Status of Negotiations with Bridgewater-Raritan Schools’ Bargaining Units

In a telephone call this afternoon, Matthew Moench, President of the Bridgewater Township Council, provided an update on the status of negotiations with the teachers’ association, as well as of talks with the principals’ and supervisors’ groups.

Mr. Moench confirmed that on Monday, April 26th, the following parties had met in a preliminary closed-door meeting to establish an initial sounding of positions:

Present at Monday’s meeting were Mr. Moench on behalf of the Bridgewater Township Council; Denise Carra, Raritan Borough Council President, Mayor Jo-Ann Liptak, and John LaMaestra, Borough School Board Liaison. Bridgewater-Raritan Board President Jeffrey Brookner and School Business Administrator/Board Secretary Peter Starrs were participants.

Also there were Steve Beatty, President of the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association; as well as the two leaders of the Bridgewater-Raritan Principals’ Association and the Supervisors’ Association.

Negotiations, which are still in progress, center on the “possibility of further concessions and cost savings,” beyond those already built into the failed budget, according to Mr. Moench. This afternoon he was still actively “discussing options” with the bargaining units on behalf of those on the Bridgewater-Raritan negotiation team.

Mr. Moench added that he has requested the unions representing the teachers, principals and supervisors to get back to him by “Friday at the latest” with their proposals. He indicated that he “feels that they are doing their best,” and “believes that they seem to be acting in good faith.”

Without revealing its contents due to the sensitive nature of ongoing negotiations, he volunteered that he had a 45-minute discussion this afternoon with BREA President, Steve Beatty.

Because the voters of Bridgewater and Raritan rejected the school budget on April 20th, New Jersey law requires that the municipalities of the school district review the failed budget and forward their recommendations to Executive County Superintendent of Schools, Trudy Doyle.

As readers of this blog understand, there has been much pressure from Trenton for a total one-year wage freeze.

The current budget includes BREA concessions for health care (1.5% of salary) and tuition reimbursement in the amount of $1.4 million. These are offset in the current budget by reinstated budget cuts of the same amount.

The principals’ and supervisors’ associations also have agreed to pick up 1.5% towards their health care premiums. The Superintendent and all non-bargaining personnel are already on board with a one-year wage freeze.

Will Collegiality Win the Day?

At a meeting of the Raritan Borough Council at which Mayor Jo-Ann Liptak presided on Saturday morning, April 24th, borough officials stated that they were looking at a potential $2.4 million additional reduction to the failed Bridgewater-Raritan school budget, an amount which according to statements made that day could be covered by a union wage freeze.

Officials at the meeting further explained that the impact of such a freeze to the current combined tax levy of Bridgewater and Raritan would be to drop it from 4.95% to 2.83%, a 43% improvement. The actual breakdown for each municipality results in separate levies, each of which is determined by formula.

Yesterday, representatives of each municipality, the board of education, the three school unions, and administrator(s) met in a preliminary closed-door meeting.

Although no communiqués have yet come from that gathering, it’s safe to assume from discussions at Saturday’s Raritan Borough meeting that the key topic would be the question of a wage freeze for the three major bargaining units, the BRPA, the BRSA, and the BREA, unions representing the principals; the supervisors; the teachers, secretaries, and others, respectively. (The Superintendent and non-bargaining personnel have already consented to a one-year wage freeze.)

Further buttressing the assumption that the main topic on the table is a one-year freeze of salaries was the conference call last Friday by Education Commissioner Bret Schundler with municipal and school officials, as reported in The Star-Ledger. Schundler is encouraging “government officials, who will determine local tax levies after reviewing the defeated spending plans to reach out to union leadership during the process.”

Schundler claimed that “There are times when a third party, such as a town council, can help two parties look at another side.” He added, “In a negotiation between a union and a school board, they (municipal officials) are the counter-parties to the discussion.”

Thus, there is no reason to doubt that the critical topic at the moment is whether or not union members will get to vote on a voluntary wage freeze.

Saturday morning at the Raritan Borough Municipal Building, the requests from the audience – virtually all teachers – to Borough officials seemed to be unanimous in not wanting any further cuts to programs or personnel. The exchange was quite informal. It lasted for two and a half hours. At times, there were very personal and emotional pleas made from concerned teachers and other union members. (The BREA has already agreed to $1.4 million in concessions in exchange for a similar amount of reduced cutbacks – a net wash in the budget.)

What would you do if you were a teacher or other union member and knew that taking a full 4.35% wage freeze with no other conditions attached would save programs and the jobs of your colleagues? Would you claim your personal seniority and watch the pink slips go out, or would you take that one-year hit?

The answer is not easy – not if you are the one making the decision. I’m convinced that most people in Bridgewater and Raritan recognize this. They, too, have suffered the pain of absorbing hard economic hits.

We are all waiting for the answer. Will collegiality win the Day?

Photo Commentary:  In the picture above, Raritan Borough Mayor Jo-Ann Liptak and the Borough Council take comments from the audience about the failed Bridgewater-Raritan school budget at the April 24th emergency meeting in the Raritan Municipal Building. (Single-click the image for a larger view)

Strategic Blunder, or Intentional Strategy?

The decision by the leadership of the Bridgewater-Raritan Education association not to bring the question of a voluntary wage freeze before its rank and file for a decisive vote may turn out to have been a strategic blunder that could lead to further unpleasant cuts in the school budget.

Every citizen and voter in Bridgewater and Raritan has a right to know precisely where teachers stand on this issue. The budget has failed and must be reviewed by the councils of both municipalities. The total value of all salary increases built into the B-R school budget is $2.7 million. That includes not only the teachers, but the principals, the supervisors, non-bargaining personnel and other employees. The BREA portion is easily the biggest part of that number.

If the rank and file consents to freezing its 4.35% salary increase scheduled to go into effect July 1, 2010, there is no need for further cuts in programs, more layoffs and the angst of parents that their kids’ education will suffer as a result.

However, should the rank and file reject a salary-freeze vote put before it, then there is no longer any lingering doubt about its stance. And, should BREA leadership continue to stonewall placing this issue before its membership for a full rank and file vote, it then becomes responsible for the outcome of further program reductions and layoffs.

Left out of this discussion so far is the role of the principals and supervisors who also have not volunteered to freeze their salaries for the next school year. Is there any need to emphasize that these two groups are part of the leadership team and should take the lead on this issue?

KEY UPDATE: This morning at 9 AM, the Raritan Borough Council met in an emergency public meeting to accept recommendations about where school budget cuts might be made. The audience of at least 50 people was made up mostly of BREA members, with only several people from the general public on hand to express their views.

Raritan Borough Mayor Jo-Ann Liptak who presided over the meeting mentioned that representative(s) from the Borough would meet Monday morning, April 26, with representative(s) of Bridgewater Township for discussions. She added that BREA President Steve Beatty would also be in attendance, and well as a representative(s) of the B-R School District administration. The meeting is not open to the public.

Correction:  The third paragraph in this post originally showed the salary increase for the BREA as of July 1st at 4.2%.  The correct number is 4.35%.

A Somber Mood at the Wade Administration Building

At about 9:10 PM, when I walked into the conference room of the Wade Administration Building in Martinsville, election results were beginning to trickle in for the school budget and the four uncontested school board seats. They were being collected by School Business Administrator/Board Secretary, Peter Starrs, and projected via computer on a large screen.

All nine board members were present, as were the superintendent of schools and a handful of others. At about 9:33 PM, the mood became very quiet, yet still hopeful for a favorable budget outcome, since the yes votes trailed the no votes by only 160. Two other large voting locations were not yet in and might have changed the trend.

However, when all votes were counted, the difference held, and the final outcome was a school budget defeated by 171 votes. All four incumbents – running unopposed – retained their seats: Jill Gladstone, Lynne Hurley, Jeffrey Brookner, and Anda Cytroen.

What is remarkable about this election is the turnout of 9,825 voters, 66% greater than last year’s turnout of 5,923 which, according to Peter Starrs on his 2009 voting printout, was the “largest turnout since I have records, 1962.”

Not surprisingly, the outcome was a disappointment to the administration and to school board members. When asked if he had comments, Superintendent Michael Schilder responded with a simple “No.”

To the same question, Board President Jeffrey Brookner said that he was “still digesting the budget vote,” and “was disappointed in the outcome.”

Next Tuesday, the B-R BOE will have its annual re-organization meeting. It will face the responsibility of subsequently meeting with members of the Bridgewater Township Council and those of Raritan Borough to jointly discuss what to do about the defeated budget.

Voters Reject Bridgewater-Raritan School Budget

In what appears to be a record turnout of 9,825 total voters according to the release of preliminary numbers at the Wade Administration this evening, the Bridgewater-Raritan School Budget was defeated by a narrow margin of 171 votes. A total of 4,827 people voted yes, while 4,998 people cast a 'no' vote.

Same Topic, Last Minute Thoughts

Tuesday, April 20th,  is D-Day – decision day – for the 2010-2011 Bridgewater-Raritan School Budget. Unlike most years, it’s been one of the most widely publicized budget processes in decades.

What characterizes this one from previous budgets is that it is embroiled in a statewide financial crisis, with few school districts being spared the agony of cutbacks due to reduced state aid. The numbers which have been thrown about are dizzying.

Go back a few months: What do you think would have happened, if Jon Corzine had been re-elected, instead of Chris Christie? It’s not unrealistic to assume that the B-R School District would have received most or all of its anticipated state aid. There would have been no program or personnel cutbacks, perhaps not even any outsourcing of custodians.

The Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association would not have been asked to implement a wage freeze. Negotiations for another generous multi-year contract would have begun. And everyone would be happy.

Now let’s step out of that dream.

That’s the kind of thinking that leads to addiction, in this case, financial addiction. Let’s face it, Bridgewater and Raritan brothers and sisters, we’ve been living high off the hog in this district for too long. Ours is the state with the highest cost of education and the highest taxes. It is full of cronyism, patronage and corruption.

Seniors are strapped, having lost about $1200 from the cancelled homestead rebate. They have seen their incomes plummet as the result of virtually 0% interest rates and watched their 401k’s tank. Working people of all ages and income strata in the commercial sector are being laid off from well-paying jobs.

People fortunate enough to have solid employment are looking at little or no increases in their salaries and are getting socked with ever-increasing health care premiums. Tens of thousands have lost their defined-benefit retirement plans, a benefit still enjoyed in the public sector.

The nominal unemployment rate is pushing 10%, while the actual unemployment due to discouraged laid-off workers no longer seeking employment sits at a staggering 17%.

Does anyone seriously think that the spending trend in our school districts could have been kept on its current trajectory? What astonishes me is not that the Christie medicine is being forced upon reluctant patients. What does is that not enough could see the symptoms of the disease.

Excess is excess, no matter what field it’s in. The overly-generous spending in New Jersey on most levels, including within the Bridgewater-Raritan School District reminds me of the dot.com and real estate bubbles of the last two decades. We all wanted a good time and didn’t worry until the bubbles popped in our faces.

I’ll conclude with one of the most egregiously false and age-old arguments for why school budgets are where they are – personnel salaries which comprise about 80% of the total. We have been told over and over again that these are fixed costs, implying that nothing can be done to slow their growth.

But that argument is suicidally circular, because the same school board which tells us that salaries are fixed costs and can’t be slowed because they are part of multi-year contractual agreements, are the very same school boards that negotiated those inflated agreements to begin with.

By the way, that much ballyhooed 12.8% three-year wage agreement with the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association is in fact a three-year 13.35% wage hike. This result occurs through the magical compounding of each annual wage increase in the package over its contract period.

The school funding and spending problem in New Jersey and in our community is serious, real and now in our faces. The sooner we fix it, the better off we will all be. Jon Corzine and his predecessors are gone and they are never coming back.

It's been a long one.  Thanks for reading.

A Refresher on the Bridgewater-Raritan Schools Wage Package

I still remember the evening of December 18, 2007, when I sat down in the conference room of the Wade Administration in Martinsville to hear the Bridgewater-Raritan School Board approve a three-year 12.8% wage hike for the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association. I don’t recall board members discussing that proposal. It was put on the table and voted upon. Done!

Members of the BREA have received the first two increments of that raise, 4.2% for the 2008/2009 school year, and 4.25% for the 2009/2010 school year. The final increment of that package, 4.35%, is due to take effect July 1st.

Since the BREA is the biggest bargaining unit, the results of its negotiations feather out in talks with the principals and supervisors associations who won’t settle for much less. Similarly, this influences the increases built into the superintendent’s package and others on the payroll. Control wage increases for the BREA, and you control everything else.

One of the reasons that the BREA rejected the board’s request to freeze the 4.35% wage hike now built into the April 20th budget is that it would weaken the BREA's position in the next round of contract negotiations. That point was made in what was probably a slip-of-the tongue, barely audible acknowledgment at one of the recent public meetings.

In yesterday’s post, I explained the concessions that already have been made by the BREA, while stressing that the 4.35% is still the biggest purse left on the table and included in this year’s budget. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

In an op-ed piece today in The Sunday Star-Ledger, Governor Christie writes that “There is still time to reopen negotiations and have the teachers union finally agree to reasonable, shared sacrifice – a one-year freeze on salaries and a small contribution to health insurance costs.”

The Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association has already agreed to a health care insurance contribution. Now it’s time for it to do some heavy lifting, return to the school board, and cancel its 4.35% wage hike for the 2010/2011 school year. The result would feather out to other bargaining units.

But that’s not in the cards; that is, not unless you, the voters of Bridgewater and Raritan robustly remind the BREA of that omission on Tuesday, April 20th, when you draw the curtain behind you in the voting booth.

Times, They are a'Changing

There is a major debate ranging all the way from the statehouse in Trenton, into every nook and cranny in New Jersey’s communities about the multi-billion dollar state budget deficit and its impact on the flow of dollars to municipalities and school districts.

Anyone with even the slightest pulse and a smidge of interest in politics knows that at the center of that debate is what to do about it now that the well is dry.

There was a time when the well contained plenty of water, but we lavishly wasted that resource. The water table under that near-empty well can no longer sustain the endless pumping for more.

Substitute the word ‘Trenton’ for ‘well,”’ and ‘tax revenues’ for ‘water table,’ and the analogy comes into better focus.

Denial, a natural first reaction I suppose, seems to be the order of the day. Not everyone wants to recognize that a permanent paradigm shift has taken place and that the old ways of doing business are permanently behind us.

This is evident in the current standoff between Governor Chris Christie and perhaps the most powerful union in the state, the New Jersey Education Association. At the heart of the tug-of-war between these two powerful forces is the governor’s vigorous attempt to coax the NJEA into recognizing that this new financial paradigm is genuine.

The Bridgewater-Raritan School District is in the middle of that struggle. It was only after overwhelming pressure at one public meeting after another that the superintendent and non-bargaining personnel concurred to a wage freeze, and that the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association agreed to $1.4 million in concessions in return for a like amount of reduced budget cuts.

For what may be the first time, voices of Bridgewater/Raritan parents and others at open public meetings were the prime causal factor in forcing 11th hour negotiations between the BREA and the B-R BOE which ultimately brought about that $1.4M exchange.

Despite everything you may have read and heard there is still a significant amount of money left on the table. The district’s three major bargaining units rejected an earlier call by the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education for a wage freeze in the coming year.

That means the 4.35% wage hike for the BREA (and similar increases for principals and supervisors) is still in the school budget.

There remains plenty of work left to do.

The Fear of Defeated School Budgets

There seems to be an almost visceral dread by school board members and superintendents that, should a budget be defeated, the walls of the school districts – like those of Biblical Jericho – will come tumbling down.

Let’s take a look at that assumption, what’s behind it, and what is most likely to occur should a school budget go down to defeat on April 20th.

First, school districts tend to be insular and specialized operating units. Their elections are always in April, out of the voting mainstream. The thinking behind this is that school districts are not political entities and, therefore, should not be lumped with other political contests taking place in November. The latter is a view with which not all voters agree.

The relegation of school board and budget elections to the spring of the year has resulted in turnouts that are lower than those of the general elections in the fall. This practice of isolating school board elections draws interest mainly from parents of school-age kids (generally more from moms) and from senior citizens, both of whom vote in higher numbers.

The voting outcome is often a skewed, non-representative community consensus. Years which have high-profile burning issues – as is this one – may neutralize that statistically non-inclusive aberration.

Second, no school board or superintendent wants voters to reject the budget, because this means township and/or borough officials get to review the numbers.

But why, as I have observed through informal discussions and by listening to comments of board members and superintendents, is that such a bad thing? Elected town and borough council members have extensive experience in putting budgets together. In this state-wide fiscal crisis, municipalities have had to face severe cost reductions – they know the lay of the land.

A huge concern of all school boards and superintendents is that council members “don’t understand” school administration and will take an ax to their budgets. That is an unfounded concern. Municipal officials are not eagerly poised on standby, waiting for a school budget’s failure simply to cut it some more.

However, they know that they have a legal mandate to review a failed budget and will do so should that happen. That’s the scary part for school administrators and board members. Believe me. They don’t want to go through that process.

The fact that a budget may be defeated on April 20th is not doomsday for school districts. Elected municipal officials are experienced people with a good sense of their communities. They are not heartless, even as they may push for a thorough, second scrubbing of the numbers with a different set of eyes.

Thanks for reading, and stay engaged.

Pulling Back for a Little Perspective

The Courier News and the Star-Ledger have been publishing stories almost daily about Governor Christie’s campaign promises on which he has now begun to deliver. Even national publications and TV networks have taken notice.

No matter whether we agree or disagree with Christie’s specific proposals, it’s difficult not to admire a politician who not only was clear about his goals when he ran for office but, even more so, a person who actually has begun to deliver on them.

The standard procedure for New Jersey’s governors and legislators has been either to renege on their campaign promises or to have such fuzzy ones that the slipping and sliding begins soon after the swearing-in ceremony. Once in office, it seems that politicians suddenly experience an epiphany that the world no longer appears to be as it was when they ran for office.

Not this governor. I can’t remember the last time that I’ve seen a high-level elected official come out of the gate so quickly to implement an agenda that’s in line with his campaign rhetoric.

And why shouldn’t he act quickly? What will be any different if he waits another six months or another year to gather more information, to speak to more constituents and consultants, only to be diverted from addressing the obvious fiscal problems plaguing New Jersey?

Like frogs in a pot of slowly heated water, we have grown very comfortable to the temperature, unwilling to admit that when it came to a boil, we would all get scalded.

New Jersey’s new governor is looking to solve a desperate financial crisis which has long been in the making by leaders of both major political parties. They have been aided abundantly by the political forays and arm twisting not only of organized labor, but of well-meaning groups such as the Education Law Center and the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Some of these power structures need to be rebalanced and downsized so that the rest of us don’t continue to feel like sheep getting shorn of our wool.

Next: The Fear of Defeated School Budgets

As April 20th Draws Near . . .

Just a reminder that only 9 days remain to the April 20th elections which will take place a week from this coming Tuesday. There is a sense of anxiety in the air about what will happen with school budgets – especially if they fail to get approved.

Budget concerns apply not only to parents who have children in New Jersey school systems, but to all taxpaying citizens who have seen their real estate values plummet, as taxes go up and jobs disappear.

In the Bridgewater-Raritan School District, there have been a number of “E-Blasts” from the Superintendent’s Office. These are e-mails addressed to “key communicators” in both communities. Recently, they have concentrated on explaining various aspects of the 2010/2011 budget.

The last one, dated April 10, 2010, highlights the Academically Independent program (AI). It discusses cost categories such as teachers, transportation, testing, curriculum and instruction. The e-mail concludes with, “Thank you for your support and please remember to vote on April 20th.”

Previous recent E-Blasts discuss other 2010/2011 budget topics and issues such as what further costs may need to be reviewed, should the school budget not pass.

We need to remember this about school budgets: New Jersey is making a 180° turn in its outlook towards revenues and spending. Unless Governor Christie gets rebuffed by the state legislature and the New Jersey Education Association; and, unless his budget gets rejected by June, we had all better look very hard at the impact of school budgets in a far different way than we have in the past.

The old ways of looking at school expenditures and programs in New Jersey may be over for good. Governor Christie is proposing to implement changes which, if they are legislated, will have a transformative impact on the way business has been conducted in the schools of New Jersey. And that may not be such a bad thing.

Doing More with Less -- A Common Concern

Just read any newspaper in the country or surf the Internet and you will come across article after article reflecting one jurisdiction after the other seeking for ways to deliver public services in the face of a major economic downturn in which the unemployment rate remains stuck.

In my recent visit to the Washington, D.C. area, the Washington Post ran many stories about state, county and local government cutbacks.

Just like us in the Garden State, others are experiencing reduced tax revenues and the need to modify their budgets. Near the nation’s Capital, officials of Montgomery County Maryland have been advised that they can no longer count on the same level of state aid, and that they will need to find ways to provide public services with less cash from state coffers.

Another recent example – very close to home – is that of Somerset County, New Jersey. In its April 7, 2010 E-mail advisory, the freeholders released information about the county budget which is scheduled for a public hearing on April 27 at 7 p.m.

The freeholders are striking the same chord as that of Governor Christie in his message to school districts: Freeze salary increases. The county, although experiencing success, is struggling with the same problem facing school districts and municipalities. Not all employee groups are agreeing to hold the line.

In the E-mail release, Freeholder Director Jack Ciattarelli said that “These unprecedented times call for shared sacrifice and making difficult decisions.” He goes on to explain that “The wage freeze imposed on non-union personnel and accepted by the majority of unions is, all things considered, more than reasonable, fair, and appropriate given the economic crisis.”

However, Mr. Ciattarelli concluded that the freeholder board “remains deeply disappointed and troubled by those unions that, to this point, have chosen not to accept a wage freeze.” Seven of the county’s nineteen unions are still holdouts.

The proposed Somerset County budget is $212.3 million, 1.16% less than last year, with $169.9M to be raised through the county tax, which “will rise slightly, by .0016, from .2652 to .2668 per $100 of assessed value.”

Belt Tightening in Bridgewater & Raritan, but not in all Places

According to a report by Kara Richardson in the Courier News today, all Bridgewater Township employees except for those represented by the police union have agreed to a wage freeze.

In the Bridgewater-Raritan School District, all three major unions (teachers, principals and supervisors) have rebuffed both municipalities and have refused to place a hold on their salary increases (nearly $2.7 million in the next school year), leading to more cutbacks than would otherwise be necessary. Instead, they will pay a small amount towards the cost of their health insurance, 1.5%, and will give back $400,000 in tuition-related reimbursement costs, for a total of about $1.4 million. This is in exchange for lower cutbacks than those originally planned by the Board of Education in one of its draft budget proposals.

The fiscal problems besetting Bridgewater and Raritan are a microcosm of what is happening at the state and national level. Yet the interests of the average resident taxpayer and, yes, even the interests of the children in our schools are taking a back seat to organized labor power.

I have no beef with unions. My dad was a long-time active member and official in a trade union. The growth of organized labor came as a necessary pushback to the low wages, abominable working conditions, and flagrant abuses by management in the manufacturing and mining industries of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

But that was then. Some of today’s labor organizations such as education associations wield far too much influence not only in individual school districts, but also at the state level through their well-funded lobbying efforts.

The well is drying up but, unlike Washington, municipalities and school districts can’t print money to satisfy everybody’s desires.

Note, 4/8/2010:  The second paragraph of this blog post has been updated to reflect all concessions made by the BREA with the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education.

Christie Draws Favorable National Attention

Efforts by Governor Chris Christie to stop New Jersey from turning into a California-like fiscal disaster are gaining support by people and commentators who understand the need for fiscal stability as the basis of sound governance and as the engine of economic growth.

Today, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial entitled “Garden State Rollback.” The piece concentrated on Christie’s plans to present New Jersey voters with the ability to consider a constitutional amendment imposing a “2.5% cap on the increase in annual property taxes.”

The school tax is by far the lion’s share of New Jerseyans’ local real estate bills. If the 2.5% cap were in effect now in the Bridgewater-Raritan School District, taxpayers in Bridgewater Township would not see their school tax go up by the 5.42% increase contained in the school budget to be placed before voters on April 20th.

That is twice the amount permitted under the Massachusetts-like change envisioned by Governor Christie.

I’ve returned to my hometown in the Bay State numerous times since the enactment of Proposition 2.5 which was passed in 1980. Since then, the sky has not fallen, and education has not suffered. To the contrary, I have seen numerous school buildings go up to replace aging facilities.

Placing such a proposal before New Jersey voters in November will be a difficult undertaking. School unions can be expected to pull out all stops in their lobbying endeavors to suffocate this effort in the NJ Legislature before it ever reaches voters in a state-wide referendum.

Time for a Break

This is, as it should be, a time to pull back for at least a few days to gain perspective before the upcoming April 20th election.

Recent fiscal issues emanating from Trenton have had – as all of you who read this blog and other sources know – a dramatic and startling impact upon the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education and have shaken the school employees’ union, the BREA.

There will be plenty of time in the days preceding the school election to take another look at the data, the impact upon laid-off employees, the bust-up of the entire custodial staff in the Bridgewater-Raritan schools, and the impact on the tax bills of Bridgewater and Raritan citizens.

It’s time to pause, to celebrate Easter, and to wish all Christians and non-Christians good will and good fortune.

Thanks for reading and remember to stay engaged.

Note:  Photo depicts Lynne Hurley and Arvind Mathur conferring before last Wednesday's meeting of the Bridgewater-Raritan School Board