
proposal
Lack of disclosure:
Per Board member Brenda White:
-
the administrators refused to
project full operating cost estimates
for
the $40 million program
-
wants the
community to know the true financial
impact before the
vote
-
her estimate indicates an impact
of $1,200 per average assessed
home at $763,300 which includes
principal, interest and operating
cost
-
the BOE has officially stated
that Ms. White's
calculations are wrong
but has refused
to indicate what their comparable estimate
is
The Middle School plan is particularly weak:
Per Board member Josh Scharf:
-
building on 6 sides of the existing
building while school is in session
-
"...2000
plus students will be passing
through
while construction is in
progress"
-
"...unnecessarily
and unacceptably risky, and
disruptive"
-
while the Middle
School Principal Cahill emphasizes the
need for classrooms, the plan as
submitted only provides for four (4) additional classrooms
-
The $40+ million plan
was referenced against the new middle school
at West Orange,
housing 600 students at a cost of $22 million
Lack of checks and balances:
-
BOE did receive competing
bids and designs from three other architects
but literally voted on selection during the
same meeting, without time for consideration
- Architect’s
fees increase with the size of the project,
creating a conflict of interest
The panelists began the
evening with five key questions
they had been given in advance
but that are on the minds
of many of the community's
citizens.
-
What is the history of past bonds referendums?
-
How did we get to this bond specifically?
-
Why is this bond plan fatally flawed?
-
What will this bond really cost in the
end?
-
If this bond fails, where do we go from
here?
Then the League
of Women Voters Moderator conducted a 45-minute open question
and answer period with questions coming from the audience
made up of town residents.
For further information and
facts about the $40+ million school bond referendum,
please contact info@WeLoveMillburn.com or visit the website at www.WeLoveMillburn.com.
WeLoveMillburn.com
This message was prepared
by WeLoveMillburn, Inc.,
a non-pro€t, grassroots,
informational organization.
Advisors include involved
community citizens, a current
PTO President, former Board
of Education and Long Range
Planning Committee members,
architects, other professionals
but most importantly parents
and grandparents with many
children in the Millburn
School system.
|
