|
|
2007 Election Analysis
(Released to the web April 22, 2007) The 2007 school election and budget questions in New Jersey marked a notable difference from the previous year. This year 78% percent of school budgets state wide were passed, versus only 53% last year. In Hunterdon County only eight out of twenty nine school budgets failed. Readington was one of the failed budgets, failing by 33 votes out of 2059 cast. As far as school board candidates, the Readington election showed that no candidate was an overwhelming favorite. An incumbent with editorial support from a local newspaper just barely garnered more votes than an unknown running for the first time. Can we make any sense of these numbers? In the aftermath of the election an analysis of comments shared in public internet forums, in private emails and phone calls, and in newspaper articles brings some areas into sharper focus than others. Turnout for the Readington vote mirrored the small turnout of 13.9% statewide. There was very little interest in voting. In Readington, the administration of our district took great pains to encourage voting, sending out countless flyers via backpack mail, making automated phone calls to parents, including voting information in the district newsletter and website, and speaking to parents in person. Yet, only about 2000 voters answered the budget question. This school administration, like many others, acts on the premise that all parents are pro-budget and that a budget may be passed simply by increasing the number of parents going to the polls. In our case, not only does the money and effort spent on encouraging turnout appear to be wasted, it isn't clear that all parents are pro-budget anyway. A pretty good argument can be made that in any school election there are a certain base of voters who will vote against the budget no matter what and a certain number who will vote for the budget no matter what. In a municipality the size of Readington those two forces are pretty equally matched in any given year. If there are 2000 votes on the budget, it may well be that only a few hundred citizens are actually open to evaluating arguments for or against the school budget. In other words, a few hundred people are the ones truly deciding whether a school budget passes or fails. The Readington administration, instead of considering those few hundred voters, preferred to concentrate on the citizens who were already pro-budget. Preaching to the choir does not expand the congregation. The issues on the minds of the few hundred this year were varied, but not unrelated. Overall, the few hundred appear to believe that the administration over-reached on the budget. Given the gift of one-time savings in the areas of health benefit costs, refinance of bond debt and salary breakage, the administration chose to back-fill with new spending initiatives rather than to pass along the gifts to the citizens. Certainly the massive technology spending initiatives--pilloried on this website and in local newspapers--was one of the most damaging aspects of the over-reaching. The administration did back down from some of the plans, but the damage was already done. Aside from the giant internet pipes, the teacher laptops and the infamous Smart Boards, the spending on the school website was seen as a symbol of arrogance. While the money for our School Wires based website is a drop in the bucket, the website is the public face of the district and it is widely seen as lacking coherence. When it was pointed out by a participant in readingtonparents.org that another vendor could do a better job for less than half the cost, and when the administration failed to follow up on that idea, even more voters were turned off. The defense offered by the district that only School Wires responded to their original E-rate bid was lame at best. Ironically, Readington used to be known among vendors as a shark of a customer, a school district that would wring out every last bit of profitability from a contract. One former Readington business administrator negotiated a significant reduction in a annual technology support contract on condition of purchasing other services and then insisted the vendor write up the reduction as a five year deal! When a school district is interested in saving money it has the power to do so. Basic purchasing tactics used everyday in the corporate world work equally as well in the education marketplace even if there are other rules to follow and other demands to be met. Technology was not the only thing on the minds of the few hundred. Capital spending was noted by some as an area of concern. Few doubted the wisdom of repairing roofs or replacing used up HVAC units, but the perennial bus depot idea is still not widely supported. Even among those not opposed to the idea of a building dedicated to supporting our bus fleet, the numbers being thrown about were considered wildly overpriced. Some questioned the lack of thought about other things that go along with a bus maintenance facility, including specialty tools, support for the mechanic and additional insurance costs. Some of the few hundred were irritated about disparate issues affecting them personally. A recently scheduled school trip seen by some as poorly planned was a sticking point. Recent machinations over school policies like the cell phone ban on buses, the entry age for children, and others caused a rift. Discussions over the past year by the school board about solar energy farms and other alternative energy schemes made some people wonder what kind of priority the school system was putting on children. Likewise, some voters simply could not bring themselves to reward a school district still struggling with curriculum issues (Everyday Math, lack of science or social studies, etc.), and with other sore points like recess time and a persistent culture at the middle school often described as "toxic." Put simply, these voters decided that the administration and the school board need to spend more time solving existing problems than introducing initiatives that could start new ones. The over-reaching on the budget by our new administration may not have been any worse than in similar New Jersey school districts, but in light of the one-time savings available this year and in light of the lingering voter concerns about technology spending, capital spending, and problems affecting students, it isn't difficult to understand how 33 votes could be found against the budget. In fact, it is conceivable that the damage would have been worse had these sometimes complicated issues been better understood by the public. The even distribution of voting on the school board candidates may also reflect a divided township. The candidate statements published in newspapers and on readingtonparents.org are not particularly bold, but voters who have been paying close attention to school board meetings have come to understand real differences among the candidates. Judging from the winners of the three year term, it would appear that voters favor a forward-looking, less divisive and more parent and child oriented kind of school board than the established leadership has provided. Less about flashy new initiatives and more about directly addressing the neglected needs of children and the ignored desires of parents. It remains to be seen if the school board will take this opportunity to install a different board president, a board member who might be able to navigate through this narrow channel toward open water. Board watchers also wonder if there could be at least one other opening on the school board in the near future. If so, would one of the recent candidates who came so close to being elected be given a leg up in interviews? The 2007 Readington election was not the watershed event some hoped it would be. It was not a glorious confirmation of a new leadership, nor was it a landslide for a renewed sense of purpose. Still, there are enough pieces for the administration and the school board to gather up and to put something together that is good and useful. We'll see what they make of it.
|
