Aberdeen Hides from the Sunshine Laws

This Tuesday, May 18th, 2010, at 7PM, Aberdeen Township will, once again, violate New Jersey’s Open Public Meetings Act, a.k.a. the Sunshine Laws. According to the agenda, “This meeting is being held in conformance with the Open Public Meetings Act.” But that can’t be. Why not? Because the township will be voting on the school budget and it’s not on the agenda. How do I know the township will be voting on the school budget? Let see.

• First, the township has a state deadline (page 8) of May 19th “to determine and certify to the county board of taxation the amount of money necessary for school purposes to be raised by taxation for the ensuing school year.”
• Second, it’s on Matawan’s agenda for that same night

Could it be they simply forgot to include one of the biggest votes of the year? No. This will be the town council’s third offense in just six months.

Last December, the township authorized, in secret and without a vote, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with developers to rezone two properties to allow for the construction of nearly 200 units. The authorization occurred a month after now-Governor Christie was elected following a pledge to demolish COAH and a month before a new mayor and three new councilmen would take their seats. By all accounts, the MOU triggered a series of events leading to the ordinance rezoning the properties, despite the likelihood of COAH being terminated.

On April 6th, Councilman Cannon motioned, Deputy Mayor Vinci seconded, and the council unanimously passed a first reading of the ordinance rezoning the properties to create an Inclusionary Housing Overlay Zone. Remarkably, only one month later, township attorney McCarthy, who was present at the meeting, couldn’t remember when the first reading took place. More remarkable still, despite being unable to recall the first reading, McCarthy was able to explain why it wasn’t on the agenda, claiming the council didn’t know it was going to be on the agenda until that day. (The ordinance had been in development since the March 10th COAH meeting.)

This time, the school budget isn’t on the agenda. The Sunshine Laws require “to the extent known” the agenda of the meeting be posted. Furthermore, all items must be public unless the law specifically provides for an exemption.

To understand how unusual this is, consider this – After covering the school district for over 30 months, there has never been an instance when the school board was aware of an agenda item that wasn’t on the public agenda. Nor has the board ever approved a motion by any board member that was pre-planned but not on the agenda.

Sadly, the town council’s record isn’t shocking. The township continues to retain an attorney who threatened police action against residents asserting their right to speak at a public meeting. McCarthy blatantly lied to the council. Yet, he remains the township attorney.

Enough is enough. Action will be taken. >>> Read more!

The Two-Faced Tax Hike

Click here for Aberdeen Township’s preliminary 2010 budget

Once upon a time, I argued the Matawan-Aberdeen school district and Aberdeen Township had a shared responsibility for our high taxes. And, once upon a time, that was true. But no longer. The school board set a goal of limiting tax increases to 2%. The residents have declared that no tax increase is acceptable and the actual increases have been below 2%. The town council, however, has no such restraint. Over the past three years, Aberdeen Township has imposed larger tax increases, both percentage-wise and in real terms, than the school district. Aberdeen Township has the 5th highest tax rate in Monmouth County and you can thank the town council.

To understand the impact of the school district’s tax increases, we must first recognize that Aberdeen pays for two-thirds of the tax levy. (Aberdeen currently pays 67% of the tax levy, which is slightly lower than it was before the property assessment revaluations but two-thirds is still a reasonable estimate.)

This year’s school tax increase is still being decided by the municipalities (and could be appealed) but, for the sake of argument, let’s err on the high side and say they only cut $200,000 from the proposed budget. That would leave a $676,000 increase for the district or a $453,000 tax increase for Aberdeen Township.

The town council’s preliminary budget calls for a $2 million tax increase. (Sheet 3b) Now, that will certainly be revised downward but how much do we truly expect the council to cut? For guidance, we can look to Matawan. After their voters rejected a $223,000 school tax increase by a 5 to 3 margin, the council unanimously approved a $555,000 municipal tax increase.

Last year, an election year, the council was only able to cut $352,000 in taxes between the preliminary budget and the final budget. (Sheet 3b) Still, for argument’s sake, let’s assume the council cuts one million dollars from the projected tax increase.

Using the above assumptions, here’s a comparison of tax increases from 2007 to present between the school district and the municipality.

	2007 Tax Levy	2010 Tax Levy	% Change	$ Change
Municipal	$6,990,240	$9,225,073	31.97%	$2,234,833
School District	$29,111,480	$29,800,190	2.37%	$688,710

Even using overly generous assumptions, over the past three years, municipal taxes have outpaced school taxes by 3 to 1 in real dollars and over 13 to 1 on a percentage basis. And this doesn’t include fee hikes like the $92 sewer increase per year per household. Nor does it include the over half million dollars CME (town engineer) snares every year from local homeowners and businesses.

Nor does it excuse the town council from using one attorney who lies to the public and another attorney who recommends using police action against the public as the basis for creating more unwanted development that will crowd our public schools.

So, the next time your tax bill skyrockets, please remember to thank your town council. And the next time your kid gets stuck in an overcrowded classroom, please thank your town council. And when you try to leave but can’t sell your house due to high property taxes, please give a big “thank you” to your town council.

But when the town council tells you its cutting the school budget to lower taxes and then turns its back on you and votes for a massive eye-popping municipal tax increase, please tell them what you really think. >>> Read more!

They Mayor, McCarthy, and I

For the handful of readers disappointed they missed my "performance" at the April 19th Aberdeen council and planning board meetings, here I am at the May 4th town council meeting. I had to cut the beginning and end because YouTube only permits ten minutes. You can click here for the entire video if you're interested.

The only missing highlight was my gaffe in referring to the planning/zoning attorney of "police action" fame as Lesniak instead of Leckstein.

Included in the video are McCarthy's denials and explanations for:

• Claiming COAH threatened to withdraw certifacation
• Claiming Aberdeen risked losing certification at COAH's April 21st meeting
• Implying he was the only Aberdeen representative present at the March COAH meeting
• Explaining why the council never voted to approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the developers
• Explaining why the residents were not entitled to know about the MOU
• Claiming he didn't remember the first reading of the ordinance creating an "Inclusionary Housing" zone was in April
• Explaining why the ordinance's first reading wasn't on the April 6th agenda

The audio isn't great but I think it's good enough. Enjoy. Thanks to Ken Aitken for providing the video.

>>> Read more!

The School Board Votes to Outsource

Last night, about two hundred MRTA members and their supporters attended the Matawan-Aberdeen school board meeting to oppose the sole agenda item – outsourcing custodial services. In contrast to the March meeting, the staff acted with great decorum and restraint. Most of the speakers had prepared statements and attacked the concept of outsourcing, not the board members’ motivations. The crowd allowed each of the board members to speak without interruption.

The union proposed allowing labor negotiations to proceed in hopes of reaching a settlement that would save the custodial positions. The board members responded the union had ample opportunity to offer concessions that would match the expected savings from outsourcing but, unfortunately, the union concessions were too little too late. In the end, the school board voted unanimously to outsource the custodians.

The story hasn’t quite ended because there are three custodians in their 25th year of service. If the school board can reach accommodations with the union, it’s possible those three custodians will have the opportunity to complete their 25 years and thereby acquire lifetime health benefits.

I’d also like to respond to some of the issues raised at the meeting.

The district expects to save $500,000 this year and $700,000 next year from outsourcing the custodians. Despite the “substantial concessions” offered by the MRTA, they weren’t enough. I assume that if any board member thought the MRTA might match those savings through additional concessions there would have been a motion to table the issue.

For everybody who remembers the bumps we had (and still have) privatizing the substitute teachers, if we hadn’t voted last night, the vendor may have had difficulties properly staffing, processing, and training its employees by July 1st.

The district has not provided all the documentation the union has requested. Personally, I prefer full disclosure when reasonable and I don’t believe the union has made any unreasonable requests. Even if the administration is within its rights to withhold certain documents, I disagree with its decision to do so.

Lastly, I stand by me earlier comment of “Show Me the Money”. After college, I took a sales job. My manager told me that what differentiated a great salesman from a failure was attitude. A great salesman began his day with a plan to succeed. A failure began his day with a hundred excuses why nothing was his fault. Excuses are like butts, he told me, everybody has one and they all stink.

Right up to the moment the board voted, the union leadership had an opportunity to save the custodial jobs. Their excuses for failure are just that – excuses. All they had to do was offer to stick with the current salary guide for one more year. For MRTA members, the difference would have been $1,000-$1,500 per year before taxes. That’s how little they cared for their colleagues.

If it’s not about the money, then what is it about? >>> Read more!

The Custodians’ Last Days

Tonight’s school board vote on whether to outsource custodial services marks a sad turning point for Matawan-Aberdeen. Our custodians have been long-serving, dedicated, and hard-working employees. They’re being unceremoniously dumped because we can no longer afford to retain them. It didn’t have to be this way. The teachers union had the ability and the opportunity to save the custodians but, given a choice between saving the custodians and taking their raises, the union leadership preferred to take their raises.

Three companies submitted bids to provide custodial services and Pritchard was the lowest bidder at $3.1 million. That’s nearly half of what we’d pay to retain the custodians. For guidance, we can look to Marlboro. In 2006, Marlboro had a projected cost of $2.77 million for 35 custodians. Pritchard, the lowest bidder, was awarded a custodial contract for $800,000. We’ve been in touch with Marlboro and they’ve been pleased with their services and continue to use Pritchard.

For Matawan-Aberdeen, next year’s projected costs are $2.9 million for 36 custodians. On a per employee cost basis, that’s only a 1.8% increase over Marlboro’s estimates despite four years having elapsed. Like Marlboro, that cost includes “salaries, health benefits, pension contributions, Social Security and workers' compensation”.

In March, the teachers union membership argued vociferously to retain the custodians but not one speaker suggested he was prepared to offer any concessions aside from voting to raise property taxes.

The union leadership has had multiple opportunities to save the custodial positions. They could have negotiated healthcare contributions before it became state mandated. They could have offered concessions as a sign of good faith to help the budget pass. They could have given the membership an up or down vote on a pay freeze to save the custodians and other positions.

Today, however, we have a failed budget and a vendor’s bid substantially below expectations. Nothing short of a one-year pay freeze would suffice to offset those savings.

Never again will the union membership be able to proudly wear buttons proclaiming “I CARE about our kids”. When given an opportunity to join in our community’s shared sacrifice and to save their colleague’s and fellow union members’ jobs, the union said no. Next time the union leadership organizes a show of force, maybe they should distribute buttons saying “Show Me the Money”. >>> Read more!