LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

From the June 8 edition of the Herald

Universal student fee is best approach
To the editor:
I would like to expand upon a comment I recently made at the East Windsor Regional School District board meeting, as reported in the Windsor-Hights Herald. My suggestion was for a "college-style activity fee" for all students if the school board seriously considers "pay-to-play" user fees.
   An activity fee to be paid by all students at the beginning of the school year could provide a low-cost alternative to a system where only the students who join an activity pay the fee. As noted in the article, some school districts charge $75 to $200 or more in their pay-to-play systems. Let’s assume that the EWRSD sets up a fee structure and 500 kids pay $100 each to participate in an extracurricular program. The same total revenue ($50,000) would be generated by having all 5,000 students in the school system pay just $10 a year.
   One major benefit to this low-cost option would be that students would be able to participate in multiple activities without any extra cost. In a typical pay-for-play system, they may have to limit their participation to what they can afford. A flat-fee option would also eliminate the need to establish different fee levels for activities that may utilize resources such as ball fields, equipment and coaches, vs. activities that may involve only classroom meetings.
   If a universal activity fee were instituted, maybe there could be an agreement by the school district to do away with most or all of the school fundraisers that go on throughout the school year (assuming that the revenue from the fees exceeds the amount generated by the fundraisers). I’m sure most parents would love to send in one check at the beginning of the year and be done with it. The activity fee would probably be less than what most families wind up spending on all the fundraisers anyway! As Superintendent Bolandi noted, the Jackson school district has gone to a one-payment system.
   I am generally opposed to spending more money, but I would rather pay $10 or $20 or even $50 per child if it meant that our school system’s extracurricular activities could be sustained at their current level. These programs not only benefit the students but bring pride to the community. Some kind of user-fee system would help generate revenue without raising property taxes, which is likely why the two budget questions were defeated, but it has to be carefully designed so that it does not place an undue burden on students who want to participate in sports or clubs. A one-price-for-all fee would seem like a logical option to keep fees low.
Michael Henderson
East Windsor
I don’t believe Pohl was shut out
To the editor:
Some statements made by Scott Pohl, Twin Rivers board president, as reported in an article in the May 25 issue of The Herald must be addressed because they are misleading and a denial of the truth.
   The article was about a symposium sponsored by Rutgers Law Schools of Newark and Camden and Seton Hall Law University Law School. The symposium dealt with the abuses of certain boards of directors of homeowners associations upon their members and some of the things the state Legislature is considering laws to curb such abuses.
   I believe Mr. Pohl suggested that he did not attend the symposium because the (Twin Rivers) board’s lawyers and others requested to speak at the symposium but were told they could not. "So much for free speech," he is quoted as saying. But I do not believe that is true.
   The first part of the symposium dealt with an overview of some of the abuses by some boards of directors such as lack of transparency in governance, inability to access documents, restrictions on electoral democracy and a lack of due process in enforcement of the rules and regulations .
   The second part of the seminar had representatives from about 12 homeowners associations presenting representative illustrations of abuses by boards of directors. The third part was speeches by Ronald Chen, the public advocate of New Jersey, Senators Rice and Martin about proposals that they are entertaining in the drafting of legislation to cure many of the acknowledged abuses.
   The last part was a question-and-answer session, and anyone who wanted to speak was permitted to do so. There were people present who were opponents of any legislation and those people were all given the courtesy of presenting their views. I was offered the opportunity to speak and I am sure that if Mr. Pohl asked, he would have been given the right to speak also. The time allotted for this part of the seminar was expanded by about two hours.
   I feel Scott Pohl’s statement, "So much for free speech," is a cruel joke. The Twin Rivers Home Owners Association, I believe, is supposed to conduct its meetings according to parliamentary procedure. I believe, therefore, that one should be able to question any of the committee chairpeople. Scott Pohl insists on answering all questions himself and will not allow the committee chairpeople or any other board to answer questions. There are times I’ve gotten up to ask a question only to be told by Mr. Pohl to sit down because he didn’t like my question. So I truthfully can point to Mr. Pohl and say, "So much for free speech in Twin Rivers."
   In one respect Mr. Pohl was right. I asked the show’s sponsors if I could present some of the abuses that go on in my community and I was told that if I did that I would probably be on for two days and nobody else would get a chance to speak as there are so many abuses in Twin Rivers.
Al Wally
Twin Rivers
District needs to get its house in order
To the editor:
In last week’s letter to the editor, Mr. Mintz (and for the most part, the school board) fail to recognize the fact that it isn’t the democratic process in East Windsor that is broken but the system by which the school board tries to circumvent the constitutional process.
   There was a vote on the school budget and ballot issues surrounding extra funding. Had the main school budget been rejected by the voters, then the governing bodies of East Windsor and Hightstown would then have to make a decision on funding the school system.
   What they were being asked to do was to override a decision by the voters on extra funding.
   Don’t go bashing our elected officials just because they are following the letter of the law. upholding an oath that they were sworn to uphold which includes listening to the will of the people. The rights of the citizens to have a voice has been heard and the majority rules.
   Back-room deals are a part of every political process. Whether it be in Congress, local town councils or even a local school board. Anyone would be foolish to think this is not the case.
   What is really in need of repair is the seemingly out-of-control spending of this school administration. The administrators keep getting more while the support staff and kids gets less and less. Of all the school district employees who recently received pink slips, how many were friends of Superintended Ronald Bolandi that he brought here and put on the payroll in recent years?
   The school board and the school administration needs to get their own house in order and be ever mindful that when they run for re-election, they are asking voters to elect them to positions using a process that they have no belief in.
   Three cheers for the governing body in East Windsor which, in the face of constitutional school-yard bullies, stood their ground.
Dave Schemelia
East Windsor
Mintz’s agenda clouds his view
To the editor:
With regard to a letter in last week’s Herald, I find it necessary to clear up some misinformation presented by Clifford Mintz.
   The "back room" deals he referred to actually took place at a meeting called for by the East Windsor Regional Board of Education and was attended by members of the school board, as well as members of both councils. What’s surprising is that, given Mr. Mintz’ close relationship with the president of the school board (husband), he seems unaware that the meeting was called for by the president herself! He should also know that this is the same procedure that was followed in the two previous years when the entire school budget was rejected by the voters. Then and now, representatives of both councils met with members of the school board in an effort to decide on a course of action that would best serve the community.
   What was clearly different this year was that, while the budget itself and one of the questions passed, two were solidly rejected. This would indicate that the voters examined each item up for vote and then made a calculated decision.
   I’m not sure where Mr. Mintz got the impression that we "felt compelled to attack the integrity and character" of Mayor Patten and three members of the Hightstown council. When a subcommittee meets to work out a solution to a difficult problem, one should be able to expect some degree of consistency. Mayor Patten and the Hightstown council should certainly vote their conscience. However, before, during and after the subcommittee meeting, the feeling universally conveyed by Mayor Patten and the Hightstown council members was that the vote should and would be upheld. If Mayor Patten and those council members felt themselves leaning in a different direction then, before the vote, they should have conveyed their possible change of mind and, perhaps, suggested another meeting. It’s just common sense and common courtesy.
   With regard to Mr. Mintz’ opinion regarding "hearing what the public has to say," let me, once again, state that I believe in my heart that we did! I and my fellow council members felt (and still feel) that we could not, in good conscience, set aside the will of the majority for the sake of the opinions of the 15 people — as well-meaning as they may have been — who spoke at our council meeting. Mr. Mintz would do well to remember that we council members live here in East Windsor and, during the course of our day, we are all approached and get feedback from the general public. The personal contact I had with people was overwhelmingly in favor of upholding the vote. This sentiment continues today.
   Mr. Mintz closed his letter to the editor with the remark, "…the democratic process in East Windsor is broken…" I suggest that, perhaps, what’s broken is Mr. Mintz’ ability to view things objectively when blocked by his own agenda.
Alan Rosenberg
East Windsor Township Council
District dishonors honors students
To the editor:
Hightstown High School had its Scholastic Awards Ceremony in the auditorium during the morning of Wednesday, May 30, 2007, with those students receiving the awards and their parents having been invited to attend. Those who had received "honors status during all of the first three marking periods of their enrollment" were recognized "according to the number of years that each student has earned honors at Hightstown High School." Thus, those who had received honors for one year were individually named alphabetically and given a certificate by the principal, followed by those who had received honors for two years, then by those who had received honors for three years, and finally by those who had received honors for all four years.
   With all of the innovative programs that are supposedly not going to happen because of a lack of funding, despite a 4 percent increase in the general fund tax levy and a 4 percent increase in state aid, did anyone in the administration ever consider that perhaps this year having the names of these individuals in the local newspapers might be a very cost effective form of public recognition to further academic excellence?
   Furthermore, the student/parent handbook states on page 18 that there are actually two forms of "honor roll:" honors (a minimum of all Bs; one C allowed provided there is an A; no Ds or Fs) and high honors (all As or all As and one B; no Cs, Ds, or Fs)
   Thus, although those receiving "honors status during all of the first three marking periods of their enrollment" were individually named, what was missing again this year from the Hightstown High School Scholastic Awards Ceremony was any form of public recognition given to those who have received "high Honors status during all of the first three marking periods of their enrollment," either for one year or two years or three years or four years.
   Perhaps the administration could print the names of those receiving this high honors distinction in the local newspapers, or is the administration opposed to publicly recognizing those students to whom the individual teachers have repeatedly given their best grades? If the administration is following another new innovative program of which the East Windsor Regional Board of Education is so proud, please do apprise those of us who may not be as educated or as informed as to your rationale in not giving public recognition to these deserving high honors students.
   Then again, this is the same administration that simply refuses to publish the names of those making high honors in the local newspapers each marking period, even though the local newspapers are more than willing to publish the information and give public recognition to those excelling academically at Hightstown High School, so why should anyone be surprised. It seems that any educational or academic or scholastic concept not involving raising property taxes or complaining about how higher percentage increases are necessary is not deemed worthy of consideration by the EWRBE.
Marta Saho Lukacs
East Windsor
Borough developer can’t keep ‘slicing’
To the editor:
Hightstown needs to have the rug mill developed. It’s the most important thing in the borough because more ratables are the one and only realistic answer to rising property taxes. I don’t want to see it postponed, much less killed. I want to see it happen. (That’s one reason I support Bob Patten so vociferously. If it weren’t for him, we’d have lost it already.)
   But it isn’t going to happen without a developer, and we’re not going to have one unless that developer can make money on the deal. Worse, the housing market is getting weaker. That’s going to make it harder to make that money.
   Greystone has asked a lot from us since we saw their first, glittering proposal, and we’ve given it to them. Adaptation of the mill building —gone. Commercial space —gone. Retail space —gone. Borough Hall — gone. Losing all of that was more than merely unfortunate, but if it’s economically necessary to move the development and help Hightstowners with their tax bills, perhaps we just need to swallow hard and move on.
   The problem is that Greystone has established a pattern. They’re slicing the salami on us. Shave a little here, a little there, and it’s no big deal, right? But as the housing market gets weaker, how much more slicing will Greystone say is economically necessary (or economically desirable)? Will it get to the point that they tell us only rental housing will give them a profit? Will they tell us that only after construction has started? Will they say that unless they get rental housing they’ll walk away and leave us with a pit or a rusting skeleton as the centerpiece of our town?
   That’s what we need to find out now. We need Greystone to come straight with us and put their cards on the table. We need them to commit, as they would have us commit. And we need to hold them to that commitment.
   We can’t afford to give them a rental project. I’ve lived in apartments. Most of you have at some point. What was your stake in that apartment? "Man, I’d better not let the landlord see that ’till after I’m gone." What’s your stake in your home? "Man, I’d better do something about that." There it is. That’s the difference.
   Someone once said that "better is the enemy of good enough." Perfection isn’t ours to achieve, and we aren’t going to get a perfect development. We never were. We need to have the rug mill developed and an OK development may be good enough.
   But the salami slicing has got to stop, because enough slicing will leave us with a catastrophe that will shape the life of this community beyond the length of our lives in it.
Bob Murdich
Hightstown
Don’t rush on this mill plan
To the editor:
We read with interest Christopher Moraitis’ opinion expressed in his letter to the editor of June 8 that the development of the mill under the "current plan is no longer in Hightstown residents’ best interest." Unfortunately, his views are right on target.
   The current plan develops a "glorified apartment complex in the middle of town" instead of the upscale residences, shops, restaurants that the original plan promised. A 63-percent increase in the number of units will most likely decrease their appeal and have a drastic effect on the neighborhood where the mill is located as well as on the town.
   Furthermore, council members must consider the effect that the increased traffic will have on the quiet neighborhoods and parks where our children play. One hundred and thirty units will bring 130 to 260 additional cars through our neighborhoods and town. Instead of stepping into the mill’s upscale shops and restaurants, its residents will need to drive. Does Hightstown really want and need this? Don’t we already have a horrific traffic problem in town with many citizens afraid of walking in the downtown area because of the traffic? Have we forgotten the tragic accident where one of our citizens was killed when they stepped off a sidewalk in town and was hit by a vehicle?
   This increased density is an unattractive quick fix that will ultimately bring increased taxes, because of the additional burdens placed on the school system, police, firemen and on the everyday needs citizens require from a town. Increased property taxes will result in lower property values for all of us. We urge the council members to look to the future of Hightstown; what kind of town will you leave for your children?
   Hightstown can have a great future; there are many things to build upon. We have great hard-working people living here who deserve a safe, vibrant economic community for their families. The lovely Victorian homes, the historic designation of Stockton Street, the location between New York and Philly, the Peddie School, and the mill project as originally envisioned can help make this community a terrific small town to live in.
   Therefore, we agree the "mill should remain as is until the economics and desirability of living in Hightstown promotes an environment for the mill to be developed as initially envisioned." We ask the council members and the Planning Board to put the future of Hightstown first, not the developer, and urge other citizens of the town to voice their commitments and concerns to the council and Planning Board.
Mary and Jay Siegfried
Hightstown