Quality Public Education for All New Jersey Students

 

 
     Property Tax Reform, Special Legislative Session & School Funding
12-14-06 EMAILNET FYI S7 & S10 Senate Vote Today, County Dist Stats comparison w NJ
FYI #1 re Comparing with New Jersey ‘Freshman Graduation Rates 2003-4’ from NCES [ National Center for Education Statistics/USDOE] from other states that are under countywide school district organization: Florida = 66.4% Maryland = 79.5% NJ = 86.3% So Car = 60.6%

FYI #2 on Senate Board List today, bills S10 (CORE PLAN) and S7 (County School District Pilot program) -

Note: 12-14-06 Senate Board list shows 54 bills; 41 of those bills just introduced 12-11-06 (only 3 days prior to holding final vote today)

S10 ‘CORE PROPOSALS’ LEGISLATION:

One major difference indicating last minute change is the length of ‘identical’ bill A4 which is noted at 83 pages; and S10 which is noted to be 52 pages.

Another difference is the removal of the board member and budget elections process for schools. It is GSCS’ understanding that the budget and school board member elections process will stay as is.

S7 COUNTWIDE DISTRICT PILOT bill revised, major difference -increases length of a Countywide District Pilot Plan from 5 years to 10 years. GSCS Question - How can a 10 year of implementation be dubbed a "pilot" program?

Garden State Coalition of Schools Press Alert 12-14-06 ______________________________________________________ FYI #1 re Comparing with New Jersey ‘Freshman Graduation Rates 2003-4’ from NCES [ National Center for Education Statistics/USDOE] from other states that are under countywide school district organization: Florida = 66.4% Maryland = 79.5% NJ = 86.3% So Car = 60.6% ______________________________________________________ FYI #2 on Senate Board List today, bills S10 (CORE PLAN) and S7 (County School District Pilot program) - Note: 12-14-06 Senate Board list shows 54 bills; 41 of those bills just introduced 12-11-06 (only 3 days prior to holding final vote today) S10 ‘CORE PROPOSALS’ LEGISLATION: One major difference indicating last minute change is the length of ‘identical’ bill A4 which is noted at 83 pages; and S10 which is noted to be 52 pages. Another difference is the removal of the board member and budget elections process for schools. It is GSCS’ understanding that the budget and school board member elections process will stay as is. S10 Implements CORE proposals, including "Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act"; user -friendly budgets; November fire and school district elections; revision of county superintendent of schools title and duties. 2nd Reading in the Senate Identical Bill Number: A4 w/c (see below) Smith, Bob ( (732)-752-0770) as Primary Sponsor 12/11/2006 Introduced, 1st Reading without Reference, 2nd Reading Introduced - 52 pages PDF Format HTML Format S10 Bill Statement (see bold for changes re school elections process): S10 BILL STATEMENT This bill groups together the individual components of the CORE proposal that was considered by the Joint Legislative Committee on Consolidation and Shared Services. Article 1 contains the “Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act,” which is subdivided into provisions designed to encourage savings among local units of government through the use of shared services, joint meetings, and municipal consolidation. The article codifies the SHARE program that provides financial incentives for local units to investigate shared services opportunities and also empowers residents to promote shared service and consolidation opportunities. The article provides methods for resolving Civil Service barriers to shared services and consolidation in situations where some participating local units have adopted Civil Service and some have not. Article 2 of the bill would greatly increase the fiscal accountability of local officials by requiring “user-friendly” budgets and increasing public notice and awareness, including the use of Internet posting, when salaries are established or modified. Part of the “user-friendly” concept is the requirement that all compensation, benefits, separation benefits, and contract terms for school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school business administrators be clearly disclosed to the Commissioner of Education. After empowering taxpayers with all of this financial information, it is important to give them a reasonable opportunity to hold their local officials accountable for budget decisions at the polls. Article 3 would do that by moving the fire district elections to the date of the November general election, when the maximum number of people turn out to vote, beginning for the 2008 elections, and providing for a transition period during which the terms of office for currently serving fire district commissioners is extended. Article 4 deals with the problems of inefficiency and bureaucracy in the 616 school districts by giving the county superintendent of school much more responsibility to oversee local school districts. The article changes the title of the county superintendent of schools to the executive county superintendent of schools, revises the terms of employment and the duties of the superintendent, and provides for the appointment of the superintendent by the Governor, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Education and with the advice and consent of the Senate. An executive county superintendent of schools would serve for a term of three years and could be re-appointed for a subsequent term if the individual received a satisfactory performance assessment. The performance assessment, conducted by the Commissioner of Education, would be based on the ability of the superintendent to effectuate administrative and operational efficiencies and cost savings within the school districts located in the county, while enhancing the effectiveness of the districts in providing a thorough and efficient system of education, and on the capacity of the school districts in the five key components of school district effectiveness under the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum. In establishing the standards for assessing the performance of the superintendent in facilitating administrative efficiencies, the commissioner is directed to include such factors as administrator-to-teacher ratios, administrator-to-students ratios, and per-pupil administrative expenditures. The article also includes post-employment restrictions, prohibiting the executive county superintendent from being employed by one of the districts he supervised for two years after his term as superintendent terminates. In addition to the current duties, an executive county superintendent of schools is charged with the duty to: promote administrative and operational efficiencies and cost savings within school districts while ensuring the provision of a thorough and efficient system of education; recommend to the commissioner the consolidation of certain districts’ administrative services; recommend to the commissioner the elimination of laws determined to be unnecessary State education mandates, except mandates that fall under certain categories of laws; have the authority to eliminate non-operating districts located in the county; no later than three years following the effective date of the bill, develop a plan to consolidate school districts in the county and require the affected districts to hold a referendum on the plan; promote the coordination and regionalization of public and nonpublic pupil transportation services in the county; request the commissioner to order forensic audits of school districts upon a determination by the superintendent that such an audit is warranted; promote cooperative purchasing of textbooks and other instructional materials; coordinate with the Department of Education to maintain a real time Statewide and district-wide database that tracks the types and capacity of special education programs being implemented by each district and the number of students enrolled in each program to identify program availability and needs; coordinate with the Department of Education to maintain a Statewide and district-wide list of all special education students served in out-of-district programs and a list of all public and private entities approved to receive special education students that includes pertinent information such as audit results and tuition charges; serve as a referral source for districts that do not have appropriate in-district programs for special education students and provide those districts with information on placement options in other school districts; conduct regional planning and identification of program needs for the development of in-district special education programs; serve as a liaison to facilitate shared special education services within the county; work with districts to develop in-district special education programs and services and provide assistance to districts in budgetary planning for resource realignment and reallocation to direct special education resources into the classroom; and, report to the commissioner on a regular basis on progress in achieving the goals of increasing the number of special education students educated in appropriate programs with non-disabled students. The article also provides that the executive county superintendent is required to review all school district budgets and may disapprove a portion of the school district’s proposed budget if he determines that the district has not implemented all potential efficiencies in the administrative operations of the district or if he determines that the budget includes excessive non-instructional expenses. The executive county superintendent must also require a school district, before it submits for voter approval a separate proposal for additional funds in order to spend above its cap, to provide him with certain written documentation concerning shared services with other units of local government. Article 4 also provides for the appointment of an executive county business official to serve in the office of the executive county superintendent of schools for a term of three years. The executive county business official would also be subject to re-appointment based upon receiving a satisfactory performance assessment using criteria developed by the commissioner. Under the article, a local school district could apply to the executive county superintendent of schools to have services including, but not limited to, transportation, personnel, purchasing, payroll, and accounting assumed by the office of the superintendent. The executive county superintendent could assess a fee on the school district for any service he determines to provide. The executive county superintendent of schools could also utilize county special services school districts, jointure commissions, and educational services commissions to provide services to local school districts. Article 4 also amends an existing statute to require that the report prepared by the executive county superintendent when a constituent municipality seeks to withdraw from a limited purpose regional school district or when the district seeks to dissolve must also include information on the effects on the administrative and operational efficiencies, and the resultant cost savings or cost increases, in the withdrawing and the regional districts, or by each constituent district in the event of a dissolution. A4 Implements CORE proposals, including "Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act"; user -friendly budgets; November fire and school district elections; revision of county superintendent of schools title and duties. 2nd Reading in the Senate Identical Bill Number: S10 Roberts, Joseph J. as Primary Sponsor Wisniewski, John S. as Primary Sponsor Green, Jerry as Primary Sponsor Gordon, Robert M. as Primary Sponsor Greenwald, Louis D. as Primary Sponsor Lampitt, Pamela R. as Primary Sponsor Watson Coleman, Bonnie as Primary Sponsor Fisher, Douglas H. as Primary Sponsor Cruz-Perez, Nilsa as Primary Sponsor 12/7/2006 Introduced, 1st Reading without Reference, 2nd Reading 12/11/2006 Passed by the Assembly (44-30-5) 12/11/2006 Received in the Senate without Reference, 2nd Reading Introduced - 83 pages PDF Format HTML Format A4 Bill Statement (see bold for changes re school elections process) A4 BILL STATEMENT This bill groups together the individual components of the CORE proposal that was considered by the Joint Legislative Committee on Consolidation and Shared Services. Article 1 contains the “Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act,” which is subdivided into provisions designed to encourage savings among local units of government through the use of shared services, joint meetings, and municipal consolidation. The article codifies the SHARE program that provides financial incentives for local units to investigate shared services opportunities and also empowers residents to promote shared service and consolidation opportunities. The article provides methods for resolving Civil Service barriers to shared services and consolidation in situations where some participating local units have adopted Civil Service and some have not. Article 2 of the bill would greatly increase the fiscal accountability of local officials by requiring “user-friendly” budgets and increasing public notice and awareness, including the use of Internet posting, when salaries are established or modified. Part of the “user-friendly” concept is the requirement that all compensation, benefits, separation benefits, and contract terms for school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school business administrators be clearly disclosed to the Commissioner of Education. After empowering taxpayers with all of this financial information, it is important to give them a reasonable opportunity to hold their local officials accountable for budget decisions at the polls. Articles 3 and 4 do that by moving the fire district and school board elections to the date of the November general election, when the maximum number of people turn out to vote, beginning for the 2008 elections, and providing for a transition period during which the terms of office for currently serving officials is extended. Article 5 deals with the problems of inefficiency and bureaucracy in the 616 school districts by giving the county superintendent of school much more responsibility to oversee local school districts. The article changes the title of the county superintendent of schools to the executive county superintendent of schools, revises the terms of employment and the duties of the superintendent, and provides for the appointment of the superintendent by the Governor, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Education and with the advice and consent of the Senate. An executive county superintendent of schools would serve for a term of three years and could be re-appointed for a subsequent term if the individual received a satisfactory performance assessment. The performance assessment, conducted by the Commissioner of Education, would be based on the ability of the superintendent to effectuate administrative and operational efficiencies and cost savings within the school districts located in the county, while enhancing the effectiveness of the districts in providing a thorough and efficient system of education, and on the capacity of the school districts in the five key components of school district effectiveness under the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum. In establishing the standards for assessing the performance of the superintendent in facilitating administrative efficiencies, the commissioner is directed to include such factors as administrator-to-teacher ratios, administrator-to-students ratios, and per-pupil administrative expenditures. The article also includes post-employment restrictions, prohibiting the executive county superintendent from being employed by one of the districts he supervised for two years after his term as superintendent terminates. In addition to the current duties, an executive county superintendent of schools is charged with the duty to: promote administrative and operational efficiencies and cost savings within school districts while ensuring the provision of a thorough and efficient system of education; recommend to the commissioner the consolidation of certain districts’ administrative services; recommend to the commissioner the elimination of laws determined to be unnecessary State education mandates, except mandates that fall under certain categories of laws; have the authority to eliminate non-operating districts located in the county; no later than three years following the effective date of the bill, develop a plan to consolidate school districts in the county and require the affected districts to hold a referendum on the plan; promote the coordination and regionalization of public and nonpublic pupil transportation services in the county; request the commissioner to order forensic audits of school districts upon a determination by the superintendent that such an audit is warranted; promote cooperative purchasing of textbooks and other instructional materials; coordinate with the Department of Education to maintain a real time Statewide and district-wide database that tracks the types and capacity of special education programs being implemented by each district and the number of students enrolled in each program to identify program availability and needs; coordinate with the Department of Education to maintain a Statewide and district-wide list of all special education students served in out-of-district programs and a list of all public and private entities approved to receive special education students that includes pertinent information such as audit results and tuition charges; serve as a referral source for districts that do not have appropriate in-district programs for special education students and provide those districts with information on placement options in other school districts; conduct regional planning and identification of program needs for the development of in-district special education programs; serve as a liaison to facilitate shared special education services within the county; work with districts to develop in-district special education programs and services and provide assistance to districts in budgetary planning for resource realignment and reallocation to direct special education resources into the classroom; and, report to the commissioner on a regular basis on progress in achieving the goals of increasing the number of special education students educated in appropriate programs with non-disabled students. The article also provides that the executive county superintendent is required to review all school district budgets and may disapprove a portion of the school district’s proposed budget if he determines that the district has not implemented all potential efficiencies in the administrative operations of the district or if he determines that the budget includes excessive non-instructional expenses. The executive county superintendent must also require a school district, before it submits for voter approval a separate proposal for additional funds in order to spend above its cap, to provide him with certain written documentation concerning shared services with other units of local government. Article 5 also provides for the appointment of an executive county business official to serve in the office of the executive county superintendent of schools for a term of three years. The executive county business official would also be subject to re-appointment based upon receiving a satisfactory performance assessment using criteria developed by the commissioner. Under the article, a local school district could apply to the executive county superintendent of schools to have services including, but not limited to, transportation, personnel, purchasing, payroll, and accounting assumed by the office of the superintendent. The executive county superintendent could assess a fee on the school district for any service he determines to provide. The executive county superintendent of schools could also utilize county special services school districts, jointure commissions, and educational services commissions to provide services to local school districts. Article 5 also amends an existing statute to require that the report prepared by the executive county superintendent when a constituent municipality seeks to withdraw from a limited purpose regional school district or when the district seeks to dissolve must also include information on the effects on the administrative and operational efficiencies, and the resultant cost savings or cost increases, in the withdrawing and the regional districts, or by each constituent district in the event of a dissolution. ________________________________________________________________________ S7 COUNTY WIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT PILOT LEGISLATION: S7 introduced as a new bill on December 11, posted for a vote 12-14-06 S7 Establishes a pilot program in DOE for the organization of a county administrative school district. 2nd Reading in the Senate Smith, Bob as Primary Sponsor Kyrillos, Joseph M. as Primary Sponsor 12/11/2006 Introduced, 1st Reading without Reference, 2nd Reading Introduced - 13 pages PDF Format HTML Format S7 BILL STATEMENT This bill requires the Commissioner of Education to establish a 10-year pilot program to organize a county administrative school district in one county selected by the commissioner. The goal of the pilot program would be to evaluate the administrative and educational effectiveness of the county school district model in New Jersey. Under the pilot program, any county of the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth class that has fewer than two Abbott school districts in the county would be eligible to participate in the pilot program. The commissioner would, within nine months of the bill’s enactment, submit to the county board of chosen freeholders and county superintendent of schools in each eligible county a report that includes a description of the application process, a description of a county’s responsibilities under the pilot program, including information on the pilot program evaluation requirements established by the commissioner, the commissioner’s general assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of participation in the pilot program, including an assessment of additional costs, a model procedure for the transition to a county administrative school district, and a model procedure for the transition of a county administrative school district to the system of locally-operated school districts in place prior to the establishment of the county administrative school district. If interested, the board of chosen freeholders of a county that is eligible to participate in the pilot program would apply by adopting a resolution, with the concurrence of the county superintendent of schools, and completing the application process prescribed by the commissioner. The county would be required to submit current data on comparative administrative spending by the school districts in the county and a statement describing the savings and efficiencies that the board of chosen freeholders believes would result from the establishment of a county administrative school district in the county. The commissioner would then select a county from among the eligible applicants and develop a plan for the transition of the locally-operated school districts in the county to a county administrative school district. A county’s final acceptance for participation in the pilot program would be contingent on the adoption of the transition plan by the county board of chosen freeholders. The schools of the county selected for participation in the pilot program would be conducted by and under the supervision of a board of education of the county administrative school district and administered by a chief school administrator of the county administrative school district. Local boards of education in the county, including the vocational school district and county special services school district boards, if any, would continue to exist in an advisory role; however, district boards would cede authority to govern the public schools within their jurisdiction to the county administrative board of education. The bill would abolish local district-level administrative or supervisory personnel positions, including the district superintendent of schools. The county administrative board of education would instead appoint a district supervisor for each municipality in the county to oversee operations of the public schools located in the municipality and perform such other duties as the board may prescribe. The district supervisor would work under the supervision of the chief school administrator. The county administrative board of education would consist of the county superintendent of schools and four members appointed, with the advice and consent of the county board of chosen freeholders, by the chief elected executive officer of the county or the director of the board of chosen freeholders, as appropriate to the appointment procedures established by the form of government of the county. A members would be required to be a citizen and resident of the county during service and for the three years preceding appointment No more than two members of the same political party would be permitted to serve on the board. The county administrative board of education would organize annually on November 1 by the election of a president and vice-president. The board would have the same powers to govern the county administrative school district that school district boards of education have to govern school districts. For example, the board would have the power to enter into contracts for the provision or performance of goods or services, purchase, sell, and improve school grounds, and take and condemn land and other property for school purposes. The chief school administrator of the county school district would be appointed by contract by the Governor for a term of no fewer than three nor more than five years. An appropriate certificate, as prescribed by the State board, would be required for the position. The chief school administrator would have general supervision over all aspects of the county administrative school district, including fiscal operations and instructional programs, under rules and regulations prescribed by the State board, and would have such other powers and perform such additional duties as may be prescribed by the board of education of the county administrative school district. The board of education of the county school district and the board of chosen freeholders would each be required to submit a report to the commissioner no later than eight years after the establishment of the county administrative school district. The report would contain, at a minimum, an evaluation of the relative merits of the county administrative school district, as compared with the public school system in place in the county prior to the implementation of the pilot program, and recommendations on whether the pilot program, or components of the pilot program, should be established in the county on a permanent basis. The commissioner would then, no later than nine years after the establishment of the county administrative school district, submit to the Governor and the Legislature an evaluation of the effectiveness of the pilot program. The commissioner’s evaluation would, at a minimum, include a detailed analysis of the impact of the pilot program on administrative costs and student achievement in the county selected for participation, copies of the reports submitted to the commissioner by the board of chosen freeholders of the pilot county and the board of education of the county administrative school district, and the commissioner’s recommendation on the advisability of the pilot program's continuation and expansion to other counties. A8 COUNTY WIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT PILOT LEGISLATION Major difference S7 appears to be sponsorship and the length of the “pilot” program has increased from 5 to 10 years. Question: has a pilot program ever lasted 10 years? Bill statements - compared to A8 introduced 12-7-06(passed in Assembly 12-11-06) A8 Establishes a pilot program in DOE for the organization of a county administrative school district. 2nd Reading in the Senate Identical Bill Number: S49 Wisniewski, John S. as Primary Sponsor Gordon, Robert M. as Primary Sponsor Greenstein, Linda R. as Primary Sponsor Watson Coleman, Bonnie as Primary Sponsor Vas, Joseph as Primary Sponsor Lampitt, Pamela R. as Primary Sponsor Greenwald, Louis D. as Primary Sponsor Cruz-Perez, Nilsa as Primary Sponsor Mayer, David R. as Primary Sponsor Burzichelli, John J. as Primary Sponsor 12/7/2006 Introduced, 1st Reading without Reference, 2nd Reading 12/11/2006 Passed by the Assembly (45-34-1) 12/11/2006 Received in the Senate without Reference, 2nd Reading Introduced - 12 pages PDF Format HTML Format A8 BILL STATEMENT: This bill requires the Commissioner of Education to establish a five-year pilot program to organize a county administrative school district in one county selected by the commissioner. The goal of the pilot program would be to evaluate the administrative and educational effectiveness of the county school district model in New Jersey. Under the pilot program, any county of the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth class that has fewer than two Abbott school districts in the county would be eligible to participate in the pilot program. The commissioner would, within 180 of the bill’s enactment, submit to the county board of chosen freeholders and county superintendent of schools in each eligible county a report that includes a description of the application process, a description of the county’s responsibilities under the pilot program, including information on the pilot program evaluation requirements established by the commissioner, the commissioner’s recommendation on whether participation in the program may be beneficial administratively and educationally in the county, the basis for the commissioner’s recommendation, and a model procedure for the transition to a county administrative school district. If interested, the board of chosen freeholders of a county that is eligible to participate in the pilot program would apply by adopting a resolution, with the concurrence of the county superintendent of schools, and completing the application process prescribed by the commissioner. The county would be required to submit current data on comparative administrative spending by the school districts in the county and a statement describing the savings and efficiencies that the board of chosen freeholders believes would result from the establishment of a county administrative school district in the county. The schools of the county selected for participation in the pilot program would be conducted by and under the supervision of a board of education of the county administrative school district and administered by a chief school administrator of the county administrative school district. Local boards of education in the county, including the vocational school district and county special services school district boards, if any, would continue to exist in an advisory role; however, district boards would cede authority to govern the public schools within their jurisdiction to the county administrative board of education. The bill would abolish local district-level administrative or supervisory personnel positions, including the district superintendent of schools. The county administrative board of education would instead appoint a district supervisor for each municipality in the county to oversee operations of the public schools located in the municipality and perform such other duties as the board may prescribe. The district supervisor would work under the supervision of the chief school administrator. The county administrative board of education would consist of the county superintendent of schools and four members appointed, with the advice and consent of the county board of chosen freeholders, by the chief elected executive officer of the county or the director of the board of chosen freeholders, as appropriate to the appointment procedures established by the form of government of the county. A members would be required to be a citizen and resident of the county during service and for the three years preceding appointment No more than two members of the same political party would be permitted to serve on the board. The county administrative board of education would organize annually on November 1 by the election of a president and vice-president. The board would have the same powers to govern the county administrative school district that school district boards of education have to govern school districts. For example, the board would have the power to enter into contracts for the provision or performance of goods or services, purchase, sell, and improve school grounds, and take and condemn land and other property for school purposes. The chief school administrator of the county school district would be appointed by contract by the Governor for a term of no fewer than three nor more than five years. An appropriate certificate, as prescribed by the State board, would be required for the position. The chief school administrator would have general supervision over all aspects of the county administrative school district, including fiscal operations and instructional programs, under rules and regulations prescribed by the State board, and would have such other powers and perform such additional duties as may be prescribed by the board of education of the county administrative school district. The board of education of the county school district and the board of chosen freeholders would each be required to submit a report to the commissioner no later than three years after the establishment of the county administrative school district. The report would contain, at a minimum, an evaluation of the relative merits of the county administrative school district, as compared with the public school system in place in the county prior to the implementation of the pilot program, and recommendations on whether the pilot program, or components of the pilot program, should be established in the county on a permanent basis. The commissioner would then, no later than four years after the establishment of the county administrative school district, submit to the Governor and the Legislature an evaluation of the effectiveness of the pilot program. The commissioner’s evaluation would, at a minimum, include a detailed analysis of the impact of the pilot program on administrative costs and student achievement in the county selected for participation, copies of the reports submitted to the commissioner by the board of chosen freeholders of the pilot county and the board of education of the county administrative school district, and the commissioner’s recommendation on the advisability of the pilot program's continuation and expansion to other counties. ______________________________________________________________________ Dear Governor Corzine and Senate President Codey, Please take care with our communities and our children's education. You have waited a long time to tackle the important issue of property tax reform. Now we implore you – PLEASE take the time to do it right. Table Senate Bill S3, the ‘CORE PLAN’, and provide sufficient time for our elected leaders and your constituents to understand both the intended and unintended consequences of such action. The last-minute changes and late-night passage of Assembly Bill A4 demonstrate an accommodation to special interest groups without the benefit of sufficient public input and an unfortunate lack of vision among legislators as to the scope and potential impact of the bill’s provisions. The Senate can do better. Clarify ambiguities in the proposed legislation. A4, S42 and S3 fail to clearly state whether or not there will be a budget election in April 2007. A4 proposes an April 2007 Board Member election, while S42 proposes a November 2007 Board Member election. S3 is not available for review on the Legislature website. These details must be worked out with certainty prior to a Senate vote. Support a funding formula that mandates that every New Jersey student will receive a basic level of State education aid as well as keeping state categorical aid in place for specific student needs, regardless of where he or she lives. Support a school governance system that provides incentives for voluntary sharing of services and/or consolidations, and does not require massive consolidation, local voter disenfranchisement and/or denial of community involvement and input by concentrating authority for all school functions in the hands of a politically appointed County Superintendent, politically appointed County BOE and a county-based bureaucracy. If we work together we can create positive change, lower our property taxes and preserve educational quality. Signed, Livingston Board of Education _________________________________________________________________________ As of 12-14-06 Livingston further wrote to GSCS: It was painfully evident over the past two days, after having spoken with perhaps half a dozen individuals in Trenton, that even key legislators and staff members had inconsistent and incomplete facts regarding the most critical issues involved in merging A4 and S10 which has been posted for a vote during the December 14th session. At 5pm on December 13th, we discovered that School Board Member elections will be left in April AS WILL THE CUSTOMARY VOTE ON SCHOOL BUDGETS. The Senate Majority's Education Chair explained to us that it was the pressure from NJSBA to move from the November elections that prompted the change - he stated that No Vote on a budget at or below cap was part and parcel of the November election and was withdrawn as an accomodation to the NJSBA. Senator Codey's office later told us that the Budget election question may be addressed in the school funding bill that is due for consideration in January or February. My fellow Board Member Sheri Goldberg and I strongly expressed Livingston's plea that both the Senate and Assembly hold these bills until everyone - particularly the legislators who are being asked to vote - have had the opportunity to understand the implications and potential consequences of ALL provisions including whether or not they serve the original charge of this Special Legislative Session - that is, to reduce property taxes. So far, there is NO evidence that this goal will be accomplished. The legislative disarray begs for a reasonable delay. New Jersey has waited this long - now, we MUST do it right! Bonnie Granatir, President Livingston Board of Education