Proposed November School Elections Ignite Controversy at Two Town Meetings

The heated debate over moving school board elections from April to November raged on at Tuesday night’s BOE meeting, following a controversial vote the previous night at the township council meeting.

In a move that surprised many, the council voted 3-2 in favor of the proposal to move the elections to November, despite strident protests from several school board members in attendance. 

Council members Carlos Bernard, Elias Chalet and Michael Venezia supported the move, while Mayor Raymond McCarthy and Councilman Bernard Hamilton opposed it.  Councilman Joanow abstained, saying, “I’m not getting good vibes out of this.” Councilwoman Peggy Dunigan was absent. The issue will be voted on again at next week’s council meeting.

The move would mean school board elections would take place at the same time as other elections, rather than in April as has traditionally been the case.  Proponents of the move say a November election would save the township as much as $40,000 and would result in more people voting because they will be going to the polls anyway.  But opponents of the idea, which in Bloomfield includes most members of the school board, say the move would create a host of administrative problems and hidden costs to taxpayers.

“One thing you need to consider is that you’re not only moving the elections, you’re also moving the budget, and voting on the budget.  Our fiscal year works July 1 to June 30,” said BOE member Maribel Perez, who spoke at Monday night’s council meeting.   

Acknowledging that “if you just sit down and look at it from a numbers perspective it makes sense,” she quickly added that it was clearly disadvantageous to the schools “if you look at it a little bit deeper.” 

BOE Vice President Shane Berger brought up the point that April elections would include a ballot vote on the school district’s budget, whereas a November election wouldn’t, provided spending stays within a 2% percent cap. 

“Our leaders in Trenton have said that if the tax money is just 2% over [the limit] then the tax payers shouldn’t have to vote on it,” said Berger in his forceful plea to the council.  “If you move your election to November . . . you’ll get greater turnout - but what does greater turnout mean?  More people going to the poll who won’t be heard.” 

Calling it taxation without representation, he added, “Who is Trenton to take away someone’s right to vote?  It’s illegitimate, it’s immoral, it’s unjust.  Please, Council, do not to participate in that.”

After leaving the meeting, Berger commented further on the proceedings. “The school board is a group of nine volunteers,” he said.  “Volunteers should not be on the ballot with elected officials that get paid.  It is a conflict of interest.”

Only one BOE member, Robert DeMarino, spoke out in favor of the November election at the meeting.  

“Every time we run a separate election for the school board, we’re spending approximately $20,000 of taxpayers dollars that could be used in our schools,” he said.  “It makes more sense to run multiple elections and share those costs.”

Councilman at Large Bernard Hamilton expressed doubt at the legitimacy of some of DeMarino's statistics, saying he didn’t feel there had been enough time to amass reliable figures on the pros and cons of the issue. 

Councilman Nick Joanow agreed.  “In the legislature’s haste to move this [measure], there’s been little input from the public,” he said.  “This redefines how we operate as a township . . . the law allows for the municipality to pass a law as such, but somewhere we need to respect [the school board’s] ability to govern their own destiny.”  He noted that “the school district starts their business in September and they have to have a full operating staff" at that time.

Joanow abstained from the vote.

“This has vast implications,” he said, stressing that the measure required a lot more serious thought.  “Once agreed upon, we’re tied into it for four years.”

The following evening at the Board of Education meeting in the Administration building, Bloomfield School Business Administrator Michael Derderian explained some of the financial ramifications of moving the elections to November.

“The two percent tax cap is on the tax levy, not the operating budget,” he began.  “So 75% of the school’s budget is tax levy.  It would be 75% of the 2%.  So that means your appropriations side can only go up by 1.5% and that is a significant challenge.”

He went on, “In the coming years you’re going to see discretionary spending go from 5% to zero.  Your budgets are going to be primarily salaries and benefits and special educations costs.  There will be no supplies, textbooks, technology.  So that’s the dilemma we’re faced with.  Bottom line: the November election does not coincide with the fiscal year of the school district.”

BOE President Mary Shaughnessy brought up another point.

“What happens when you’re negotiating contracts?” she said. “How are you supposed to budget?  At least if you have your vote in April, you know what you have to work with [in the coming school year.]  This way, we’ll have your temporary budget and we have to pray that they’ll approve anything over 2%.” 

She added that she had already written an and to each council member individually “but we evidently did not convince enough people.”

Councilman at Large Hamilton also spoke at BOE meeting Tuesday night.  Having voted no the previous night on the proposal to move the election, he expressed his support for the Board’s concerns. 

“I will always respect the relationship that we have,” he said referring to the school board and the township council. “We can’t afford a rift on any issue.  That does not serve the greater good of the township.”

Hamilton added, “The vote taken last night did not provide enough information.  It should have addressed [the information that] Mr. Derderian laid out here.”