The Marlboro K-8 School District Board of Education has voted to move the annual election for school board members to the date of the general election in November. The board made the decision at its Aug. 21 regular meeting. All board members with the exception of Joseph Waldman voted in favor of changing the date when board members are elected by members of the public.
The next election for Marlboro school board members will be held in November 2013. Marlboro’s 2012 school board election took place in April.
A similar resolution to change the date of the election came before the board in February. The vote resulted in a 4-4 stalemate, which meant the measure did not pass and the contest would remain in the spring.
The board had to option to revisit the issue at any time.
School boards received the go-ahead to move their election to the date of the general election under a state law signed in January by Gov. Chris Christie. Almost immediately after Christie signed the law, most New Jersey school boards voted to move their election to November. Districts that move the election are no longer obligated to place their budget for the upcoming school year before voters if the proposed tax levy falls within the 2 percent tax levy cap.
If the tax levy exceeds the permitted amount, the public will retain the right to vote on the spending plan.
According to the law, districts that move their election to November are not permitted to shift the election back to April for a minimum of four years.
Proponents of the move have said the November contest may bring about a larger voter turnout when coupled with the general election.
Of 26,884 eligible voters in Marlboro, 2,068 people voted in the 2012 board election, according to district officials.
“This, by far, was the most dismal turnout ever in the history of the school board election,” board member BonnieSue Rosenwald said.
She said she believed the low number of participants meant residents did not care to salvage the spring election date.
Despite significant media attention stemming from the option to move the date of the election, Rosenwald said, most members of the public were still not drawn to the polls.
In November, residents are accustomed to voting in other races, which might make those individuals more inclined to vote in the school election which will be on the same ballot, she said.
Board member Cynthia Green, who said she was “not interested in making a decision at this point in time,” but eventually voted to move the election to November, said not moving the election could serve to attract only those who are concerned with school issues, rather than those with political motivations. Local political parties could go on to wield a destructive amount of power in future school board races, Green said.
“My fear is that it will be too difficult for somebody without that endorsement to win, even if it’s the best candidate, and that is very upsetting to me,” Green said.
Political tactics have already been used in Marlboro’s school board election, board Vice President Victoria Dean said.
Board President Michael Lilonsky agreed with Dean’s assertion, adding that “an incumbent who wasn’t backed by a political party did not get re-elected here in April.”
Whether or not the board chose to pass the resolution, politics would infiltrate the election, board member Carol Gambardella said.
Costs associated with holding an election in April prompted some board members to vote in favor of the date change.
The 2012 school board election cost the district $38,270, Business Administrator Cindy Barr-Rague told the News Transcript.
The cost of the 2011 Marlboro K-8 board election, which was conducted with assistance from Monmouth County, cost about $20,270, according to the district.
“The new law states that a school board would be responsible for any increased costs incurred only by a county board of election. The costs for an election in November we expect to be minimal because the county is responsible for conducting the general election each year,” Barr-Rague said.
Rosenwald said she believes more scrutiny may fall upon board members and the budgets they develop, but she said district money would be better spent on students, rather than on a stand-alone election.
“I would rather spend the money in areas that are more needed and have the voters hold my feet to the fire,” Rosenwald said.
After board member Edwin Madari learned of some residents’ distaste for the cost to the district that resulted from holding the school board election in April 2012, he said he believed it was time for the district to change the date to November.
The elimination of the public’s right to vote on the school budget irked Waldman. He said future boards might budget up to the maximum tax levy permissible without concern that the spending plan could be rejected by voters.
For residents who are required to pay property taxes that are borne of the spending plan, Waldman said, the ability to approve or reject a school budget is important.
“I don’t think it’s right to take that (budget) vote away from them,” he said. “… This is the only piece of their tax dollars that they have an actual say in.” Waldman, Green and Gambardella had initially said that before voting to move Marlboro’s school election to November, they would like to see how the change affects nearby school districts after their board election takes place on Nov. 6.
“Why are we running to pass a resolution that we can’t undo for four years?” Waldman asked. “Why don’t we wait until we have all of the facts and all of the information to make an informed decision?”
Lilonsky said he did not care how boards in other school districts might handle the date change and said the Marlboro K-8 board would be able to adopt responsible budgets which would be put together with taxpayer input in mind.
“I’m not sitting on anybody else’s board,” Lilonsky said. “I look at the people around me and I know how we’ve been, and I know the people in town have voted people in to this board consistently who have been honorable and have performed in a certain way on this board.”
Resident Debbie Mattos, who ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the board this year, said she saw reasons for both arguments, but said the matter of changing the date of the election should not be rushed.
In the end, the board voted to move the school election to November.