Chatham Resident: Proposing Framework For Three-Question Format For Upcoming Referendum

The following letter was submitted to Chatham Patch by a Borough resident. The letter addresses the Board of Education of the School District of the Chathams and the Superintendent of the School District of the Chathams concerning the upcoming referendum.

Members of the Board and Dr. LaSusa:

As I indicated at the open forum meeting at Chatham High School on 1/28/15, I request that the Board of Education reconsider its stated preference for a single-question format and instead adopt a three-question format for the upcoming referendum. I again make this request for two primary reasons. First, as outlined below, a three-question format is both legally and practically viable in this circumstance. By adopting a three-question format, the BOE would provide the voting public with an enhanced opportunity to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process. Second, and more importantly, by taking the incremental time and effort to craft and adopt a multiple-question format the BOE will set a positive precedent for future Boards of Education to emulate for the benefit of the public when those future Boards are confronted with their own issues of similar scope and importance.

I propose the following framework::

• Question #1: new classrooms, addressing deferred maintenance and improvements to Chatham High School auditorium and Chatham Middle School auditorium, deferred maintenance and improvements to other physical plant within the SDOC system, Cougar Field improvements as identified, comprehensive rehab of athletic field behind CHS with exclusively natural grass surface (rather than artificial turf surface for defined area), other items as identified by staff of SDOC through the process [identified $ amount TBD by SDOC];

• Question #2: incremental cost for new auditorium at CMS and associated components (e.g. proposed relocation of SDOC offices to CMS campus) [identified $ amount TBD by SDOC]; and

• Question #3: incremental cost to convert to artificial turf the targeted portion of the athletic fields behind CHS [identified $ amount TBD by SDOC].

The three-question format is preferable to the single-question format currently preferred by most or all of the BOE members. It is also preferable to a more extensive multi-question format as preferred by a number of residents.

• Single-question format requires an all-or-nothing decision. This format would compromise the vetting and decision-making process of the voters.

• The premise that the single-question format is the most appropriate because “…there is something in it for everyone…” is faulty. As used here, “everyone” includes beneficiaries of the proposed expenditure (e.g., students, teachers, parents, outside vendors and other interested parties) but does not include those responsible for the repayment of such expenditure (i.e. the voters (more specifically, the taxpaying subset of voters)). For those who may wear two hats (e.g. parents as both voters and indirect beneficiaries), they can vote within a multiple-question format just as easily as they could within a single-question format.

• The premise that the single-question format is the most appropriate because a multi-question format “…may encourage divisiveness in the community…” is faulty. Spirited but civil debate, which is healthy and constructive for the process, should not be confused with “divisiveness”. Likewise, spirited debate does not infer or communicate lack of confidence in the integrity of or the capabilities of the BOE or staff of SDOC. Finally, we should all feel fortunate (rather than cursed) that there is spirited debate –it certainly beats the alternative of apathy or resignation.

• The premise that the single-question format is the most appropriate because a multi-question format “…may not get us all that we request” goes to the heart of the matter. A single question format forces an up-or-down vote rather than enabling the taxpayers to collectively determine in somewhat more detail the tradeoffs between what we as voters “want”, what we “need” and what we can “afford”.

• If interested parties are concerned about the potential results in a multi-question scenario, then they should make an adequate case on the merits for each component of the requested expenditure rather than advocate a single-question scenario and hope that the voters vote yes (i.e. “…take the good with the bad…”, “…there is something in it for everyone so better to vote yes…” etc etc.)

• It is a disservice to the voters to force a single-question format when other viable options are available (e.g. three-question format as proposed or something similar; noting that, unlike CHS parking lot scenario of a few years ago as referenced below wherein legal requirements precluded “unbundling” the parking lot expenditure from the overall operating budget, a multi-question format is a viable and legally available alternative in this circumstance).

• The three-question format as I propose (or perhaps two or perhaps four etc) strikes a balance between the all-or-nothing (single question) and the potentially unwieldy complexity of a higher number of questions. Re the higher number of questions and as I understand it (from explanations at BOE meetings rather than diligent research), there are legal requirements that a “yes” vote is necessary for the first question in order for the second question to be considered, a “yes” vote is necessary for the second question in order for the third question to be considered and so on for successive questions (i.e. if everyone voted “yes” for questions 1, 3 and 4 and “no” for questions 2, 5, 6 and 7 then only question 1 would be approved)).

• The three-question format in the order proposed above maintains the integrity of academics and system-wide deferred maintenance as highest priority, arts as next priority and athletics as next priority (arguable whether arts should be higher priority than athletics but higher in my mind at least in part due to lower capital expenditure for arts versus athletics over time as referenced below).

Where to I come out on my three-question scenario and where do I come out on a single-question scenario? Question 1 – YES; Question 2 – YES; Question 3- NO; Single Question – NO. Rationale as follows:

• Question 1 – YES

• appears to be generally well thought out and prioritized by BOE and SDOC

• addresses direct academic needs and required expansion of facilities (e.g. additional classrooms at Milton Avenue School)

• addresses deferred maintenance items system-wide (e.g. substantive improvements to CHS auditorium, CMS auditorium, Cougar Field and other physical plant items on the various campuses)

• Question 2 - YES

• Albeit with disagreement about component of moving SDOC offices from current location to CMS campus (administrative considerations (while important) should not take priority over direct academic considerations (e.g. freed-up space is better allocated for clinical rather than administrative purposes, logistical and other considerations favoring the move notwithstanding)).

• Duly noting the comments from an increasing number of citizens that, with the adequate rehabilitation of current CHS and CMS auditoriums, there would appear to be sufficient composite theater/auditorium capacity to accommodate a thriving theater arts program going forward and taxpayer dollars could be more efficiently allocated elsewhere (e.g. into increased theater arts programming and instruction rather than into new auditorium).

• Notwithstanding its cost and potential “overkill / luxury” nature, I continue to be in favor of this expenditure. My children (who did not participate in arts-related activities) were able to take full advantage of the substantial improvements to the athletic facilities in the Chathams over the past approximately 10-15 years (turf fields and otherwise at both SDOC and town facilities). However, no corresponding capital investments were made in the arts to my knowledge over the same time period. Therefore, those with interests in the arts and similar non-athletic activities (either instead of or in addition to athletics) were arguably shortchanged by the priority of capital expenditures on different extra-curricular activities (i.e. athletics over arts).

• While a price tag of $10-11MM is clearly material, it appears worthwhile and manageable when viewed as an investment that will yield a tangible and substantive benefit to many future students over a period of 25-30 years or more (again, however, noting the argument that $ into programmatic activities may well be preferable to $ into new physical plant).

• Could the Chathams have gotten by with fewer improvements to athletics facilities over the past decade? Yes.

• Were investments nevertheless made over the past decade to improve the athletic experience for the youth population in the Chathams? Yes.

• Could the Chathams get by with two rehabbed existing arts facilities going forward? Yes.

• Should investment nevertheless be made to markedly improve the experience for those in the future youth population who choose arts over athletics (or arts in addition to athletics)? Yes.

• Question 3 – NO.

• Although a relatively small dollar amount within the overall referendum request, money can be much more efficiently allocated elsewhere within the direct academic arena (SDOC to determine where).

• The area behind CHS / Lafayette School is a park-like setting and a community resource (for walking, relaxing and otherwise). The community resource dimension is clearly overlooked and shortchanged in this discussion.

• The green space behind CHS / Lafayette School has already been severely compromised over the years by the combination of expansion of physical plant in the back of the campus (albeit necessary, and kudos to SDOC and BOE for incorporating multi-story additions rather than single-story, at least in recent years), lack of rehab after the various construction projects and by expansion of the parking lot onto the former Gail Chestnut Field (necessary in the eyes of many but totally wasteful and unnecessary from financial, aesthetic and utility perspectives in the eyes of at least a few (including yours truly, who nevertheless reluctantly voted YES on that operating budget)).

• A well-maintained natural grass surface compares favorably to artificial surface (with the exception of weather-related considerations)

• There are other ways to address the short-term weather-related considerations raised by well-intended and interested parties (e.g. those in baseball, field hockey, band). For example, there is clearly sufficient space at either Lum Field or on the turf portion of Shunpike Field to conduct full-field infield practice as necessary during the early portion of the spring season or during rainy periods during the season.

• A recent informal survey by yours truly found that, while most area school districts (including SDOC) have artificial turf fields for football/soccer/lacrosse/field hockey, a very limited number of area schools either currently have or have approved artificial turf fields for baseball (Summit HS (with some limitations on field dimensions; most games played on grass), Seton Hall Prep, Randolph HS, Montville HS, perhaps others (total of approximately 40 high schools contacted in Morris County and other counties in northern NJ). Given such information, the argument that CHS “needs” a full artificial turf field to be competitive is unpersuasive.

• The lower annual maintenance costs of artificial turf versus natural grass (as referenced on SDOC website) is not sufficient reason to justify the incremental cost of installing an additional turf field.

• Single Question – NO (counterintuitive since I support the vast majority of what is being proposed (both $-wise and project-wise))

• From legal perspective, BOE has the ability to craft a multi-question referendum in this circumstance.

• From operational perspective, BOE has the ability to craft a referendum which balances viability and practicality with the right of the voters to better determine how their tax dollars should be spent than would be the case with a single-question format (e.g. 5-10 question format would be unwieldy etc but a three-question format would be viable and manageable).

• The BOE acted in the best interest of the voters several years ago when, unlike most school districts in NJ, it refused to move the school board election to November from April (which move would have removed the requirement for a public vote on the school budget so long as it does not exceed the levy cap). It has the opportunity (and, at least in my mind, fiduciary duty) to exercise similar leadership and reasoned judgment by crafting a multi-question rather than single-question format in this circumstance.

• If the BOE refuses to adopt a multiple-question format in some form notwithstanding its ability to do so from both legal and operational perspectives, then I shall reluctantly vote NO on principle.

Thank you for your consideration.

Stewart Carr

For breaking news alerts and more from Patch, sign up for the daily newsletter by clicking on the links below.

Westfield* Clark-Garwood* Cranford* New Providence-Berkeley Heights * Scotch Plains-Fanwood* Springfield* Summit* Chatham* West Orange

More on Patch:

• Township Resident: Taxpayers Will Shoulder Cost of New School Theater for 20 Years
• Chatham Parent: Why I Support the Referendum and Board of Education
• Resident: Is a $14 Million Chatham Middle School Theater Reasonable?
• Chatham Parent: Let the Voters Decide How the $22 Million Referendum Should Be Spent
• Chatham Resident: $14 Million Middle School Theater Is Unjustifiable Waste of Taxpayer Money
• Breakdown: Where Did Your Chatham Taxes Go In 2014?