EDITORIAL
By Ruth Luse
With parents of Hopewell Valley school children busy finding things for their youngsters to do this week during spring break and on the Easter Monday holiday April 17, many of the Valley’s registered voters probably aren’t thinking too much about the school board, school budget election that takes place between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Tuesday, April 18, the day children return to school.
In addition, many Valley residents probably are bogged down with preparations for filing state and federal income tax returns. The deadline this year is midnight on April 17.
The school board election which features no contests is about as lackluster as it can get. The three Hopewell Township candidates and the one Pennington Borough candidate have no opposition Tuesday.
The proposed school budget, which totals $68.7 million up 6.58 percent from last year is another story. We’re sure voters Valley-wide will want to have their say about this 2006-2007 spending plan.
But, before voters cast ballots Tuesday, we think they should know the school board, faced with a very difficult task this year, did work hard to keep budget increases to a minimum.
We’re also sure every Valley resident has an idea or two about what the school board could have cut or shouldn’t have cut but not one resident had a thing to say on March 30 when the school board held its public hearing on the plan that will go before voters Tuesday.
The budget plan is the result of months of work on the part of many school officials. It adds a few teachers to the staff at CHS, where enrollment continues to grow. It gives Bear Tavern school some special education teachers, so certain students, now bused out-of-district, can remain in-district. It adds two custodians to the staff at Timberlane Middle School, where a large addition is expected to open in January 2007. It enables the hiring of eight safety officers, one each at the elementary schools and two each at Timberlane and CHS.
The budget also reflects efforts to save taxpayer money. Areas in which these efforts were made include, among others: administration, technology, athletics/extracurricular activities and transportation (busing policy changes). Changes in the transportation policy have angered some parents whose lives will be affected come September, but the changes are in concert with state law.
Those who think voting no Tuesday could result in major changes to the proposed budget are barking up the wrong tree. A no vote would give the budget plan to officials of the Valley’s three municipalities. These people, who know little about what goes into making up a school budget, could, if they chose, agree on an amount to cut. They could even suggest an area to be cut, but the school board would not be bound by their suggestion. The school board could make the cut where it chose to make it. But, if the school board did not like the amount town officials wanted to cut, school officials could appeal to the commissioner of education, who probably would side with the school board.
Therefore, defeating a school budget for the sake of saving money for taxpayers really is an exercise in futility. Those angered by the current tax picture should concentrate their efforts on demanding that state officials address school funding reform the only thing that really could alter the school tax picture and overall cuts in state government spending.

