Appeal to state claims the school board discriminated against newer residents and poorer residents.
By: Nick D’Amore
Joan Puchalski, a resident of the Reserve, has taken her dissatisfaction with a school board plan to change which students go to which schools to the state Department of Education.
Ms. Puchalski is asking that the plan be reversed and considered null and void.
On July 25, Ms. Puchalski and her lawyer, George Holland of Lentz and Gengaro, filed an appeal for due process with the state, claiming that the board acted capriciously, discriminated against newer residents and poorer residents and that it failed to create plans that only took geography into consideration.
In addition to reversing the decision, they have asked that the board create a new plan with geography as a sole factor and provide "damages and other such relief" to the Puchalskis.
Board President Harry Delgado declined to comment on the litigation.
The board approved a redistricting plan on June 18 that would end the current Dayton and Deans configuration. Under the plan, Dayton School will be linked to Indian Fields and Deans School to a new elementary school slated to open in September 2002 on the corner of Deans Rhode Hall Road and Route 130. The plan also calls for making Dayton and Deans kindergarten centers, but the board has said that aspect of the plan needs further study.
Ms. Puchalski was among the most outspoken opponents of the plan, which also redistricts the Reserve community from Monmouth Junction School to Indian Fields. Residents from the Reserve
were especially upset because their kids can no longer walk to school. They will have to be bused to Indian Fields.
David Carroll, the board attorney, said the board stands by its decision.
"We deny all allegations, virtually in their entirety. The process the board followed is in accordance with the law and its decision was a sound one," he said.
Mr. Carroll said the board is filing an answer to Ms. Puchalski’s appeal and the two parties will go before the an administrative law judge three to six months from now.
"It will probably be a year before the decision," said Mr. Carroll. "I’m confident the end result will be favorable to the board."
Mr. Holland said their main goal is to get the decision reversed and have a new plan drawn up.
"We will accept any other relief as far monetary damages," he said. "But the Puchalskis aren’t trying to get rich from this."
Ms. Puchalski and Mr. Holland maintain in the appeal that the Redistricting Committee "never sought the input of the residents of South Brunswick" and "ignored any input that was given by the residents."
The committee held three public meetings prior to presenting its report to the Board of Education. The board held one public meeting prior to its vote.
Their appeal also states the committee "violated most, if not all, of the redistricting guidelines" that were setup by the board for the committee to follow.
Those guidelines were to make all schools K-5, to balance school enrollment, create enrollments that allow for growth, keep neighborhoods together where possible, maximize the number of walkers, comply with state Office of Equal Educational Opportunity requirements, minimize the time students spend on a bus, allow for "grandfathering" of 2001-02 fourth graders by open enrollment.
Many of the claims accuse the board of discriminating against newer residents and those lower-income residents living in trailer parks, apartments, condominiums and rural areas. Conversely, Ms. Puchalski and Mr. Holland claim that the committee acted in favor of the wealthier residents who have lived there longer.
"The vast majority of children residing in the older, wealthier sections of South Brunswick, containing the most expensive housing, will not be bused far away, if at all, from their neighborhood schools," the appeal states. Mr. Holland said the lower-income areas and newer housing developments were unfairly targeted by the committee.
"Some of these neighborhoods were hit really hard. Some older communities are also being bused, but they are moving to schools with a lower composition of students and minorities," he said.
Mr. Holland said they would like to do more formal investigation into that issue.
"We are trying to get an expert on redistricting and population studies to work on the case and review the plans," he said.
"The board never sought expert opinions," he said.
The committee had stated previously that they used a demographer’s annual enrollment projections report to figure out the current pool of students.
Jeff Scott, assistant superintendent for business, said the committee was also made up of people with experience in the redistricting process.
The appeal also questions the numbers used in coming up with the various redistricting plans that led to the approved plan. The appeal specifically mentions using Head Start numbers to calculate racial compositions in the schools.
Previously, the committee has said that since Head Start is housed in Greenbrook School only, it included the numbers in their figures.
The racial guidelines are another major part of Ms. Puchalski’s appeal.
As part of its mandate, the committee was to en sure that each school complied with the Office of Equal Educational Opportunity regulations, which require even distribution of races.
Ms. Puchalski’s appeal repeatedly states that the committee used the OEEO standards to justify discrimination against newer and lower income residents. It also justifies the board not to create plans with only geography as a factor, according to their appeal.
"The OEEO issue was subterfuge. The board said it had to redistrict because of overcrowding, then suddenly it was because of racial issues. It came almost out of left field," said Mr. Holland.
"There were no major imbalances in any school," he said.
Mr. Holland said he has invited the board to resolve the issues informally, but has been ignored.
"We would welcome an informal discussion anytime. We understand the town has to be redistricted," he said.

