Larry Simms, member, Municipal Workgroup Committee, Lambertville
Now that the South Hunterdon Regional High School (SHRHS) budget has been defeated by a significant margin for the third consecutive year, it might be helpful to consider the possible factors for this defeat. Looking at these factors might give both the SHRHS administrators and board members, and the elected town officials of the three sending districts, who have the responsibility to now review that budget, an understanding and course of action on how to avoid another defeat of the SHRHS budget next April.
Certainly, the defeat of the SHRHS budget cannot be attributed to a lack of effort to get out the “yes” vote this year. After last year’s budget defeat, the administration, board, and community members who agree with the current educational structures at SHRHS put forth a valiant, highly organized, multifaceted effort to increase the “yes” vote.
GOTV (Get Out the Vote) began in early December to identify “yes” voters; recent SHRHS graduates away at college were encouraged to file absentee ballots; small groups were hosted in homes; the April 2010 SHR Community Messenger mailed to all residents contained a four-page “special insert” explaining cost factors; supporters sent letters to the editors of both local papers, including one from Superintendent Nancy Gartenberg and one from board member Seiter; and on the Sunday before the voting, “Vote Yes” blue fliers were distributed door-to- door in Lambertville.
On the other side, residents advocating for changes in the SHRHS structures, which would reduce costs as well as improve educational outcomes, did minimal work to get out the “no’ vote. A few letters were written to the editors of both local papers, and on the Thursday before the voting, “Vote No” green fliers were distributed door-to-door only in Lambertville.
With efforts on both sides of the cost reduction issues, 700 more residents voted this year than last April. However, the extensive efforts to pass the budget only secured an additional 359 votes over last year while the minimal efforts to defeat the budget secured almost the same results with 341 additional votes. The final vote was 829 yes votes (42.45 percent) and 1124 no votes (57.55 percent).
In a three-year perspective it is clear that each year more and more residents are voting their concerns on the SHRHS budgets: in April 2008 a total of 932 residents voted; in April 2009 a total of 1253 residents voted; and now in April 2010 a total of 1953 residents voted. It is worth noting that the “no” votes this year exceeded the total votes cast in April 2008 and was nearly as many as the total cast in April 2009.
Just working to get out the “yes” vote may not be the sole key to the successful passage of the SHRHS budget. Perhaps the SHRHS administrators and board members may have to consider other factors.
Perhaps the SHRHS administrators and board members need to achieve a balance between the demands of those parents who want no courses, clubs, or athletics eliminated or consolidated; and the demands of those residents who want the cost-per-pupil reduced to the state average. With those two opposing demands, both sides seem unreasonable. However, bringing down the comparative cost-per-pupil to the second most expensive, in the grouping of 47 regional seven-12 and nine-12 schools of which SHRHS is included, would be a compromise that could help pass next year’s budget.
Perhaps the SHRHS administrators and board members could take actions on requests not from just students and their parents, but from other community residents. As one example, last year soccer was added to the athletic programs and expanded this year when students, parents, and the coach attended a board meeting in March. However, when residents for cost reduction noted the ideal opportunity to consolidate the top three administrative positions into two with the resignation of the principal and vice principal last June, the board failed to implement this consolidation on even a trial basis for a year or two. Implementing recommendations from both parents as well as other community residents could help next year’s budget.
Perhaps the SHRHS administrators and board members need to expand their five-year strategic plan goals. When Superintendent Gartenberg introduced the presentation of the 2010-11 budget at the March 31 meeting, she stated the budget must follow the goals of improving student achievement and improving student services. However, nowhere in the SHRHS five-year strategic plan is a goal for cost reduction to bring SHRHS into parity in cost-per-pupil with the other New Jersey secondary schools. The inclusion of a goal to significantly reduce the per-pupil-cost in a five-year strategic plan could help pass next year’s budget.
And perhaps the SHRHS administrators and board members need to further implement the recommendations by the Municipal Workgroup. The most important recommendations were those that addressed the major cost divers in the SHRHS budget: small class sizes, small teacher workloads, extensive course offerings, and extensive extracurricular offerings. Those recommendations were largely ignored, regardless of the claims made to the contrary in the “Vote Yes” blue fliers distributed in Lambertville. Many residents understood the real cost facts when, as Linda Seida wrote last week, “South Hunterdon wanted taxpayers to shoulder nearly 70 percent of its lost state aid with additional taxes.” Presenting a flat tax levy to the voters could certainly help pass next year’s budget.
With all this in mind, of what could have been done differently this year to pass the SHRHS budget and of what can be done to help pass next year’s SHRHS budget, the elected town officials will now need to consider the appropriate actions now that 1124 (20 percent) of the 5,505 registered voters in the three sending districts have voted “no” on this year’s referendum on the SHRHS requested tax levy.