EDITORIAL: Jamesburg and Cranbury voters have an easy decision to make on Tuesday, but those in Monroe must consider their school district’s somewhat disingenuous way of presenting the 2006-2007 budget.
In Jamesburg and Cranbury, voters should have an easy decision to make Tuesday.
Jamesburg voters, for instance, get the rare opportunity to approve a budget that calls for a reduction in the school tax rate welcome news for taxpayers in the financially strapped borough.
In Cranbury, taxes are slated to rise by 3.2 percent or about $158 dollars for the owner of a home assessed at the township average of $225,000. That’s not a lot when you consider the level of education provided by the Cranbury School and Princeton High School.
Monroe’s budget is a different matter, however. The Monroe school board is asking voters to approve two questions: one asking for nearly $60 million to cover general spending and new educational programs and another nearly $2 million to rent, supply and staff 19 portable classrooms. Together the questions carry a 5.9-cent tax increase (2.95-cent each) and would cost taxpayers about $100 if both are approved.
Again, not a lot of money. Our problem is not with the general outline of the budget, but with the specific way in which it is being presented to voters.
The board was forced to break off a second question because of the state budget cap, which limits the amount by which districts can increase spending in any given year. Monroe sought and received an exemption for its fast-growing enrollment, but the board apparently thought that more spending was necessary to meet the needs of the township’s students and the second question was put before voters.
But rather than put what some might consider frills new programs, for instance on the ballot separately, the board decided to break out the extra classroom space.
The move in a district that has approved a new high school and elementary school since 2003 and in which parents have been frantic about crowding certainly has its political advantages. But we question whether taking such a chance is in the best interest of Monroe’s students.
We believe the board should have asked voters to approve the trailers which are absolute necessities as part of the general purposes budget. Voters then could have determined the fate of the new educational initiatives such as new Advanced Placement offerings and a robotics class without jeopardizing needed classroom space.
That said, we are not calling for the budget’s defeat. The tax impact is relatively small and, as a matter of general philosophy, we tend to encourage local voters to back their school budgets as a way of showing support for the good things that are happening in local schools.
There also is a practical matter of process. Defeated budgets go to the local governing body, which rarely make the kind of deep cuts voters might have envisioned when they cast their votes.
The reality here is that the Monroe school budget carries a relatively small tax increase and expands educational opportunities in the district. But it also has been crafted in a somewhat disingenuous manner designed to take advantage of the community’s anxiety over growing enrollment.
Because of this, we are not comfortable endorsing the spending plan, though we see no reason that it should be voted down.

