Crowd makes plea for restraint as Township Committee considers cuts.
By: Kara Fitzpatrick
MONTGOMERY What some may have believed would serve as a sequel to last month’s rejection of the $67.9 million school budget by angry voters was instead a rally in favor of it, as about 50 residents voiced support of the school district Wednesday.
The residents attended a Township Committee meeting in which a subcommittee made up of John Warms and Mark Caliguire presented an update on where budget cuts might be made following the April 19 defeat of the school budget by a 2-1 margin.
But in sharp contrast to earlier public criticism of the budget and Board of Education, those attending the session overwhelmingly endorsed the district’s educational program, pleading that money be shaved from the budget only minimally.
During a public comment session that lasted more than two hours, Valerie Smith told the board that the public’s spurning of the budget was not a mandate. "People are upset with their taxes, they didn’t understand the budget," Ms. Smith said.
The subcommittee update included no specific numbers or areas where cuts could be made. Mr. Warms and Mr. Caliguire said they were looking carefully at each line item for savings, but assured the public they would strive to maintain the high caliber of education in the district.
Of the more than 25 people that took the podium, just a scattered few let the committee know of their discontent with school expenditures. Others ardently voiced support asserting the public’s reasons for rejecting the budget were rife with anger, confusion and misinformation.
Tom Neilssen said an "ill-informed public" that didn’t understand what it was voting for caused the overwhelming defeat of the budget. "Don’t make cuts," Mr. Neilssen said. "The community needs to become better informed."
Mr. Neilssen added, "It’s incomprehensible to me that people who live in $600,000 to $700,000 houses are bemoaning their economic reality."
Several residents said they believed there was widespread public confusion prior to the vote. Some said people expected a follow-up vote. Others heard that, by voting no, they would save $1,000 on taxes. The proposed budget would have raised taxes for the Montgomery home assessed at the township average of $513,800 by $999.
One resident angrily described her reaction to an unsigned flyer that was mailed out prior to the election that asserted such falsehoods. She said she could do nothing but toss it in the trash can.
And many members of the public said they believe the vote was an effort, rooted with revenge, by those dissatisfied with less central aspects of education transportation issues, lack of full-day kindergarten or resentment stemming from the second-question laptop proposal, which sought additional funding to provide every high school student and teacher with a portable computer.
"The vote was an emotional vote, it was an angry vote, it was an uninformed vote and I would ask that there be as little cutting as possible," said Ms. Smith.
Many at the session concurred.
"We can’t let frustration with the increasing taxes ruin one of the greatest assets we have," said Andrew Pedinoff. "I urge all of you to continue to support quality education in this township."
Mr. Pedinoff said the Board of Education does an "outstanding" job controlling costs. "The school board can only be responsible for so many things," he said.
And Cheryl Wamke also called the election results an "emotional vote." For residents to vote for a new high school and not support the budget to complete the project is "a job half done."
After Mayor Louise Wilson told the audience that for every $1 million in cuts, the owner of the average house would experience a $125 reduction in property taxes one resident responded that if she had known that, her vote may have been different.
Resident Ingrid Yurchenco said she voted yes for both the budget and the second question to provide each high school student with a laptop computer which was rejected by a 6-1 margin. "With what the school district has been able to do, I will vote yes for anything, " Ms. Yurchenco said.
Ms. Yurchenco voiced frustration that a district as affluent as Montgomery would vote selfishly. "I think it’s embarrassing for a district this rich to be one of the lowest spending (per pupil) in the state."
It wasn’t all praise for the district, though. M. H. Kilany, a resident who has repeatedly criticized the board, accused school administrators of "padding" the budget in order to raise the state-imposed spending cap. He said the board and administrators kept expenses "hidden," and last month’s vote was the public’s retaliation.
Following those accusations, the meeting which seemed ready to wind down immediately ignited.
"This is the last night you’re not going to have the last word, Mr. Kilany," said Valerie Smith, returning to the podium. "I can’t sit back anymore and let (Superintendent Stuart) Schnur and the school board be attacked."
Others began to voice additional board support.
"I don’t see how we can criticize the board for doing what we asked them to do," Barbara Devaney said. "I’ve been to school board meetings, there are two or three people in the audience. (Residents) don’t come to listen until something affects them and then they say it was done in secret."
During the Wednesday session, Mr. Warms and Mr. Caliguire reported on the budget review procedure.
Mr. Warms said at meetings with the Board of Education’s subcommittee consisting of President Rich Specht, Vice President Andrea Bradley and members Reginald Luke and Charlie Jacey "we got into some very heavy discussions. At times, it was very heated."
But, Mr. Warms said, "It’s our hope that we can find the right cuts in this budget so that the board will be satisfied and we will be satisfied. We’re not there yet."
Mr. Caliguire said that, while reviewing the budget, "we’re not interested in throwing the baby out with the proverbial bath water."
He said Montgomery is recognized for its quality schools, and he would like to see that continue. "Having said that, we do recognize the school budget was defeated 2-1."
But, Mr. Caliguire said, "We aren’t looking to slash and burn."
Mr. Caliguire assured the public that he and Mr. Warms would continue to ask "hard questions."
Some residents asked for a specific number that would be eliminated from the budget but Mr. Caliguire and Mr. Warms rejected their requests. "The reason why we’re not going to talk about numbers tonight is because there is so much on the table," Mr. Caliguire said.
The budget before voters was about $9.5 million more than last year’s.
"We won’t be cutting a 16.5-percent increase to zero by any stretch of the imagination," Mr. Caliguire said, adding that the committee would be as aggressive as possible in cutting the "right areas." He didn’t indicate exactly what those modifications would be, but has previously stated that administrative costs should be examined closely.
The Township Committee must act on a revised budget by May 19. After that deadline, the board then has 15 days to notify the municipality if it will accept the numbers determined by the committee or if it will appeal to the state commissioner of education.

