The following e-mail was sent to Bridgewater-Raritan “Key Communicators” including myself this morning, by the Superintendent of the Bridgewater-Raritan School District. Since it is noteworthy information for the entire Bridgewater-Raritan community as well, I’ve included a copy of it in this blog post without additional comment.
“Dick Bergeron:
April 22, 2009
Dear Key Communicators,
As you now know, the 2009-2010 School Budget passed with 3,609 YES votes and 2,314 NO votes. I’d like to thank you for supporting public education in Bridgewater-Raritan and always spreading the good news about the district as key communicators. This election has proven to be historic with the largest voter turnout since 1962 and with one of the widest passage margins in recent memory. Communities across the district, in every polling area, have chosen to invest in education, in spite of the difficult economic times we are all experiencing. We are excited about this opportunity to maintain and improve the educational programs in Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District.
I would like to congratulate the three individuals who won Board seats: Cindy Cullen, Patrick Breslin, and Christine Schneider. I’d also like to thank Richard Guss for his three years of outstanding service to the community in his role as Board member.
Thank you,
Michael Schilder, Superintendent”
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Still Time to Vote Today; Polls Close at 9:00 pm
The polls for the local school elections have been open since 7:00 am this morning and will remain so until 9:00 pm this evening. If you haven’t been able to cast your vote yet, please get out there and do so despite the damp, rainy weather. The community needs your participation.
If recent voter turnout remains true to results of the last decade, the Bridgewater-Raritan School District will be lucky to see around 4200 registered voters cast their ballots. That is approximately half of some of the turnouts of the 90’s, when there was greater and more diverse community involvement in the education process.
Ongoing efforts to increase voter input by moving the New Jersey school candidate and budget elections to the fall have been consistently unsuccessful, despite the best efforts of the legislature. One proposal would have done so, but at the expense of taking school budget approval away from the citizenry.
I still think that involving Bridgewater Township and Raritan Borough representatives with a review of the Bridgewater-Raritan school budget is not only a positive check, but results in a more thorough representation of the will of the entire Bridgewater-Raritan community.
The only thing standing between you and that review is the nature of your vote on the budget today.
If recent voter turnout remains true to results of the last decade, the Bridgewater-Raritan School District will be lucky to see around 4200 registered voters cast their ballots. That is approximately half of some of the turnouts of the 90’s, when there was greater and more diverse community involvement in the education process.
Ongoing efforts to increase voter input by moving the New Jersey school candidate and budget elections to the fall have been consistently unsuccessful, despite the best efforts of the legislature. One proposal would have done so, but at the expense of taking school budget approval away from the citizenry.
I still think that involving Bridgewater Township and Raritan Borough representatives with a review of the Bridgewater-Raritan school budget is not only a positive check, but results in a more thorough representation of the will of the entire Bridgewater-Raritan community.
The only thing standing between you and that review is the nature of your vote on the budget today.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Obama Disses Symbol of Jesus at Georgetown
Take a careful look at the picture below and concentrate on the triangular section of the photo which shows the Christogram 'IHS' with a Christian cross at the center of the letter 'H'. This is not a gag; nor is it a Dan Brown religious puzzle like the ones which appear in the book, The da Vinci Code.
Next, look at the other pictures below. They are photos of the same but altered background in front of which President Barack Obama delivered an address on Tuesday April 14th , in Gaston Hall at Georgetown, a Jesuit university.
Next, look at the other pictures below. They are photos of the same but altered background in front of which President Barack Obama delivered an address on Tuesday April 14th , in Gaston Hall at Georgetown, a Jesuit university.
There is a black shroud completely covering up the triangular pediment depicting the name, Jesus -- that's what the letters 'IHS' represent in Greek. It's an ancient symbol, predating the founding of the Catholic Order of Jesuits.
Quoting from an article by Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune: "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: 'St. Ignatius of Loyola adopted the monogram in his seal as general of the Society of Jesus (1541) and thus it became the emblem of his institute.'"
I don't particularly care what President Barack Obama's religious persuasion is. What I do care about is how he chooses to honor or to disrespect his hosts when he visits a Catholic institution that represents a 2000 year-old tradition, one which will be around long after his Washington tenure is over.
The insistence by President Obama and his staff to conceal a religious symbol while on the grounds of a private Catholic institution shows formal disrespect and a lack of situational statesmanship. Georgetown officials should never have acquiesced to this demand.
The President could learn from a former First Lady, Mrs. Laura Bush who, in a White House photo, was also pictured appearing in Gaston Hall addressing a Georgetown audience on December 4, 2006. She stood before a lectern and delivered her speech in the same spot in which Obama stood. The pediment bearing the Christogram was directly behind her, unaltered, in full view of the audience.
That's the kind of respect and stately demeanor that should have been exhibited by President Barack Obama at Georgetown on April 14th.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Catch 22: The Bridgewater-Raritan School Budget
Next Tuesday, April 21st, when the polls open in the morning, you will be asked to vote yes or no on the proposed $133.2 million school budget. If you have gone to administration presentations, especially if you are a parent, you’ve been told, among other claims, that there isn’t much that can be pared back.
The biggest portion of that $133.2 million tab consists of personnel costs which are now running at 81.3%. We are consistently advised that personnel costs are fixed. The assumption is that that they simply cannot be controlled. Try telling that to the millions of other Americans who are on the ever-expanding unemployment lines.
The fact is that the recent Bridgewater-Raritan Boards of Education and their administrations have done a completely insufficient job of managing people costs. Less than two years ago, this board negotiated a three-year wage hike just a shade under 13%, a number completely out-of-line with inflation and with personnel performance criteria. Today, inflation is running near zero.
If that wage hike had been just 50% of what it is, the budgets during the current three-year wage increase period would be less by millions of dollars.
This school tax eats up 64% of Bridgewater’s real estate tax levy. And things won’t get better in Bridgewater or Raritan, until the Board of Education realizes what’s going on in the real world and acknowledges that the education establishment is part of that world.
The biggest portion of that $133.2 million tab consists of personnel costs which are now running at 81.3%. We are consistently advised that personnel costs are fixed. The assumption is that that they simply cannot be controlled. Try telling that to the millions of other Americans who are on the ever-expanding unemployment lines.
The fact is that the recent Bridgewater-Raritan Boards of Education and their administrations have done a completely insufficient job of managing people costs. Less than two years ago, this board negotiated a three-year wage hike just a shade under 13%, a number completely out-of-line with inflation and with personnel performance criteria. Today, inflation is running near zero.
If that wage hike had been just 50% of what it is, the budgets during the current three-year wage increase period would be less by millions of dollars.
This school tax eats up 64% of Bridgewater’s real estate tax levy. And things won’t get better in Bridgewater or Raritan, until the Board of Education realizes what’s going on in the real world and acknowledges that the education establishment is part of that world.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
School Budget Lobbying Shenanigans
If the $133.2 million budget proposed for the Bridgewater-Raritan School District is so worthy of passage, why is it that there is such reluctance by groups advocating voter acceptance to identify themselves?
Several weeks ago, “Vote Yes” road signs bore the source of an out-of-town group. Those signs have since disappeared. The latest incarnations are very visible white-and-blue signs along the district’s roadways which read, “Vote ‘Yes’ For the School Budget - - April 21st.” Those signs bear no source identification.
I wanted to check out the legality of such an omission, as well as to be fair to the unknown group or individuals who are planting these signs in Bridgewater and Raritan: I called the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, the entity which has oversight responsibility over election behavior.
In a discussion with a compliance officer at the Commission, I was advised that all political signs are required to be labeled with their source, and was directed to the sections of the Compliance Manual which explain this mandate.
The regulations specify that “political communications” such as roadside signs must be labeled “with a political identification statement” that is, “(‘paid for by’ language).” The blue/white “Vote Yes” signs sprouting up on Bridgewater and Raritan byways bear no such labeling.
. . . Which brings me to my first point: Just which persons or organizations are lobbying for the budget’s endorsement, and why are they so reluctant to publicly disclose themselves? This, after all, is not the Kremlin.
Note: Alleged election law violations are subject to investigation by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.
Several weeks ago, “Vote Yes” road signs bore the source of an out-of-town group. Those signs have since disappeared. The latest incarnations are very visible white-and-blue signs along the district’s roadways which read, “Vote ‘Yes’ For the School Budget - - April 21st.” Those signs bear no source identification.
I wanted to check out the legality of such an omission, as well as to be fair to the unknown group or individuals who are planting these signs in Bridgewater and Raritan: I called the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, the entity which has oversight responsibility over election behavior.
In a discussion with a compliance officer at the Commission, I was advised that all political signs are required to be labeled with their source, and was directed to the sections of the Compliance Manual which explain this mandate.
The regulations specify that “political communications” such as roadside signs must be labeled “with a political identification statement” that is, “(‘paid for by’ language).” The blue/white “Vote Yes” signs sprouting up on Bridgewater and Raritan byways bear no such labeling.
. . . Which brings me to my first point: Just which persons or organizations are lobbying for the budget’s endorsement, and why are they so reluctant to publicly disclose themselves? This, after all, is not the Kremlin.
Note: Alleged election law violations are subject to investigation by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)