On the evening of Oct. 26, I happened to be at home, and I turned on the Hopewell Township Committee meeting. I was horrified by the spectacle that I was witnessing. [NOTE:  Click here for excerpts from Oct. 26 HTC meeting; ed.] It so inflamed me that I got into my car and drove to the meeting. I know I should have spoken, but I was so angry with the public speakers that I knew I would not be able to be composed or civil. Therefore I bit my tongue and hoped that the committee members realized that my presence there was to support them.

The five members of the Hopewell Township Committee are heroes to me. I am married to a Hopewell Township committeeman [NOTE:  Jim Burd; ed.]. I know the number of hours these representatives spend listening to the public, attending meetings, and reading materials that are important to making Hopewell Township the wonderful community that it is. This does not mean that community members will always be in agreement with their decisions, and that opposing views should not be voiced. There is, however, a line between disagreeing on an issue and personally attacking a representative when you do not agree with his/her decision. Mayor Vanessa Sandom is a dedicated, honest, hardworking public servant. She did not deserve the treatment she suffered at the Oct. 26 committee meeting.

Hopewell Township citizens — if you are a member of this bridge coalition, have given them financial support, or signed their petitions, you should notify your leadership that you do not want your voice affiliated with lies and innuendoes. You should seek out new leadership that will give the bridge issue the same time and consideration that your township officials have. Your new leadership should get educated about the bridge process and particularly about who owns the bridge. This informed leadership could then respectfully address your concerns to the county freeholders.

Debra A. Burd

Confidence in government is eroded when officials put their personal interests ahead of the public interest. As the manufactured controversy over the Jacobs Creek Bridge hit shrill new heights in the past week, a former official, a current official, and a candidate aspiring to office ignored public safety for their own gain.

The Jacobs Creek Bridge, a 125 year-old structure, is constructed largely of cast iron, a material that becomes more brittle as it ages. Mercer County, which has jurisdiction for the bridge and nearby roadways, was advised earlier this decade of inevitable bridge failure, a potential catastrophe that consulting engineers to the county recently concluded is likely at any time.

The Hopewell Township Committee, which does not have authority for the bridge, asked by resolution that the county modify its replacement plans on a bipartisan vote of 5-0. The historic bridge itself was to be preserved and moved to another location, replaced by a structure appropriate to its surroundings. The replacement would bring speed reductions, traffic calming measures, and a context sensitive design, along with a sound structure.

John Hansbury, a longtime Bear Tavern Road resident who was once chairman of the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and for many years chairman of the Mercer County Republican Party, decided to fight the replacement by demanding access to the detailed analysis of bridge replacement alternatives prepared for Mercer County. Disclosure of engineering details for transportation infrastructure has been restricted since the Sept. 11 tragedy. But Mr. Hansbury pressed his case, dismissing both current and future threats to public safety.

At the Township Committee meeting on Oct. 26, Jacobs Creek area resident Mary Jane Cooper battered the mayor and members of the Township Committee with unsubstantiated accusations of conflict of interest. As the inspector general for the State of New Jersey, Ms. Cooper should know better. If she has evidence of conflict, she is duty-bound to report that information to appropriate prosecutors for action. If she has no actual evidence, she should apologize to Mayor Vanessa Sandom, the other members of the Township Committee and her fellow residents for putting personal interest ahead of public responsibility.  [NOTE:  Click here for excerpts from Oct. 26 meeting in which Ms. Cooper confronts Mayor Sandom; ed.]

Township Committee Candidate Kim Johnson was unable throughout her campaign to demonstrate any positive distinctions — on the basis of experience, skills, knowledge or leadership—between herself and her opponent, David Dafilou. Seeing no advantage in substance, Ms. Johnson turned to the Swift Boat technique of attacking the patriotism of two distinguished leaders, neither of them a candidate for office this year. Not knowing at this writing whether she managed to reach office by this route, I do know that Ms. Johnson has sharply diminished our ability to trust her commitment to the public interest.

The first responsibility of public officials—former, current, or aspiring—is protecting public health and safety. Putting personal and political interests ahead of that responsibility is simply shameful.

Last week’s Hopewell Township Committee meeting was unfortunate. We all need to take a deep breath and consider the future of our township.  (NOTE:  For excerpts from the October 28 HTC meeting, click here; Ed.)

While public scrutiny and questions are part of public office, it is surely difficult to have them directed at you, no matter the position you hold.

That being said, the citizens of Hopewell Township deserve transparency within the governing process. Residents have voiced concerns about the removal and replacement of Jacobs Creek Bridge, realignment of the road allowing trucks and tractor-trailers to cut directly through this historic site and endanger our children’s safety, asked for disclosure and want to know “why” our county officials are insistent upon this course of action, and “why” our township officials have not answered that question for us. It is not uncommon for citizens to search for their own answers when their leaders do not provide them and confidence is lost.

Respect must go both ways. We must find a way to move forward, recognizing that this is a national historic issue. Together, township officials and citizens must work toward preserving our history, historic landscape, way of life, and security for our families.

Roni Browne Katz

Recently in a public meeting, Township Deputy Mayor John Murphy labeled a concerned citizen [NOTE:  the citizen in question was Ms. Mary Jane Cooper, Sara Cooper's mother; ed.] ridiculous and pathetic when an opposing view was raised. The level of disrespect to the individual was beyond belief. No words can do it justice. Now Mr. Murphy is conducting a public relations campaign to justify his actions. His allegations are convoluted and disingenuous in an apparent attempt to deflect the attention from his inappropriate behavior.

Elected officials must be held to the standards they are sworn to uphold. Individual citizens must be given the freedom to voice their concerns. If the latter puts elected officials in an uncomfortable position, perhaps it would be appropriate for him or her to step down.

There is no excuse for Mr. Murphy’s behavior. Insults and name-calling are never appropriate. Regardless of Mr. Murphy’s perception of what was being said, he embarrassed himself. Moreover, this demonstration of poor behavior in a public setting embarrassed the very citizens he serves.

The incident makes me wonder about attending and participating in township meetings; to potentially endure public ridicule and disrespect if you raise an issue that an elected official doesn’t like or want to hear. I respectfully request that Mr. Murphy make a public apology without exception.

Sara E.K. Cooper

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit up front that WE AT CUSP ARE IN FAVOR OF REHABILITATING THE CURRENT JACOBS CREEK BRIDGE, AND NOT REPLACING IT WITH A NEW BRIDGE.

Why?

It may be that General George Washington crossed near the current bridge on his way to the Battle of Trenton, and I certainly don't want to diminish the importance of the so-called Victory Trail.  But the truth is, historians differ on this issue and we don't, and may never know for sure.  But there is enough evidence to support the notion that this is true, and for historical reasons a widening of the road and replacement of the bridge does not seem to be a good idea...at least until a full historical audit, currently being requested by the Hopewell Township Committee (HTC), is complete.

Second, there is a great deal of concern amongst residents of the township that replacing the current bridge with a modern structure will result in unrestricted access along the road.  (The current bridge is both weight- and height-restricted, which prevents trucks in excess of 3 tons and of certain heights from crossing.)  Once again, until the County -- which owns the bridge -- has conducted a more thorough study about such safety issues, it would be imprudent to go ahead with the bridge's replacement.

Now, here is where it gets really interesting.

Turns out that in March of this year, the entire Township Committee (both Democrats and Republicans alike) voted to give provisional approval to the County in its desire to replace the Jacobs Creek Bridge.  When I say provisional, I mean that while they gave a nod in the County's direction, they also insisted that such approval be subject to a thorough historic and safety analysis of the plan.

While it might be satisfying to suggest the Township Committee thumb their nose at the County -- since the Jacobs Creek Bridge is owned by the County, and since whatever changes to the bridge (including its potential removal) must conform to County and State standards -- it's naive to think that the Township could or should dismiss the County's decision to replace the bridge.  Indeed, had the Township Committee done so back in March, in all likelihood, the County would have simply ignored the Township's protests and gone ahead with the bridge's removal.

Like it or not, the County is our partner on this issue.  We have to work with them.  It's their bridge.  This is why the HTC didn't simply lambast the County's decision, and why they are currently working in tandem with the County to resolve the historic and safety issues associated with the bridge and Victory Trail.  After all, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as my grandfather used to say.

It will be months, if not years, before this issue is resolved with the County.  In the meantime, due to fears that trucks exceeding the weight restriction will continue to illegally use the bridge, it's been closed by the Country, which has cited safety reasons.  (Clearly, the Township does not have the resources to maintain a police presence in the area 24/7 in order to ensure that overweight vehicles don't cross the bridge.)

I support the Save the Victory Trail and Jacobs Creek Bridge Coalition.  I believe in what they stand for.  But, much to my dismay, I have seen the organization morph from a group of passionate individuals -- many of whom are dedicated to the historic preservation of our valley, and have been for some time  -- to one that is being compromised by a group of extremists who don't simply have a historic or safety agenda, but a political one.

The group claims to be non-partisan.  Indeed, if you go to the website, you will see this boldy stated in the first line of the group's "About Us" page.  Then, how is it that influential members of this group -- including Beth Kerr and Mary Jane Cooper -- went to last Monday's HTC meeting and actively lobbied for the election of Kim Johnson in this Tuesday's election?  But I guess I should have known this since, if you go to the Coalition's "What the candidates have to say" page, all the candidates are Republicans.

Further, I recently received a postcard (including a photo of the Bear Tavern School) supporting Kim Johnson that uses scare tactics about tractor trailer trucks barreling down Bear Tavern Road, and which states that both the County and Mayor Sandom of the HTC want to put a concrete bridge across Jacobs Creek that would allow unrestricted access to the area.

Even worse, this group of extremists intimated at the October 26th HTC meeting that our mayor has some unethical connection to Janssen Pharmaceutical, and that said relationship is somehow coloring her decisions on this issue.  (Click here for excerpts from the October 26 HTC meeting, and here for the mayor's husband's response to the allegations of his connection to J&J which appeared in the Hopewell Valley News on October 29, 2009.)

Both of these allegations are patently false.  The entire HTC unanimously voted to provide provisional approval to the County to remove the bridge (for the reasons outlined above).  It wasn't a partisan decision.  They did so in order to engage the County in an ongoing dialogue about their historic and safety concerns.  And, it turns out, neither Mayor Sandom nor her husband have any connection whatsoever with Janssen and J&J.

The more one examines this issue, the clearer it becomes that a few extremists in the Coalition are exploiting this group not to raise awareness about the safety or historic issues pertaining to the area, but to help Kim Johnson (a Republican) get elected to the HTC.  They reason that if Ms. Johnson is successful in defeating her Democratic rival, David Dafilou, the majority of the HTC will be Republican, and therefore, they will be able to replace Ms. Sandom (a Democrat) with Mike Markulec (a Republican).

Even more troubling is the fact that the Kerrs, who have been some of the most strident supporters of the Coalition, seem to have their own financial axe to grind.  First, while Beth Kerr has intimated that Mayor Sandom (through her husband, a pharmaceutical consultant) is on the take from Janssen, it turns out that her family has been receiving tens of thousands of dollars a year in fees from Janssen for mowing their property; both properties are adjacent to one another.  So, if anyone is on the take from Janssen, it seems to be the Kerrs.

In addition, the Kerr farm has been for sale for some time now and we've heard it on good authority that they were in discussion with the Toll Brothers -- the mega developer -- to buy their farm in order to develop it as a residential tract, which would have undoubtedly increased traffic in the area and diminished its historic value.  Luckily for the entire community, due to tough economic times, the deal fell through.  Since then, apparently, the Kerrs have been looking to see if the Township might purchase the property for Open Space.  Perhaps this is why they have tried to increase the area's "historic" value, thereby making such a deal more promising. 

Now, before you jump for joy over the prospect of a Republican victory on November 3rd, let me point out that should Kim Johnson win, should Mayor Sandom be forced from office, and should the current leadership be replaced by an intransigent Republican majority -- one which is not interested in negotiating with the County but, rather, in confronting them -- we're convinced it will be a cold day in hell before we're able to preserve the Jacobs Creek Bridge, and ensure that Bear Tavern remains a safe thoroughfare for our children.

We at CUSP are obsessed with the safety of our children.  We don't want to see more big trucks rolling down Bear Tavern Road.  But we also realize that it may not be possible to rehabilitate the existing Jacobs Creek Bridge.  [The Coalition says this can be done, but they don't seem to want to spend the $17K required to develop the plans needed to prove this point, nor have they turned anything over to the HTC or any other body to support their claim.]  We also realize that if the bridge is replaced with County monies, they will have to follow predetermined standards for said bridge; i.e. no height restriction, etc.

It is our view, then, that maintaining a good relationship with the County is essential if we are to resolve this complex problem.  We have to work with them to ensure that our historic and safety concerns are addressed...and addressed in the way we want them addressed.

We have examined Kim Johnson, the tactics she's used to get herself elected by exploiting the Jacobs Creek Bridge issue and the Coalition, the way she's misrepresented the truth in her advertising and speeches, and her preaching of intransigence with the County.  We've examined her and found her lacking.

On the other hand, David Dafilou, her opponent, has shown himself to be an educated and moderate voice on the HTC for the last 7 months.  He has a background in finance, something sorely needed on the Committee.  And he has the inclination to negotiate with the County.

Because of our obsession with safety, and because of our strong desire to see the current Jacobs Creek Bridge remain in place, we've decided to endorse David Dafilou for Hopewell Township Committee.

Don't be fooled by the political rhetoric coming out of the Kim Johnson camp.  Don't succumb to the nasty tactics being foisted upon this community by a few extremists within the Coalition.  Stay true to the course and support the cause to preserve the Jacobs Creek Bridge.  Keep Bear Tavern road safe.  This Tuesday, November 3rd, vote for Dave Dafilou.

The October 26^th Hopewell Township Committee meeting was hijacked by these individuals, who resorted to stealing the podium in order to repeatedly cross-examine the Mayor, and to promote their own political agenda, despite clear instructions from the Township Attorney that such use of the “public comment” was not allowed. Their accusation is that I have had a professional relationship with Johnson & Johnson and, therefore, that Mayor Sandom’s position on Jacobs Creek Bridge favors Janssen Pharmaceutica, which is part of J&J.  As is typical of such mud-slingers, these individuals claim they are innocently “seeking transparency.”  However, the following quote from Ashley Kerr on their website belies this seemingly noble contention:  “I don’t understand why Mayor Sandom is so adamant…  Could it be because her husband… owns a biotech company of which Johnson and Johnson is now manufacturing their new DNA drug?  Hmm…”  This kind of Swift Boat ad hominem attack is hardly an example of “seeking transparency”!

Here are the facts.  I have never had any business relationship or interest in J&J whatsoever.  Since February, 2008 I have been a Director of Perlegen Sciences, Inc., not an owner (although Ms. Kerr eventually corrected that element of her accusation).  Since my joining the Perlegen board, the company has had absolutely no business dealings with J&J.   Although Perlegen did do some work with J&J three years prior to my joining the company (as well as with the majority of major pharmaceutical companies, plus 11 of the 12 Institutes of the National Institutes of Health), that line of business for Perlegen ceased prior to my joining the board.  I also work as a consultant to the pharmaceutical industry; however, I have never done any business with, nor solicited any business from J&J.

Beth Kerr, in making her public accusation at the Oct. 26 Township Committee meeting, stated that “I know that Ms Sandom has mentioned that her husband hasn’t been involved, but we have this wonderful thing called Google… and a company named Perlegen did pop up… and your husband Carl J. Seiden is on that Board… and in 2005 Perlegen did collaborate with J&J on a project.”  How pathetic is it that opponents on a local issue like the Jacobs Creek Bridge would mine Google with the specific intent to search for dirt on a politician’s family, and then manufacture lies built on that “research” solely to personally attack those they believe oppose them.  Such statements are defamatory, and damaging to my professional reputation.  Perhaps more importantly, they are reflective of the worst in American politics – that is the effort to do anything to personally attack and discredit those perceived to be a political adversary – let the facts be dammed.

Those who serve as elected officials and volunteers in our local government dedicate countless hours to what is often a thankless task.  Bless them all, regardless of their party affiliation or position on specific issues.  There is no place in the process for those who are so blinded by their certainty, and so devoid of a moral compass, that they resort to baseless personal attacks rather than focusing on healthy constructive debate on the issues at hand.  Those who enjoy the political support of these individuals are tarnished by the association.  I sincerely hope that the people in this community are more thoughtful and insightful than assumed by those waging this smear campaign.

Carl Seiden

When Linda Mitchell announced her retirement from the School Board, CUSP members cheered.  She was singularly responsible for getting rid of District-sponsored Hazardous Busing for our children, replacing it with a pay-to-play solution that was anything but fair to most parents.

Most recently, a new Board member was selected to take her place . . . although the District's website still features Ms. Mitchell's photograph as the President.  Hello, is anybody there?

Thankfully, old guard candidate Gainsborg -- an obvious shill for the entrenched majority -- was not selected.  And given said entrenched majority's opinion of Kim Robinson (for, among other things, daring to read Adam Finkel's letter in public; see below), Leigh Peterson was chosen as a compromise candidate.

Now, only time will tell if the candidates we've supported in the past will actually make good on their promises to ensure that the children of this valley who live in hazardous zones receive what our considerable tax dollars should be paying for -- AKA busing.

But will they?

Clearly, Bartolino and the Mitchell clone Daniels won't.  They will most probably always remain the puppets of Sally Turner and Melissa Weeks.

O'Connor's a long shot, despite the fact that folks who moved to Pennington over the summer didn't know their kids weren't going to have buses, nor did they get them even when they tried to buy them a space since bus routes have been reduced and there weren't any spots left!

It's too early to tell about Peterson.

But what about the rest of the Board?

Tellier and Wulf, where are you?  Dollard, do you care?  Will Myers finally show some backbone?  And will Lindenberger finally throw off the yoke of those who put her in power and see the light?

Only time will tell.

But we grow impatient.  A new election approaches in the spring.  If those who we've supported fail to bring this issue to the table by year's end, we will work tirelessly to remove them ... as we worked tirelessly to help get them elected.

Be warned!

Adam M. Finkel, Sc.D. Letter to the School Board on “Strings and Science” -- CUSP GUEST OPINION

May 19, 2008

Dear members of the Board and Dr. Ferguson:

I apologize that despite my great interest in any proposed revisions to the Elementary school curriculum, I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting (I am attending Commencement at Penn Law School, and then at UMDNJ, until very late this evening). I would appreciate if this comment was made part of the official record of tonight’s meeting, despite my inability to read it in person. I have spoken at Board meetings 4 or 5 times in the past, and never received any response, comment, or question from any Board members during the meetings, so it does seem that this method of expressing my views is equivalent to my being with you in person.

Of course, I have no idea what Ms. Napolitano’s presentation this evening will contain, and so I apologize further if this statement is in part made repetitive by her proposal. But I recently heard the rumor that part of what is being proposed will involve returning Primary Strings to next year’s Third graders, as a mandatory part of the school day in the first semester and as an “elective” in the second. If this is accurate, I commend the District for reaching this conclusion, and urge the Board to ratify it.

Given the importance of musical education, motor-skills development, and the foundation that instrumental practice lays for the rest of the District’s music program, it is crucial that the “elective” be available during regular school hours, and I hope this will be the case. Apparently, students will have to rent violins for the “elective,” which seems unfortunate given that the taxpayers have already paid for the instruments and they will not, I am told, be used by First graders next year. A system that provides a refundable deposit for damage would allow students to use the instruments at no financial risk to the District, but if you reject that idea, I urge you to set up a mechanism whereby those of us willing to subsidize rental fees for those who would find it a financial hardship can do so. I would be happy to contribute to such a fund and to help look for other sponsors.

I want to look forward, but I hope it is clear that last year’s decision to reshuffle the Music department staff was unnecessary and harmful both to the students and to relationships between the Board and the voters. Taking Strings away from this year’s 2nd and 3rd graders ignored the expressed wishes of at least several hundred parents, in favor of the very narrow special interests of a few parents who objected to the program for personal reasons or who wished to further expand Band offerings for their older children. Naturally, it saved not a single penny, as all the Strings teachers remain on the payroll, only teaching other instruments. I have been told (and no, Dr. Ferguson, I won’t “give you his/her name”), that at least one of the Strings teachers has been taking night lessons in how to teach Band instruments, at his/her own expense. Even putting aside the harm done to the students, this is no way to run a “company,” let alone a public-sector organization, and I hope our human resources experts will agree and will work to prevent such arbitrary reshuffling in the future.

Looking forward, the single most important question those of us who are interested in education have is “where will the 42 minutes come from?” I have no idea if this was just explained in the presentation, but if the proposal is to reinstate Strings while cutting General Music, I must object. That decision would compound last year’s mistake with a worse mistake. Instrumental performance without a foundation in how music works is like programming a computer to write a novel—it is not education. If instead, the proposal is to end the one-year experiment with “science taught more slowly,” I must also object. The choice should not be between music and a poor science program; we need a good science program first and foremost, and then Strings can be taught in place of something that the District and the community as a whole agrees is less important. I want to briefly recap how we got to this point:

• Last spring, we were promised a “new science curriculum,” and indeed we were eventually told that the “real” reason for cutting Strings was to make room for this material, which supposedly involved use of hands-on demonstration kits that were paid for but not used due to time constraints.
• As the months went by, it became increasingly clear that the 2nd and 3rd grade teachers had been given no new material or new training whatsoever. As early as September 27 of last year, I wrote a letter to the Hopewell Valley News reporting that our teachers had told us publicly that their only option was to “fill the time.” A number of parents addressed the Board as early as
  April 2007, expressing concern that this was exactly what was going to happen; we were rebuffed, and those of you who have not since left the Board should accept this huge “we told you so” graciously.
• Interestingly, not more than 2 hours after that letter appeared online on Sept. 27, Dr. Ferguson sent the following e-mail to the Principals and 2nd-3rd-grade teachers. I received this from someone in the HV school system (and no, Dr. Ferguson, I won’t “give you his/her name”…):

Principals: kindly forward this email to your second and third grade teachers. I have recently heard that a few of the teachers in grades two and three are unclear regarding the expectation for the instructional time gained through the reduction of strings. I was under the impression that the agreements made at the board level had been conveyed to you, but it is possible that with Mr. Bach's departure during the summer this may not have been communicated clearly.

It is the board and administration’s expectation that the additional 42 minutes per week gained from the reduction of strings will be used to increase instruction in our approved inquiry based science curriculum. Should you require support, Mary Yeoman's [sic] remains available to you for the successful implementation of this curriculum.

Thank you for your continued service to our students.

I ask the Board: what message does it send to order teachers to spend 42minutes “increasing instruction in our approved science curriculum” without (to this day!) providing any new material or conducting any training that might make that time worthwhile?

I learned from a meeting in March with Ms. Yeomans and Mr. Umstead that the teachers regard that extra 25 hours a year as a chance “for the children to ask more questions,” which is of course not a bad thing, but it is a far cry from what we were led to believe would happen. At Toll Gate, the unit on the solar system was mostly taken up with memorizing lines for a (well-done) school play, and the only other science for the year (the unit on the human body) just began two weeks ago. Meanwhile, the state mandate that 2nd graders learn some chemistry, some physics, and some earth science has been ignored. This is a bigger problem than just the waste of the extra time, but that problem has now put the larger issue on the table.

I have described what has happened with Strings and Science this year as “theft” and as a “cruel hoax.” Strong words, but no one has explained why this is an incorrect characterization. Of course, the three salaried officials responsible for this have all resigned, so we have no choice but to look forward, mindful that it is always easy to pass the buck to less senior officials, especially when you are on the way out the door.

I respectfully suggest that the Board discuss and approve the appointment of a joint parent-teacher-Board committee to evaluate and improve the Elementary Science curriculum from top to bottom. Rather than return last year’s insult from the Board president—“you parents simply don’t have the expertise we do”—with the retort that among the parents I know are actual working scientists, elementary-school science teachers from other districts, professors of science at places like Princeton and UMDNJ, how about we agree that we ALL have something to bring to this discussion? I would be
happy to be part of a committee with people who don’t have the level of expertise that I do, because expertise alone is only part of the story. I firmly believe that such a committee could do in three months what the District has not been able to do on its own in the last twelve—that is, to improve the Science offerings beginning in September.

I can imagine reasons why the District would reject this idea, but I cannot imagine any good reasons.

Again, I apologize that I could not be here tonight. If anything I’ve presented is inaccurate, I would appreciate an opportunity for actual dialogue, and would be happy to attend the June meeting for that purpose.

Sincerely,
(Dr.) Adam Finkel
Hopewell Township

Given how infrequently the agenda of these meetings are published in a timely manner, the fact that we even know about this with some advance notice is a step in the right direction.  And, apparently, we have new Board member Judy Lindenberger to thank.

Ms. Lindenberger was recently contacted by a parent who cares deeply about Strings instruction.  Following an announcement by School District Business Administrator Robert Colavita that around $80K in new savings -- from reduced capital expenditures -- has been "found," this parent urged Ms. Lindenberger to leverage some of these savings for Strings instruction.

In turn, Ms. Lindenberger passed this request onto Dr. Ferguson and promised to follow up.  Well, it looks like she did:  This same parent recently received a note from Dr. Ferguson informing her of the key meeting on May 19th.

Is this a sign of new things to come?  Is Judy Lindenberger showing the kind of community responsiveness that has been missing from the entrenched majority on this School Board for years?  It may be too soon to tell, but it's certainly encouraging.  To be sure, Judy Lindenberger voiced her support for Strings instruction during the Candidates' Forum just prior to the recent election.

The fact that Dr. Ferguson actually emailed this parent about the meeting on May 19th underscores the fact that -- when pushed by a reasonable and responsible Board -- even this Administration can do the right thing.  When the dog wags the tail, all things are possible.

Thank you, Judy.  And thank you concerned parent -- for keeping your eye on the ball about this important issue.

Why Strings Instruction is Important
Numerous studies (cited during the School Board Candidates' Forum just prior to the election) show that Strings instruction can be of immense benefit to young children in their brain development.  It has come to our attention that some current School Board members chose to cut Strings instruction for 2nd and 3rd graders (vs. Band instruction, which can be leveraged for football games and such) because the studies showing the value of Strings instruction presuppose consistent (i.e. many times a week vs. just once a week) instruction.  In other words, they believed the studies were not relevant because the District's historical curriculum only provided Strings instruction once a week.

Frankly, while delivering Strings instruction several days a week may indeed be preferable to providing it only once a week, it is clear that some Strings instruction is better for brain development than NO Strings instruction.  This is like saying:  Since, in many parts of the world, kids only have one meal a day, and since one meal a day is not as good as three meals a day in delivering nutrition to children, it makes sense to get rid of that one meal a day.  No, it doesn't.  One meal a day is actually better than NO meals a day.

As a nation, we face several significant challenges as we prepare our children for the world of tomorrow...not the least of which is that we will never be able to compete with the likes of India and China in manufacturing (at least until they grow their middle classes and labor costs become comparable to those in the West).  Let's face it:  If you want to manufacture widgets (e.g. computers or drugs or whatever), at least for the foreseeable future, it will be cheaper to make them abroad where labor costs are a fraction of those we find in this country and Western Europe.  So, until automation solutions (e.g. robotics) provide us with the same competitive advantages in manufacturing that cheap labor delivers to our 2nd and 3rd world neighbors, we need to prepare our children for a competitive landscape that does not focus on widget production.

Our nation's competitive advantage, then, resides on a different path.  We need to prepare our children to think creatively, to dream outside of the box, if we are to remain competitive.  It is not an accident that this nation still reigns supreme in such areas as software and drug design & development.  In other words, if we are to remain competitive, we should not be preparing our children for a life of widget manufacturing; we should be preparing them for a life focused on developing the "software" that goes onto those widgets.

Strings instruction is unique in that it lies at the interstice of mathematics and art.  It helps children think analytically (that's the math/science part of music), and inspires them to emote creatively (that's the creative side of music).  As such, Strings instruction is, in our view, a key element in the kind of curriculum that will protect our nation's competitive advantage far into the future.

We at CUSP urge all parents with elementary-age children to attend the School Board meeting on Monday, May 19th.

No matter what you care about -- be it Strings or Science instruction; be it class size or the time made available for lunch and/or recess -- this is the moment to get involved.

An involved citizenry is the only way we will ever get the momentum required to reinstate Hazardous busing.

Now that the dust has settled and the School Board election is over, and in light of Ms. Ruth Luse’s editorial in today’s Hopewell Valley News, we thought we would take a moment to write you about our perceptions concerning the coverage of the election.

You may or may not be aware that two of the “Letters to the Editor” written by Roy G. Dollard, candidate for School Board, never made it into the paper the last week before the election. While reasonable people may disagree regarding the paper’s handling of this particular matter, the rather bilious nature of the campaign, and the perception which many in the community currently hold about the paper’s coverage of the election, we sincerely hope that you will perform a self-analysis of your paper’s performance.

As staunch protectors and advocates of the Press, we feel that your special position in the community warrants an equally special responsibility to ensure fair play in coverage of key community events.

THE SOLLOZZO AFFAIR
We realize that your editor – Ms. Ruth Luse – felt hoodwinked into publishing a so-called bogus letter (scribed under the pseudonym, “Sollozzo” – a character from the movie, The Godfather) that she apparently believes was not written by a real person. Without getting into details that might compromise this woman’s identity, we will say that we know for a fact that she exists, but that she felt concerned about revealing her identity for fear of recrimination and because she felt her personal information might be revealed to the pubic at large -- notwithstanding the guarantees expressed in your published campaign coverage guidelines of February 28th. It is for this reason that she submitted her letter under a pen name – a practice often used by legendary editors, including founding father Benjamin Franklin.

Furthermore, we have solid evidence to suggest that Ms. Luse leaked particulars about this woman’s identity to the opponents of Dollard and Fogler...in direct violation of the newspaper’s policy of protecting the anonymity of letter writers. Indeed, undoubtedly based on this information, candidate Armelle Daniels subsequently went about town and claimed in her “dream team” campaign rallies that the police were actively investigating this so-called bogus letter...as if the police would waste their time or our tax dollars actively investigating such a non-crime!

Be that as it may, despite the presence of this letter, and Ms. Luse’s understandable concerns about being made to look foolish as a result of its publication (resulting in her spurious "apology" for its publication), we don’t believe this event justifies the paper’s dismissal of your own letter-writing guidelines as articulated in the February 28th edition, which states (on page 8A): “...All letters will be subject to editing and must be signed by a writer. A phone number for confirmation must be included. Phone numbers will not be published...”

In the case of the mystery letter, it is our understanding that a real phone number was provided for confirmation purposes. If Ms. Luse has some question about this, perhaps she should have made a greater effort to dial it.

Of course, we are hearing this second-hand so, please, consider it hearsay. That said, however, please note your guidelines do not specify that pseudonyms designed to protect a person’s privacy may not be used, nor do they state that confirmation via any other means but by telephone must be provided.

THE MISSING DOLLARD LETTERS
Regarding the dialogue between candidate Dollard and Ms. Luse, if you follow the string of emails listed below (under the heading, “The letters the Hopewell Valley News Refused to Print”), you will note that Ms. Luse did not make any attempt to contact Mr. Dollard by telephone to confirm his identity or his specific desires regarding the letters he submitted for publication, as prescribed by your guidelines.

Indeed, the only attempt made to contact him was by email and, since he was out campaigning on the day in question, and since he doesn’t own a Blackberry or similar device, he was not able to read her emails until his return home later that Monday (i.e. 3 days before the paper’s actual publication). By then, Ms. Luse claimed, the section was “done.”

Of course, we realize Ms. Luse was under a great deal of strain during the campaign; that publishing deadlines and such are difficult to manage; and we don’t claim we will ever fully understand the nature of the personal relationship she has with those who supported the opponents of candidates Dollard and Fogler...although Ms. Luse’s favorable treatment of Lindenberger and Daniels and their supporters -- from School Board member Jeff Bartolino, to those pro-Sports and pro-Bear Tavern PTO families pressured to write letters on their behalf -- makes it painfully clear where her allegiances lie.

Nevertheless, we feel it’s incumbent upon us to inform you of our grave dissatisfaction with the outcome of this exchange. Indeed, the disappearance of one of the Dollard-Fogler advertisements, the mysterious disappearance of one of Mr. Dollard’s “Letters to the Editor,” and Ms. Luse’s subsequent refusal to make good on her promises to Mr. Dollard and his wife demands that we do so.

Nor was Mr. Dollard’s case an isolated incident. Once again, we urge you to review the post below, under the heading, “The letters the Hopewell Valley News Refused to Print.” You will note there that Ms. Fogler, Mr. Dollard’s running-mate, was told by Ms. Luse that she had to change her letter because -- given that it was the last week before the election -- it would have been unfair to characterize or analyze a candidate since they had no opportunity to rebut...and yet this is exactly what Mr. Michael Bruno (an outspoken Lindenberger/Daniels supporter) did in his letter entitled “Candidates Assessed, which Ms. Luse allowed to run in the same edition of the Hopewell Valley News immediately before the election on the 15th. Is this an example of your paper’s unbiased, balanced approach?

THE JUDY KARP LETTER
Furthermore, we were greatly distressed to see Ms. Judy Karp’s letter appear outside of the Campaign Corner, April 10th issue, (second letter) in your “Letters to the Editor” section. You have a long history of reserving letters pertaining to campaigns within the Campaign Corner. I’m sure this has something to do with selling your papers (vs. your non-subscription online edition) and making money, and that seems perfectly understandable.

But when a letter that was so clearly political in nature, and which so clearly referred to the recent campaign (i.e. “...I am seeing the same high spending scenario in a current campaign...”), appeared outside of the Campaign Corner, we were troubled.  After all, to quote your February 28th guidelines again, "...The initial raising of controversial or sensational issues will not be permitted in the April 10 edition. April 10 is the 'rebuttal' week edition, when only endorsements and comments by readers and candidates on issues previously raised in this newspaper will be allowed. Letter-writers, who are doing more than just endorsing candidates, must identify the previously raised issue and the individual who raised it when submitting letters for April 10." (Bold emphasis added; ED)

It seems disingenuous at best to state that this was fair play because an online remark happened to appear alleging similar issues in one of your anonymous online posts.

For that matter, since -- as your historical practice attests, and your guidelines imply -- campaign-related materials must be restricted to the Campaign Corner, shouldn't the same policies apply to online submissions as well?

Now, we fully understand the competitive pressures Ms. Luse undoubtedly faced when this same letter from Ms. Karp appeared first in the Pennington Post, but we submit to you that this rationale, while eminently sensible from a bottom-line perspective, should not trump your clearly stated guidelines.

THE BARTOLINO “GUEST OPINION”
In addition, in your April 10th edition, Ms. Luse permitted School Board member Jeff Bartolino to write a prominent “Guest Opinion” in which he derides the questions posed by Ms. Desiree Fogler (during the March 19th School Board meeting), an active candidate for School Board.

As we have already stated (see, “Ethics Violations” under Key Pages, at left), it is a serious ethics violation for a School Board member to endorse a candidate, or to -- conversely -- denigrate a candidate, thereby endorsing his or her opponent(s) during a School Board election, unless that individual states clearly and publicly that they are speaking as a private citizen, and not as a Board member.

The reason for this is simple: it provides School Board members with an unfair advantage in influencing the outcome of an election.

In our view, Mr. Bartolino violated School Board ethics guidelines when he issued his critique of candidate Desiree Fogler during the School Board meeting of April 7th (and in the subsequent “Guest Opinion” which appeared in your paper).

Given our feelings about Mr. Bartolino’s obviously partisan comments, you can appreciate our dismay, then, when his “Guest Opinion” ran on April 10th, in your paper’s last edition before the election, leaving Ms. Fogler with no time to rebut -- once again, in direct violation of your own published guidelines.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE
If you would indulge us for a moment, in order to ensure a truly level playing field moving forward, and so as not to further tarnish the Princeton Packet brand, we humbly suggest you pay heed to the following recommendations:

1. Live by your own guidelines, do so consistently (i.e. both off- and on-line), and ensure that your guidelines are known.
   
   As Thomas Hobbes, the great philosopher of the Enlightenment, says about Liberty in his Leviathan (Emphasis added; ED):
   
   "...By civil laws I mean those laws that men are bound to obey as members of any commonwealth. The sovereign is the sole legislator, and is not subject to the laws which he can repeal at pleasure. The civil laws are the laws of nature expressed as commands of the commonwealth, or the will of the sovereign so expressed; whatever is not the law of nature must be expressly made known and published...Unavoidable ignorance of a law is a complete excuse for breaking it, but ignorance due to lack of diligence is not unavoidable..."
   
   We believe these words ring as true today as they did in the 17th century. It’s not an accident that Hobbes’ Leviathan is considered to be a cornerstone of Western political philosophy. We further submit that, unless you wish Ms. Luse and the Hopewell Valley News to be perceived as “sovereign” to the people of this valley, and not as members of the 4th estate in good standing, you consider this recommendation with great seriousness and, further, firmly censure Ms. Luse and all those who, wittingly or unwittingly, work to place your institution in such poor light.
   
   
2. Repeal your current practice of accepting anonymous posts on your Web site.
   
   The standard practice of this nation’s superior newspapers is to mandate that posters sign in (i.e. they must already be registered users) if they wish to post a comment, and to provide an active email address. This encourages -- while, admittedly, not guaranteeing -- posters to be more circumspect about their submissions online and will, hopefully, dampen the often mean-spirited -- and potentially slanderous and legally suspect -- tone of the submissions you have been receiving on your blogs.

We believe that what we’re recommending will only enhance your readers’ experience while not significantly diminishing the number of online readers you currently enjoy, nor the attendant loss of unique visits which, undoubtedly, buttresses your online advertising rate card.

Furthermore, by automating the process (whereby you could set up a bot to “ping” all submitted email addresses to ensure they are legitimate), you will not overburden your human resources -- clearly, already strained.

We apologize for the extremely lengthy nature of this open letter/blog post. But, as you can see, we felt it extremely important to convey our feelings to you and your management. Given the stature and unique nature of your paper, we fear that we would all be the poorer should the Hopewell Valley News fall from grace and be diminished, or disappear from our lives. Nor would such an unfortunate event do anything to improve the equity value of your parent organizations at a time of industry consolidation.

In the past, we have both enjoyed and admired the Hopewell Valley News and the fine work that Ms. Luse has done in its service. And we genuinely regret that she is so near to retirement. In the interest of making a good paper even better, we urge you to seriously consider these two simple recommendations. We firmly believe that they will only serve to improve what is a significant asset to the valley.

The CUSP Editorial Board

UNTIL WE SEE A CHANGE IN EDITORIAL COVERAGE, WE URGE ALL CUSP MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS TO CANCEL THEIR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE HOPEWELL VALLEY NEWS, AND TO BOYCOTT ADVERTISING WITH THE PRINCETON PACKET PORTFOLIO OF NEWSPAPERS.

SAMPLE CANCELLATION LETTER (to be sent to:  ahuston@pacpub.com & jkilgore@pacpub.com).

Dear Sirs:

In light of your abominable coverage of the recent school board election, and Ms. Ruth Luse’s biased editing (as described at www.hvcusp.org), please cancel my subscription to the Hopewell Valley News immediately. I will not renew my subscription to the Hopewell Valley News, nor purchase any advertising space from the Princeton Packet family of newspapers until Ms. Luse is censured, and your editorial policies become more balanced.

Very truly yours,

On another note, please check out the latest CUSP survey (at left).  We'd like to know how you feel about the HVN's coverage of the election.

Once again, before the three new Board members -- Lindenberger, Dollard and Daniels -- had warmed their new seats at the table, several hundreds of thousands of dollars in bids were awarded (some to single-bid vendors), and professional services agreements meted out, including:

• $336,398 to Advanced Solar Products to install a 50 kilowatt solar-powered electrical system at Bear Tavern Elementary;
• $266,900 to Catari Electric of Trenton to "upgrade" the high school’s fire alarm system;
• $124,483 to Scozzari Builders of Trenton to "renovate" the district’s Information Technology nerve center, which houses the district’s major systems, including network servers and telecommunications infrastructure;*
• $153,300 to Falcon Ridge Construction Co. Inc. for close-out work stemming from a recent addition at Timberlane, including re-grading detention basins and relocating an earthen berm and installing concrete channels for better drainage;
• Plus, eight (8) professional service firms, including three architects, an environmental consultant and an auditor.

This is not to imply that any of these contract awards are not worthy of our tax dollars, although one must wonder what was wrong with the original work at Timberlane that it required so much re-grading and relocating.

The point is, why does this Board leadership (AKA Linda Mitchell -- recently voted in for a second term as President, and one of the few holdovers who supported the elimination of "hazardous" busing), force such major expenditures unannounced (remember, no agenda was forthcoming until the very last minute), before the three (3) new Board members could even get their bearings?

Couldn't such major decisions have waited a meeting or two so that these new Board members could have a chance to review the proposals in detail and vote on them -- one way or the other -- with some sort of insight?

This "we won't tell you until the very last minute what you're facing, and then we'll ask you to vote on what you haven't had a chance to review in detail" approach is but one of the reasons that we believe we're in so much trouble on the Board.  It's indicative of Mitchell's failure as Board leader, and why we hold out little hope that things are going to get better this year...unless the citizens of this Valley demand change, and the other Board members hold her feet to the fire.

Then again, we're not surprised by this blitzkrieg approach.  After all, while the 2008-2009 budget (which squeaked by on April 15th by a paltry 105 votes) was presented to, and discussed by the Board members prior to their vote on the matter (i.e. when the Board members were asked if they were going to support it or not), the detailed, line-item budget was not given to them until 5 minutes before they were asked to vote on it!  Yes, you read correctly:  5 minutes.

Now, I ask you, why did this Board "leadership" allow the Administration to deliver such a critical, line-item document so late in the process...or did said "leadership" have the detailed numbers, while the other Board members did not?

"So, who cares?" you may ask.  The vote to approve the budget by Board members seemed a foregone conclusion, after all.  So, for that matter, did the vote to make Mitchell president of the Board once again.

We contend, however, that such votes do indeed matter.  They are not simply high drama, or symbols, or -- more disturbing -- attempts to "get along" and to "appease" and to "build consensus" with the powers-that-be.

It's our belief that, ultimately, letters to the (so-called) editor at the HVN, blog posts, and even spirited words at Board meetings -- all these things pass and dim with the passage of time.  In the end, it's the voting record of a Board member that people remember.  That's what really counts.  That's the legacy of every elected official, and the thing that's most reflective of who he or she truly is.

Plus, come re-election time, the voting record of Board members is what people look at.  That's why even seemingly forgone conclusions, votes that can't be finessed or changed, are still of utmost importance.

Indeed, a Board member's voting record is what will determine not only his or her chances of being re-elected, but it's what determines whether or not people will even bother voting at all.

After all, if one votes for a candidate -- thinking that they represent a specific point of view -- and then that candidate becomes a Board member...and does things that seem contradictory to their platform (e.g. "If there were a budget surplus this year, I'd refund it back to the taxpayers..."), voters lose faith.  They start to believe that it's not worth voting at all because -- after all -- once these guys get into power, they change their mind, or they're corrupted by the office, or they become egomaniacs, or they become politicians instead of passionate advocates for our children and the things that motivated them to run for office in the first place.

It's imperative, in our view, that the members of this new Board seek, first and foremost, to look into their hearts and vote their conscience...not what they're forced to do for political consideration, or in repayment of past favors, or because they're afraid of being threatened, or they just don't want to take the abuse of a bullying Board and failed President.

And to do that effectively, they must have all the facts -- not simply those that were presented to them only moments before.

They need the time and the opportunity to make smart decisions because, in the end, there's a lot riding on each and every vote:  their political future; our tax dollars; and, most important of all, the safety and education of our children.

* And we're keeping our eye on this, just in case key financial files suddenly go missing.

Poor Aaron.  The Naval officer and veteran of the Gulf War, threatened with the possible loss of his livelihood, voted "Yes" to make Linda Mitchell President of the School Board again tonight (April 21st, 2008).  Arghh...

While  expediency is a reality of the political life, and sometimes the middle road is the best course, there are times when -- in our view -- one has to stand up and be counted...and this time was one of them.

Here's how it went down, for those who want to know the sad truth.

The squirrelly lawyer, Bartolino, nominated Linda Mitchell before Jim Wulf could even utter the words "I nominate Mel Myers."

Then, Myers actually seconded the motion! Yep, despite a strong cheerleading section, Mel decided it was better to play second fiddle than take the heat of the Presidency.  Has he too been seduced by the "Dark Side?"

And then came the vote.

Of course, Myers and the squirrelly lawyer Bartolino said, "Yes."

The "pound-of-fleshers" Armelle (the iron boot) Daniels and Judy Lindenberger voted "Yes" for their sponsor, Linda Mitchell (and Melissa Weeks and Carrie Cahill) -- with Sally Turner noticeably absent, despite her lingering ghost.

Then came the squirrelly lawyer, Bartolino.  (By the by, who exactly paid for that legal seminar you attended in Atlantic City when you were bedding down at the Borgata Casino and Spa, Mr. Bartolino?)  Of course, he said "Yes" to Ms. Mitchell.

Then, in a deep baritone, came Dollard:  "No."  And then the irascible Wulf, with another deep, "No."

Of course Mitchell, the Ice Queen/Nurse Cratchett, voted for her own frigid ego.

And then...drum roll please...came the Gulf War vet, Tellier -- and he said (Gulp!), "Yes."

Believe it or not, after all that Mitchell has done to his running-mate Wulf and to him, Mr. Tellier voted "Yes" for the woman responsible for putting our children at risk, the Ice Queen who threw "hazardous busing" over to the Township Committee in revenge for cutting $2MM out of their budget!

I guess we understand.  After all, the puppetmistress Sally Turner has been knocking on his company's door.  Yes, that's right.  She actually had the unmitigated temerity to call folks at the largest financial services ratable in Hopewell Township and and plead for Aaron's dismissal from the School Board.  And she's not the first to have done this, we've learned.  Someone else has flaunted the "Project Democracy" approach of our system of government.  And, as we have written here, this is not only morally bankrupt -- it's actually illegal!

But why be surprised that Ms. Turner would undermine an elected official?  After all, lest we forget, Sally is the same woman who (as President of the School Board from 1990 to 2002) elected to ignore the people of this Valley by agreeing to pay District monies in support of football when the citizenry -- by more than two to one -- rejected $53,500 for football in the District referendum of 2002.  (See the Sally Turner Saga in the New York Times.)

Not that we're against football, per se.  We'd just rather have the county and State foot the bill at Twin Pines via municipal grants than see more teachers cut and class sizes expanded by raiding the District's ever-shrinking budget. We'd prefer to have sports associations and a number of townships and boroughs pay for field maintenance rather than taking several hundred thousand dollars per year from school budgets, resulting in fewer books, less science and music...and less everything else.  An arena behind the town library in a campus-like setting would be wonderful, but not if it results in driving people from town because they can't pay their taxes.  At a time when borrowing money from bankers is nigh on impossible, even a bus ride to Brandon Farms is better than no fields at all.

No, we are not surprised by Ms. Turner's behavior.  After all, if Sally could ride roughshod over the Democratic process before, why should she hesitate to face jail time this time around?

So the jury is stacked once again.  The majority (thanks to Myers and Tellier!) will undoubtedly only accept another patsy for School Board from Pennington to replace the effervescent Doran...despite the fact that Pennington voted down the School Budget this year.  (We're sure Board Attorney Martinez is pleased.  He can hide for a little bit longer from the scrutiny of the inevitable forensics accounting examination that's looming.  Just as Nemeth did before the NJ Dept. of Treasury sanctioned him for "double-dipping!)

Is it business as usual?  Will the School Board still keep our children walking down dangerous, sidewalkless streets for another year?  Or will Jim Wulf and Roy Dollard have the steely reserve required to keep up the fight?

Only time will tell.

It is a shame that Desiree Fogler was not elected, but given the biased editorial coverage of the Hopewell Valley News (whose managing editor is a very, very good friend of Sally Turner), and the ability of the Sports "special interest" cabal headed by Sally Turner, Melissa Weeks and Carrie Cahill to brow-beat the sports lovers of the Valley, it's hardly a surprise.

Plus, they had considerable assistance from Michael and Kim Bruno and the Bear Tavern PTO (still cringing under the iron boot of former president Armelle Daniels), and Judy Lindenberger's marketing savvy.

Hey, you can't get everything in life!  At least, not right away.  But, that doesn't mean you give up.

After all, a year ago there were 7 dubious characters on the School Board.  Since then, 5 of them have been booted out or have conveniently "retired."

The Bottom line --
The Board now seems to be evenly split between:  the two remaining Sally Turner Imperial Stormtroopers (Mitchell and Bartolino), plus the two newcomers (Daniels and Lindenberger) who, despite their Imperial sponsors, have already gone on record for bashing legal fees and (well, Lindenberger, at least) supporting Strings; vs. the Rebel alliance as represented by Wulf, Dollard, (potentially) Tellier, and (potentially) Myers.

Dollard seems like he will be a strong and reasonable Board member.  Plus, he's already gone on record as being in favor of the reinstatement of Hazardous busing

Meantime, with all of the pressure being mounted against Aaron Tellier these days -- a heretofore supporter of reinstating Hazardous busing -- this Website's legal counsel (Yes, we have a lawyer on retainer, just in case) has delivered the following tidbit re what happens to those individuals who try and pressure any duly elected public official (e.g. a School Board member) into leaving his or her post.

Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function, 2C:29-1

A person commits an offense if he [or she, ed.] purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent any public servant [e.g. a School Board member, ed.] from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act.

An offense under this section is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor obstructs the detection or investigation of a crime or the prosecution of a person for a crime, otherwise it is a disorderly persons offense. The offense is a crime of the third degree if the conduct which the actor knows has been charged or is liable to be charged against him [or her, ed.] would constitute a crime of the second degree or greater.

Consequences of a Guilty Verdict:

• You will have a criminal record;
• You may go to Jail or Prison;
• You will have to pay Fines and Court Costs;
• You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss [e.g. of a job, ed.] and if the court finds that you are able or will be able in the future to pay restitution;
• You must wait 5-10 years to expunge a first offense (2C:52-3);
• You may lose your right to vote.

If someone pleads Guilty or is found Guilty of a criminal offense, the following are the statutory Prison/Jail terms...

• In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years;
• In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months.

Fines have been increased recently. (See 2C:43-3) A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, to make restitution, or both, such fine not to exceed:

• $15,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the third degree;
• $10,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the fourth degree.

Of course, one would hope that no one would be silly enough to attempt to coerce a School Board member into either resigning his or her post, or would make any attempt to undermine their employment, thereby indirectly coercing them to resign.  Such behavior would not only be despicable, but – whether considered direct or indirect coercion – it would subject said individual(s) to the potential fines and prosecution outlined herein.

In the end, one must ask oneself, is the maintenance of a political dynasty, and control over the sports cabal within this Valley – whose members will, eventually, be satisfied with alternate sports arenas anyway, at little or no taxpayer expense – worth taking such a risk?

Public exposure, disgrace and humiliation are one thing.  Being forced to pay someone’s lost income, losing one’s right to vote, and going to jail are another matter altogether.

You decide.

The following letters (were, SIC) submitted to the Hopewell Valley News by candidate Roy Dollard and others.

They were delivered in time to make last Monday's noon deadline [April 7th, 2008, ed.] but -- for the "reasons" outlined below -- Ruth Luse chose not to print them.

They are but a sample of more than a dozen similar letters that Ms. Luse intentionally kept from the citizens of Hopewell Valley in her desperate attempt to sway the outcome of this election.

One must ask oneself:

• Why do the vast majority of non-candidate letters supporting Daniels/Lindenberger always come first in the paper?
• Why did Ruth Luse permit Board Member Bartolino to write such an inflammatory and obviously political "Guest Opinion" column only days before the election?
• Why are the Daniels/Lindenberger supporters -- like Board member Judy Karp -- allowed to bring up new topics in this last issue of the paper when that's against Luse's own policy, as stated in the February 28th "Election Coverage Guidelines" she wrote?  And why does Karp's letter not appear in the Campaign Corner when it's so obviously a political smear?
• Why can Michael Bruno characterize the candidates in his letter -- when they have no chance to rebut -- but Fogler cannot?  (See below)
• How can Luse in good conscience continue to masquerade as an "objective" editor when she lets her political leanings -- and her friendship with former School Board President Sally Turner -- so clearly sway her judgment and sense of fair play?

Two of the basic tenets of this country are a free press and freedom of speech.  This week's issue of the Hopewell Valley News undermines both of these fundamental American values.

From: Roy Dollard [mailto:XXXXX @earthlink.net]
Monday, April 07, 2008 11:28 AM
To: rluse@pacpub.com
Subject: This Weeks Campaign Corner Letters

Dear Ms. Luse:

Here are my two letters for this final week's Campaign Corner. As instructed, one of the letters is from my wife, Barbara.

I sincerely hope, if you have any questions or comments, that you will take a moment to call me.

My home number is (609) XXX-XXXX. My mobile number is (609) XXX-XXXX.

Thanking you for your help and attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Roy Dollard

Letter # 1

Suggested Header:  HIRING A NEW SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT – TAKE TWO (300 WORDS)

The following letter was originally submitted on March 31st for inclusion in last week’s edition of the HVN. For some reason, although delivered on time, it was never published.

Barbara Dollard

One of the most serious challenges the School Board will face this year is the recruitment of a new superintendent to replace Judy Ferguson.  Dr. Ferguson resigned abruptly the same day it was announced former administrator John Nemeth was found to have been “double dipping” by the NJ Dept. of the Treasury, and a year and a half before she was scheduled to leave.

As a former VP-Personnel at NYNEX, I’m familiar with the challenges of hiring senior executives for tough positions. While this Human Resources know-how is helpful, in the end, my running mate -– Desirée Fogler -– and I are the only team running in this year’s School Board race with hands-on experience in actually hiring a school superintendent.

When I became President of the School Board in Briarcliff Manor, NY, before moving to Hopewell Township a decade ago, our taxes were spiraling upwards by double digits. Our School Board hired a new superintendent and together with input from the community, which we welcomed, we not only flattened the tax rate, but the metrics for student success – e.g. standardized test scores – rose by more than 10%.

Although it was a different district and a different time, the challenges were essentially the same. Economic cycles and academic approaches may vary through time, but the fundamentals of hiring successfully don’t change.

The Fogler/Dollard team has a proven track record of success in meeting this challenge. We owe it to our children to bring to bear the most formidable experience we can muster to face this difficult task. Desirée and I ask for your vote on April 15th.

Roy Dollard

Letter # 2

DOLLARD RECOMMENDS ZERO BASED BUDGETING APPROACH (299 WORDS)

I would like to expand upon my letter of March 27 which has been widely misquoted by my opponents and unfairly edited in reproduction.

Governor Corzine recently informed Hopewell Valley governments that State grants generally allocated to the municipalities have been shifted to the Hopewell Valley Regional School District, potentially resulting in additional municipal tax levies, unless citizens want to see a reduction in police and firefighting.

Corzine stated he hoped the District would be reasonable in budgeting this year, so taxpayers wouldn’t be hit with both municipal and school tax increases, and he suggested that if the District leveraged these State funds wisely, they’d be able to actually reduce their 2008-2009 budget, essentially keeping our tax burden flat.

Unfortunately, the current School Board recently voted to increase your taxes, despite various examples of waste (e.g. excessive legal fees) and mismanagement (e.g. the Nemeth fiasco), widely covered in this paper.

I suggested the District consider adopting a “zero based budgeting” approach. This means assume no increase in expenditures, and then slowly add essential expenses until you reach the smallest increase possible. It does not assume a zero increase, as most businesspersons generally add Cost-Of-Living adjustments – around 2.3% this year – and the District faces certain unfunded mandates from the State.

Instead, this School Board begins at 4% (the maximum allowed by the State) and works backwards in an attempt to hold on to as much of your taxes as possible. Indeed, when I suggested adopting this zero based budgeting approach, the Board displayed a startling lack of fiscal understanding by assuming I wanted to keep the budget completely flat.

Isn’t it time we brought some private sector experience and efficiency to this School District? Desirée Fogler and I ask for your support on Tuesday, April 15th.

Roy Dollard
Hopewell Township

I already have one letter from you, Mr. Dollard
Ruth Peterson Luse

You told me that we could send in two letters: one from my wife (see Letter #1); and one from myself (see Letter #2). The fact that my wife's letter (#1) quotes the letter that your newspaper lost and failed to print does not, in any way, undermine our agreement. If you wish to print my wife's name at the bottom of Letter #1, that is totally up to you.

I believe the people of this Valley deserve to hear my opinions concerning key issues confronting our School District. I hope and trust that you -- as an editor of significant reputation and good standing within the community -- will not stand in the way of the truth. I take you at your word that my previous letter was misplaced by accident. Please do not do anything to undermine the fine opinion that I hold of you and your newspaper.

I have the one letter. Just one of these can go. That's what we told you the day you were in.

I have lived up to our agreement.  My wife sent in one letter (#1), and I sent in a second (#2).  I expect that, as agreed, both letters will appear this Thursday.

With all due respect, I believe -- since you refused to print a correction when you lost my last letter, and since you offered me no "make-good" and nothing that wasn't already my right and my wife's right -- you should print both letters #1 and #2.

Since you lost my previous letter, I have had a chance to clean it up somewhat, and to have my wife add her signature and introduction.

I don't believe I am being unreasonable.  In all fairness, I sincerely hope you will reconsider your position.

you can have these two, but not three. The other one will be dropped. Which will have your wife's signature? Please note at bottom of the letter

Dear Ms. Luse:

I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.  I have been out campaigning all day!

Just to be clear, am I to understand that you agree to publish the following two letters as is, that LETTER #1 will appear with my wife's signature in the preamble, and that LETTER #2 will appear with my signature at the end?

Please clarify and let me know by noon tomorrow (Tuesday, April 8th).

the section  is done

Does this mean my letters will not be appearing as written this Thursday?

one will. I took the changed one and used that. The one similar to the one we typeset Friday

So, just to be clear.  You have decided to break our agreement (as confirmed in your email below, stamped Apr 7, 2008 1:31 PM), whereby you promised me the ability to submit two (2) letters this week -- one by me (about zero based budgeting), and one by my wife, Barbara (about hiring a new superintendent).

And, further, you have taken it upon yourself to decide which of the two letters you will publish; i.e. the one with the preamble by my wife about hiring a new superintendent...the less important and powerful of the two.

Please confirm that you intend to publish the following letter, VERBATIM, EXACTLY AS SEEN HERE, WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL CENSORSHIP.  In other words, it will include the preamble by my wife, written exactly as seen below...

I e-mailed you several times asking you which of the two letters should have your wife's name on it and which was yours. We had one letter already. We needed just one more. I have broken no agreement. The other lady in the shop here heard what you said and we both understood it the same way!

[The following letter was written but never sent.  Mr. Dollard opted, instead, to go in and speak to Ms. Luse. ed]

Look at the bottom of this email string and you will see that -- at 11:28 AM on Monday; i.e. in time to meet your deadline -- I said:

"Here are my two letters for this final week's Campaign Corner. As instructed, one of the letters is from my wife, Barbara ... 'The following letter was originally submitted on March 31st for inclusion in last week’s edition of the HVN. For some reason, although delivered on time, it was never published.' (Signed) Barbara Dollard...."

I don't know how much clearer I could have been.

I know you tried to reach me by email, Ms. Luse, and I appreciate that. But, if you had trouble understanding this copy, I did provide you with both my home and mobile numbers, and I encouraged you to telephone. You could have called me at any time when you saw I was not available by email. You chose not to do so.

Your failure to identify which letter was coming from my wife does not exculpate you from your obligation to live up to our agreement. You could have "typeset" both letters, and dropped in the appropriate signatory upon clarification.

Nor have you answered my question. What exactly will appear in this Thursday's paper? Please provide me with a copy of what you intend to publish.

Why are you not being forthcoming? I'm a devout reader of your paper. I'm an upstanding member of this community. And I'm a candidate for School Board.

Frankly, Ms. Luse, your explanation is simply not credible.

This from Desirée Fogler, the candidate, who is told by Ruth Luse she has to change her letter because -- given that it's the last week before the election -- it would be unfair to characterize or analyze a candidate (like Michael Bruno did in his letter, which Ms. Luse allowed!) as they have no opportunity to rebut:

-----Original Message-----
From: Desirée Fogler [mailto:XXXXX @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:51 AM
To: RLuse@pacpub.com Cc: XXXXX @hotmail.com
Subject: letter for this week's campaign corner

Ruth, Please confirm receipt of this letter for this week's HVN. Also, I don't want you to change the title of my letter. Thanks!

Desiree Fogler

-----Original Message-----
From: rluse@pacpub.com
To: XXXXXX @hotmail.com
Subject: RE: letter for this week's campaign corner (see noet)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:06:47 -0400

This will have to be rewritten to get your opponents out of it. They cannot rebut what you say:

"Fifty-nine percent of your tax dollars go to the district, and while the proposed 3.47 percent tax increase (supporting a 5 percent increase in the school budget) may not seem excessive today, if you vote for our opponents, in a few years I warrant this 3.47% tax increase will seem tame in comparison. And let’s not forget that a portion of our $1.8MM surplus was used to offset the increase in tax levy. We will not have this money to fall back on in the future!"

Ruth Peterson Luse
Managing Editor
Hopewell Valley News
52 E. Broad St.
Hopewell, NJ 08525
609-466-1190 (phone)
609-466-2123 (fax)

And this from Will Fogler -- husband of candidate Desirée Fogler -- who had to promise to escalate his complaints in order to get his letter to appear:

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXX @aol.com [mailto:XXXXX @aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:40 AM
To: rluse@pacpub.com Cc: XXXXX @aol.com; XXXXX @aol.com
Subject: letter for this week's campaign corner

Ruth Luse,
Please confirm receipt of this letter. Thank you! Dr. Will Fogler 737-XXXX

-----Original Message-----
From: Ruth Luse To: XXXXX @aol.com
Sent: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:40 am
Subject: RE: letter for this week's campaign corner

call 466-1190 so we know you wrote this letter

Ruth Peterson Luse
Managing Editor
Hopewell Valley News
52 E. Broad St.
Hopewell, NJ 08525
609-466-1190 (phone)
609-466-2123 (fax)

To: rluse@pacpub.com
Subject: Fwd: letter for this week's campaign corner
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:01:03 -0400
From: XXXXX @aol.com CC: XXXXX @aol.com; XXXXX @aol.com

Ruth, As per your email requesting me to call you...I did. You did not say I had to call by noon. I called as soon as I could get a break from work. I expect my letter to be in this week's campaign corner. If my letter does not appear, I will be forced to take further action in contacting your superiors and other local papers. I have records of all of our correspondence pertaining to this matter. It is not even policy to require a phone call in order to have a letter submitted...just a noon deadline for letter submission.

Dr. Will Fogler 737-XXXX

Ultimately, you will need to decide for yourselves, but the allegations are serious and credible, and speak to the integrity of all the communications that were disseminated by the heretofore School Board majority -- namely Linda Mitchell, Kevin Doran (now retired), Edward Gainsborg (now voted out of office), Jeffrey Bartolino and Judy Karp (now retired) -- and the candidates who ran for School Board in April 2008: Armelle Daniels and Judy Lindenberger.

It should be noted here that the most serious breaches of ethics were committed by Kevin Doran and Judy Karp, both of whom had already announced they were leaving the Board and who, as a result, believed they had the least to fear.

(Please click on each Issue label if you want to learn more.)

That Email Flap

• From day one, the (heretofore) entrenched majority on the School Board accused Wulf and Tellier of issues of "trust"...simply because they questioned the way the Board spends our taxes, and for supporting the reinstatement of "non-mandated busing"!
• Turns out that for two months after former Board President Kim Newport (a puppet of the Sports "special interest" and clone of Sally Turner) was kicked off the Board by the voters, she was kept on the School Board email routing list by Superintendent Ferguson and Board President Linda Mitchell (another puppet of the Sports "special interest" and clone of Sally Turner).
• A private citizen/non-Board member (AKA Newport) was fed confidential personnel and special ed info and yet they claim Wulf and Tellier are "untrustworthy"!
• Hypocrites!

Attacks on the Township Committee

• Two years ago, when the $60MM+ budget submitted by the School Board was rejected by voters, the Hopewell Township Committee was forced to trim the increase they proposed by around $2MM.
• In revenge, the School Board dumped "non-mandated" busing in the Township's lap and said, "It's your headache."
• Then, just before the recent School budget vote, we saw (and continue to see) nasty personal attacks about the Township's mayor, Sandom, by the same School Board member they stuck on the Busing Task Force -- Judy Karp.
• Were they afraid Valley citizens would "Vote No" on April 15th, and were they trying to pressure the Township Committee and Mayor Sandom not to trim it again!
• Bullies!

OPRAs and Our Right To Know

• Jim Wulf's wife went to the New Jersey School Board Association to pick up some info about the Board under the Sunshine Law (OPRA - Freedom of Information Act)
• While there, she was spotted by Ms. Diane Morris, the HVRSD liaison
• A week or so later, a letter appears in the Hopewell Valley News from Ms. Carrie Cahill -- a rabid School Board supporter -- who accuses Wulf of wasting taxpayer money on OPRAs, although it's our legal right to know how the Board spends the 59% of the property taxes we give them.
• Hmmmmm.... Who passed that info onto the entrenched SB majority, and from there onto Cahill?
• Sneaky!

Ethics Violations

• It's a serious ethics violation for School Board members to endorse candidates without saying they're doing so as private citizens (vs. as Board members).
• Nor can they criticize candidates (e.g. Dollard and Fogler), since this means they're endorsing the opponents of those candidates (i.e. Daniels and Lindenberger).
• Yet Mitchell and Bartolino, Doran and Karp did just that -- in Board meetings or in letters to the Hopewell Valley News.
• And they call Wulf and Tellier, Dollard and Fogler "unethical"!
• Election riggers!

In the end, all we can do is pose questions. It is up to the citizens of the Valley to decide for themselves where the truth lies.

Some candidates told you this past election how to vote on the School budget. The candidates whom CUSP endorsed believe the citizens of this Valley have a right to make up their own minds, without undue influence, without propaganda from a newspaper that claims to be impartial but is clearly not, and without fear of retribution or retaliation or bullying.

Fogler and Dollard and McHugh did not endorse spying within private homes. They believe in free speech and free inquiry. They believe in a free press. And, perhaps most importantly, they believe that the voters of Hopewell Valley are smart enough to see through all the smear campaigns and lies being propagated by those who just want more of the same on the School Board.

Last year, Wulf and Tellier won when the voters clearly stated that, "It's time for a change." For a year, Wulf and Tellier have been the point of the spear of this change. But they still do not have a majority. They are still being persecuted by the heretofore entrenched majority on our School Board who would rather spend money on lawyers and bureaucrats, who defend unethical contracts with cronies, and who put our children at risk when they canceled "hazardous" busing simply because the citizens of this Valley voted their budget down, and the Township Committee was forced to trim their proposed increase.

Aren't our taxes already too high? 59% of our property taxes go to the School District!  Don't we need and deserve real fiscal conservatives on our School Board? How can we devote precious resources to things that matter -- like teachers and maintaining small class sizes -- if we continue to spend beyond our means?

We did not endorse Dollard and Fogler and McHugh because we believed they would cut teachers and key programs. We endorsed them because we believed -- and still believe -- that each dollar overspent on lawyers, misspent on cronies and a bloated bureaucracy is a dollar NOT spent on our children's education...or their safe passage to school. And we believed -- and still believe -- that Dollard and Fogler and McHugh have the strength of will and experience to actually do something about it.

Ask yourself: Why did the heretofore entrenched majority [i.e. Karp (now retired) and Gainsborg (now voted out), etc.] -- and their candidates Daniels and Lindenberger -- attack Dollard and Fogler so viciously?

Jim Wulf kicked over a rock and the harsh light of day is making what's under there run from the sunlight.

Could it be that the Nemeth Scandal (which precipitated Ms. Fergusson's, and now Ms. Karp's and Mr. Doran's "retirement") and the overpayments to School Board lawyer Martinez are just the tip of the iceberg?

Is there more wasteful spending that has yet to be uncovered?

Are there more ethical breaches?

J'accuse!

We urge you to go out and vote on Tuesday, April 15th.  Your children depend on it!

QUESTION
Do you believe non-mandated (i.e. courtesy and hazardous) busing should be funded on a subscription basis, or funded through the 59% of your taxes that go to the School District?

And here are their answers:

DESIRÉE FOGLER

I am in favor of the School District funding Hazardous busing for the following reasons:

First, it’s the right thing to do. It’s a safety issue. I believe our District has a moral obligation to ensure our children get to school safely. Unlike many extracurricular activities, which are a matter of choice, our children have to attend school; it’s the law. And, whether we like it or not, the rural nature of our community means that many of our streets are simply not safe for children to travel. That’s why the State calls them “hazardous” routes.

The second reason, which some people may not have considered, is a financial one. Yes, busing costs money – not as much as the $450/pupil price the Districts says they are “subsidizing” when they offer subscription busing @ $150/pupil (formerly $500/pupil!), but it does cost money. And while $150/pupil may not mean much to some current Board members and Board candidates, let me assure you that it does to me, a small business owner with three children, and to many others in the community in these recessionary times.

In the end, though, I liken the District’s funding of Hazardous busing as a kind of insurance policy. As a physician, I am well aware that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Should, God forbid, one of our children be injured or killed while walking a route that is no longer covered by the District, it is a virtual certainty that the District would be sued, notwithstanding the fact that the District is offering subscription busing. We live in a litigious society. Such an event could make the District liable for millions of dollars in damages. And even if the District prevailed in such a suit, which is by no means guaranteed, the amount of money the District would be forced to spend on legal fees is more than the taxpayers of the Valley can afford.

Frankly, the last thing I want to see is more money wasted on high legal fees. We’re already paying too much here. In fact, if we cut our legal bills in half – putting them in line with comparable “like” Districts – we would have enough money to pay for Hazardous busing or the hiring of a new Strings teacher or the funding of the many other programs this School Board has elected to cut. It’s simply a matter of establishing Reasonable priorities.

ROY DOLLARD

Although the State does not “mandate” Hazardous busing, I think the Hopewell Valley Regional School District Board should never have cut it. Putting the children of this community at risk, many of whom are practically toddlers, and who are being forced to walk with giant backpacks down dark winding roads where traffic sometimes exceeds 50 MPH, is simply immoral.

Our children are our most precious resource. They are the future of this country, and the education of this resource is what will protect our competitive standing in the world long after I’m gone. If we want to safeguard the America we’ll become, we must invest in education. And that investment begins, first and foremost, with the protection of our children’s lives. It’s really that simple. As a veteran, I believe it’s our duty to nurture and protect the America so many have, and continue to die for.

How the School Board could have placed the financial interests of questionable administrators (e.g. Nemeth) and expensive lawyers (e.g. Martinez) over the interests of the children they are sworn to protect is beyond me. Of course, in these fiscally challenging times, we can’t have everything. But putting our children in peril to save a few dollars is morally bankrupt and makes absolutely no sense.

Plus, it pits family against family since some in our community can afford to pay for subscription busing while others cannot. If you have a couple of kids in school, that’s $300 you’re paying just to get your kids to school!

Don’t they understand that if both parents are working to make ends meet, and they can’t drive their children to school, they don’t have a choice here? Don’t they understand that such families are already being hit with high after-school childcare fees?

We in New Jersey pay the highest property taxes in the nation. In my view, those high taxes should already be covering the busing of our children to school? Subscription busing is just double-dipping – paying once through our taxes, and again through “optional” subscription fees.

There is something terribly wrong with this Board when they fail to understand the basic needs of the average citizen in our Township. Reasonable priorities begin with protecting the lives of our children, while ensuring that we don’t bankrupt our citizens through “optional” subscription fees masquerading as fiscal conservatism.

BRIAN McHUGH

The children of all families of the community are also part of the community. Independent of the number of children in a given family, the same fraction of the property tax from each family is received by the school district to educate all of the children of the community.

The school district has outlined the guidelines for hazardous busing:

• free for grades K-5 children living between 1 and 2 miles with hazards
• $150/year for grades 6-8 children living between 1 and 2 miles with hazards
• $150/year for grades 9-12 children living between 1.25 and 2.5 miles with hazards

... for subscription busing

• $500/year for grades K-8 children living between 1 and 2 miles with no hazards
• $500/year for grades 9-12 children living between 1.25 and 2.5 miles with no hazards
• Since our public school district is in the business to educate children and not to make a profit, I am at a loss to understand why certain students are charged when they are being transported for the purpose of education.

The school district should provide busing to all children according to the courtesy busing guidelines, i.e., there should be no charge for hazardous busing and there should be no subscription busing.

Those who support the District's funding of non-mandated busing will, no doubt, win the votes of all those who hold this issue near and dear to their hearts.

Those who don't support the District's funding of at least hazardous busing, will most likely receive no support from CUSP members.

And those who don't bother to respond...well, we'll not only be able to infer from their silence where they stand on this particular issue, but it will say a lot about their desire to be responsive to the community as a whole.  And is this the kind of member we want on our new School Board?

You decide.

WE URGE YOU TO GO OUT AND VOTE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15TH!

Anything to deflect the citizens of this valley from the real ethics violations and dirty dealings perpetrated by the entrenched School Board majority.  (See the Trenton Times article, "Adviser Ordered to Repay Pension, 02/27/08, in the Media Coverage section of this site.)

Given how much time we spend counseling our children about bullying in schools and how we should treat each other with civility, we were shocked to see the President of the School Board, Linda Mitchell, bullying a fellow Board member, Jim Wulf, and his wife during the February 11th HVRSD School Board meeting. (See 02/17/08 Trenton Times article "A School Board's e-Mail Hubbub" for details.)  Mrs. Wulf isn't even on the Board! It didn't appear to us that Mr. Wulf did anything wrong in trying to keep Valley residents informed about hazardous busing. People obviously care about this.

The truth of the matter is, the information that Ms. Mitchell characterized as being "confidential" was not a violation of ethics. Neither was it "negative" or "irresponsible" or "shameless" or "untrustworthy" or "unprofessional" or "dishonest" -- all terms used by the supporters of the Mitchell/Gainsborg/Karp/Doran/Bartolino cabal in the February 21st issue of the HVN (Letters to the Editor; see the Media Coverage section of this site).

However, one can only hope that Mr. Wulf and Mr. Tellier are indeed "destructive", as claimed by supporters of the entrenched School Board majority. One can only hope that their efforts will succeed in destroying the current attitude of arrogance and fiscal wastefullness, the rubber-stamping mindset of the entrenched majority currently infecting our School Board. This kind of bullying is shameless. What kind of an example is Ms. Mitchell trying to send to our children?

Frankly, we just don't understand why Ms. Mitchell attacked Hopewell Valley School Board Member Jim Wulf in the way that she did. Seems to us that Superintendent Judy Ferguson should never have called busing on the district website "courtesy" if it's really "hazardous." That's completely misleading.  Then again, we're not surprised.  The entrenched majority on this School Board, aided by Dr. Fergusson, has misled the public regarding the issue of busing since this whole fiasco began:  on what is or is not "hazardous"; on the cost of providing busing to our children; on the pricing of subscription busing; and -- as Mr. Wulf correctly pointed out -- on the District's website.

So why is Ms. Mitchell defending Dr. Ferguson against a fellow Board member, especially so rudely? Couldn't she have simply taken him aside privately if she had a beef? Why do it on television -- unless it was politically motivated?

Frankly, it made us think that the current school administration has too much influence over some Board members. Isn't this the tail wagging the dog? Isn't it the School Boards job to oversee the school administration, and not the other way around? Who's really driving the school bus here?

Despite Ms. Mitchell's political attack, Board Member Wulf spent the balance of the meeting still asking tough questions about how this administration is wasting taxpayer monies on excessive legal fees. He saved us tens of thousands of dollars and yet the Hopewell Valley News & Pennington Post didn't even mention this in their coverage. How come? Certainly doesn't seem very objective. While Mitchell's ambush of a fellow Board member may make for sensational copy, the real news got lost in the shuffle.

When all is said and done, it appears to us that if anyone should be charged with an ethics violation, it should be Ms. Mitchell herself. Such nasty and condescending behavior should not be tolerated on our School Board. We just don't see how Wulf's passing of already public information to his wife could be considered unethical or a violation...and yet Ms. Mitchell sat there waving the School Board Ethics Guidelines in his face.

And where was Mr. Martinez, the District's attorney in all of this?  Surely, if Mr. Wulf had committed a violation, Mr. Martinez should have stood up and supported Ms. Mitchell. Indeed, if someone else had asked Mr. Wulf to get the information superintendent Ferguson passed to him, and he had gone to the State for the answers to his questions, the result would have been the same. So what was so confidential? Is the current administration trying to hide things from the public once again?

Judge for yourself. Click here to see the ambush of Jim Wulf. And then watch as Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier take the entrenched majority to task for wasting our hard-earned tax dollars on excessive legal fees.

To quote Ms. Wulf's now infamous email note:  GO JIM!

By Michael Ratcliffe

Judith Ferguson, who has led the Hopewell Valley regional school district for three years, tendered her resignation yesterday as superintendent.

Her last day will be Aug. 31. She announced her decision to leave the district in a letter sent to school board members. Her contract is not set to expire until July 1, 2009.

While she is contractually required to provide the board with six months notice prior to leaving, Ferguson told The Times last night that the timing of her resignation was planned, in part, to give the school board ample time to find a new superintendent prior to the start of the next school year.

"It's really the perfect time," she said, noting that leaving when she does will allow her replacement time to create his or her own referendum package for next year's school district voting rather that inheriting a package already in the works.

Ferguson's resignation was sudden, but not entirely unexpected.

When she was hired, Ferguson told the board that she did not plan to stay in the district beyond her four-year contract and, she said, she had confided with both the past and current board presidents that she might leave early.

"I didn't quite expect it. I was a little caught off guard," school board member Mel Myers said. "I knew it was something we'd have to deal with in the future -- it's just sooner than I thought."

"I regret that we are being asked to accept Dr. Ferguson's resignation as she has been a highly effective superintendent whose shoes will be very hard to fill," school board President Linda Mitchell said. "Her extensive experience, including her background in school district business administration, has served our district very well in challenging financial times. I personally appreciate her exceptional commitment to the staff and students of this district and her flawless professionalism."

Ferguson joined the Hopewell Valley district as interim superintendent on March 1, 2005, following the departure that January of former superintendent Nick Lorenzetti. In June of that year, saying she was a "good fit for the district," the school board awarded her a four-year contract as superintendent starting at $166,700 and topping out at $184,823.

A veteran administrator who headed the Princeton schools' business department for eight years in the 1980s, Ferguson started a consulting business after retiring as superintendent of the West Morris school district. She has also served as interim superintendent in South Brunswick and Lawrence townships.

Ferguson plans to return to her consulting business but will likely take a little time off after leaving the district.

When asked why she was leaving before the end of her contract, Ferguson told The Times, "I really do feel that I've done what I was called upon to do. We are in a much better place today than we were four years ago. We've put strategies in place for cost containment and brought in revenues we didn't have before."

In her resignation letter sent to the school board yesterday, Ferguson wrote, "I have enjoyed my stay in Hopewell and feel a great sense of pride in the work that we have completed together despite the growing demands and shrinking resources we have experienced. We have met the rigors of 'No Child Left Behind,' fulfilled nearly all of our commitments in our strategic plan, streamlined our budget to conform to new spending and tax caps, reached agreements with most bargaining units and instituted significant cost controls as well as alternative revenue sources to protect our essential programs and services."

Mitchell, the school board president, hailed Ferguson for further developing partnerships with foundations and booster groups, bringing in new revenue-generating grants, downsizing the district administration while increasing teaching staff, and entering into shared services agreements with neighboring school districts and local municipal bodies.

She credited Ferguson with instituting "significant" new security measures at the district's schools, starting the PEECH pre-school program, introducing online courses through the district's "virtual high school" program, and improving the overall quality of the district's technology, including introducing a cable TV channel for the district.

"The board will have a very large and serious task in its effort to find a suitable replacement for the school district, both in terms of quality of the candidate and the proper fit for Hopewell Valley," Mitchell said, noting that board members will begin discussing the search for a new superintendent at their next meeting.

"Under her leadership, the improvements that have been made in the school district will last for years to come with recurring financial and institutional benefits," Mitchell said.

Ferguson, in turn, credited her staff of administrators and faculty members with helping her make "educationally sound" decisions and recommendations to the board.

While she will not miss the long hours and evening meetings, Ferguson said she will miss the people with whom she has worked closely for the last three years. "Hopewell is an amazing school district with a really high quality staff -- some of the best I've ever seen," she said.

Judith A. Ferguson, superintendent of the Hopewell Valley Regional School District, has announced her intention to retire, effective Aug. 31.

In a Wednesday letter to board President Linda Mitchell and the school board, she said: “I have decided to retire (again) at that time and pursue other interests. Some of these interests are professional, but others are personal and include spending time with family, volunteering, and caring for my aging canine pal.”

She said Wednesday her plans include “full-time consulting, superintendent searches and regionalization feasibility studies primarily.”

Dr. Ferguson’s contract is not up for renewal until June (2009 ed.). “I told the board many times that I would not be seeking a renewal,” she said. “ I have been considering this retirement for over a month and gave notice to the board and my administrative team well before receiving a reporter’s call on the Nemeth matter Tuesday afternoon,” she added, laying to rest any thoughts citizens might have about the timing of her announcement.

Dr. Ferguson, who is making $178,573 this school year, said Wednesday: “I have a four-year contract and am three and a half years into it. I was brought here to help the district out of a budget crunch. I think we did that.”

About that, she said: “Over four budget years, we whittled expenses and raised revenues in lieu of taxes impacting the budget by over $1M.” These included administrative reductions and a reduction in nonmandated busing. On the revenue side are the fees for nonmandated busing and (student) activities.

In the proposed budget, she noted, “the tax increase will be less than the 4 percent cap. We have no cuts in programs or services and are adding three teaching positions.”

In her letter to the board, she also said: “While we have accomplished a lot during our short time together, there is much to be done, and this district deserves to have its next leader at the helm immediately upon my leaving if at all possible. If you begin a search in the near future, my six months notice should give you adequate time to find the right future match for Hopewell Valley Regional Schools.

”I have enjoyed my stay in Hopewell and feel a great sense of pride in the work that we have completed together despite the growing demands and shrinking resources we have experienced. We have met the rigors of ‘No Child Left Behind,’ fulfilled nearly all of our commitments in our strategic plan, streamlined our budget to conform to new spending and tax caps, reached agreements with most bargaining units, and instituted significant cost controls as well as alternative revenue sources to protect our essential programs and services.

”Through our partnerships, we have completed much of AFT (Athletic Fields at Timberlane) including the road and parking lot. The five new fields will serve the needs of our athletes and help relieve our existing fields from overuse and wear. Our partnerships with our foundations and booster groups continue to grow and improve, and we have recently settled into improved working relationships with our municipal partners that promise to serve us all better.”

Dr. Ferguson served as acting superintendent from March 1, 2005 until June of that year when she was tapped as the permanent superintendent. She replaced former Superintendent Nick Lorenzetti, who resigned in January 2005.

In spring 2005, the school board had intended to launch a national search for a permanent superintendent. However, the cost of a search in time, money and lost progress was considered unnecessary, given the board’s “overwhelmingly positive experience with Dr. Ferguson,” said then board President Kim Newport. The search firms interviewed by the Personnel Committee submitted quotes ranging from $18,000 to $46,000.

”I don’t believe it is necessary or responsible for us to launch a full search when the ideal candidate is right in front of us,” Ms. Newport said then.

A school administrator for 25 years, Dr. Ferguson previously worked as superintendent of the West Morris Reginal High School District in Chester and the Newton Public Schools in Sussex County.

She also has served as business administrator for Princeton Regional schools, as assistant superintendent and acting superintendent in South Brunswick for the 2003-2004 school year and, for three months in 2000, as interim superintendent in Lawrence Township.

Dr. Ferguson began her educational career as an English teacher at Northern Burlington Regional High School and was a teacher and department chairwoman at Upper Freehold Regional High School for six years.

She holds a bachelor’s degree in English education from Trenton State College. She earned a master’s degree in foundations of education and a doctorate in educational administration from Rutgers.

The state Treasury Department has ordered John Nemeth, retired business administrator for the Hopewell Valley Regional School District, to pay back nearly $40,000 in pension benefits he collected during a six-month period last year while he was working as a consultant for the district.

Treasury Department spokesman Mark Perkiss said Wednesday morning that Mr. Nemeth collected $6,500 pension benefits each month from July through December of last year. During that six-month period, Mr. Nemeth also was being paid $12,000 per month as a consultant. The six-month consultant job began after Mr. Nemeth retired last June 31, after a 15-year stint as the school district’s business administrator.

Mr. Perkiss said the Treasury Department’s Division of Pensions and Benefits ruled that Mr. Nemeth was acting as an employee rather than a consultant for the district and therefore was not eligible to collect pension benefits and be paid at the same time.

The decision can be appealed to the Division of Pensions and Benefits. The second level of appeal is to the state court system, according to Mr. Perkiss.

”We follow IRS (Internal Revenue Service) guidelines in determining whether a relationship that has been termed a consulting relationship really is one,” Mr. Perkiss said. “The Division of Pensions and Benefits decided he (Mr. Nemeth) should have remained an employee.”

Mr. Perkiss added that Mr. Nemeth also has been ordered to pay to the pension system the amount he would have contributed to it, from July to December, had he remained an employee.

Mr. Nemeth, who lives in Bucks County, Pa., could not be reached for comment.

Superintendent Judith Ferguson said she could not comment because the school district “has received no official notice” of the Treasury Department action.

Before the school board voted in favor of the contract to hire Mr. Nemeth as a consultant, school board attorney Robert Martinez said the contract was legal. Several months ago in The Times of Trenton, board member Jim Wulf was quoted as saying the Nemeth contract “did not sit well with the community.”

Mr. Wulf was reprimanded by board members about that story. The members said Mr. Wulf should have discussed the matter with other board members before going to the press.

“Assuming the Department of Treasury’s analysis is indeed correct, all I can say is that every dollar our district misspends is a dollar not applied to delivering a quality education for our children. It’s a tragedy,” Mr. Wulf said Wednesday.

By Monday’s 4 p.m. deadline, seven Hopewell Township residents had filed nominating petitions as candidates for three open seats on the Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education.

Three candidates hoping to capture one of the three-year terms are:

• Armelle Daniels, of Michael Way;
• Roy G. Dollard, of Elm Ridge Road;
• Desiree Fogler, of Pennington-Titusville Road, Titusville;
• Incumbent Edward R. Gainsborg Jr., of Washington Crossing-Pennington Road;
• Stephen Keen, of Hopewell-Pennington Road;
• Judith Lindenberger, of Hopkinson Court;
• and, Brian McHugh, of Masters Way, Brandon Farms.

Board members whose terms expire this year are Mr. Gainsborg, Judy Karp — who is not seeking re-election — and Bill Hills, who was appointed in December to serve the final months of Carl Swanson’s term. Dr. Swanson resigned in November for health reasons. Mr. Hills, a previous president and member of the board, is not seeking a seat on April 15, election day.

Mr. Hills was among seven township residents interviewed for Dr. Swanson’s vacant seat in December. The others were Ms. Fogler, Ken Hansen, Mr. Keen, Ms. Lindenberger, Mr. McHugh and Paul Ronollo. Four of these are April 15 candidates.

On April 15, Hopewell Township registered voters will pick the three board members who will begin service at the school board’s annual reorganization meeting that follows the election.

Of the nine seats on the regional board, seven are Hopewell Township’s. The remaining two seats belong to Hopewell Borough and Pennington. These are not involved in this year’s election.

Also on April 15, registered voters in all three Valley towns will cast ballots on the school budget proposal.

The school board has planned 2008-2009 budget sessions as follows:

• March 3, 7 p.m., tentative budget adoption, 425 S. Main St., Pennington;
• March 6, 8 p.m., budget presentation, CHS Media Center;
• March 12, 7:30 p.m., town meeting on budget plan, CHS Performing Arts Center;
• March 17, 7 p.m., board work session, 425 S. Main St., Pennington;
• March 19, 7:30 p.m., public hearing and adoption of proposed budget, 425 S. Main St., Pennington. If OK’d that night, the spending plan would be ready for April 15 ballots.

By John Tredrea, Staff Writer

The Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education plans to adopt a tentative 2008-2009 spending plan Monday at a meeting set for 7 p.m.

The session will be held at the Administration Building, 425 S. Main St., Pennington.

No figures for the budget are being released until Monday, when board members will see the detailed proposal for the first time, according to a district business office spokeswoman.

If OK’d Monday, the tentative plan will go to the Mercer County superintendent of schools, who supervises and administers the county office of education as a representative of the state commissioner of education. The county office must review and OK the Valley board’s budget plan before it is finalized at the local level.

Other budget meetings include:

• A presentation on March 6 at 8 p.m. at the Central High School (CHS) media center. The high school is located on Pennington-Titusville Road, just west of state Route 31.
• A town meeting at the CHS Performing Arts Center on March 12 at 7:30 p.m. Members of the governing bodies of the school district’s three constituent municipalities will be invited. Those municipalities are Hopewell Township and Pennington and Hopewell boroughs.
• Final budget adoption session on March 19 at 7:30 p.m. at 425 S. Main St., Pennington. Public comment will be taken before the adoption vote is cast. The budget that comes out of this session will be the one that appears on April 15 ballots.

All the events listed above are open to the public.

The school board/budget election will be held on April 15.

Only Hopewell Township voters will pick school board members — three for three-year terms. Board seats for the two boroughs are not up for election this year. All Valley voters get to vote on the 2008-2009 school budget plan.

Once again controversies have developed about actions of the Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education. Comments and criticisms have unfortunately been very personal in some cases. One that particularly disturbed me was the allegation that board member James Wulf was not true to his pledge as an Eagle Scout. James Wulf is a man of great integrity who has taken that pledge as seriously as anyone known to me.

Years ago, as a scoutmaster in Penns Neck, I welcomed James Wulf to the ranks of Eagle Scouts, the first scout in the troop to gain that achievement. It was a proud moment for him, and he remains fully aware of the responsibilities of being an Eagle. One of the ways in which one can honor that pledge is to seek elective office, something that I always encouraged.

I know very well the hazards of public service. In 12 years on the Ewing Township Planning Board, most of them as its chairman, I heard myself called names I never expected to hear in a public forum, and intemperate language was all too common. Many people were much too quick to label my decisions as dishonest, simply because they disagreed with me. Courses of action, which I felt were in the best interest of the general public, were all too often misinterpreted.

I will not presume to take sides in a matter outside my own constituency, but I do want to say that Hopewell Valley residents may be assured that James Wulf reflects the honor and noble ideals of Scouting. The simple fact that he sought to serve them in elective office stands as evidence of his commitment as an Eagle.

David Christian Parris
West Windsor Township

I believe the real point was missed during the last board meeting and subsequent newspaper articles. The real headline should have been “Hopewell Valley school district grossly overspends budget in legal fees.”

At the current burn rate, Hopewell Valley Regional School District will be outspending comparable school districts (Montgomery, Princeton, Lawrence) attorney fees by more than 500 percent.

As I recently watched the televised school board meeting from Feb. 11 on Channel 19, I saw one school board member continue to ask the hard questions regarding overspending by the district on attorney fees. Thanks to (Jim Wulf's) persistent questioning, he saved us hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Who cares about a silly little e-mail that is a public record anyhow? We need to keep our eye on the real issues here. Bloated overspending that threatens our children’s quality of education is what counts.

John Hieronymus
Hopewell Township

To the Editor:

Does anyone in this community understand the difference between what is or isn’t nice and what is or isn’t right? I completely understand why Linda Mitchell and several writers to the HVN last week regard what Jim and Rhona Wulf did with an e-mail as “unprofessional,” “disrespectful,” or even an “antic”— in my opinion, it probably was all of these things. But I’m flabbergasted that none of the newspaper reports or letters devoted even one word to examining whether forwarding a group e-mail to the public was a violation of any law, policy, or agreement. I’ve checked the state laws and board policies thoroughly, and it’s clear that it wasn’t! Suppressing a public document—now that would be “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.”

According to the state Open Public Records Act (and numerous fact sheets prepared by the School Boards Association, NJ State League of Municipalities, etc.), as soon as Judy Ferguson decided to cc. the e-mail she sent to Jim Wulf to the entire school board, it became a public document. So had someone not forwarded it, it could have become one more piece of public business hidden in the hopes that no one would know to exercise our legal right to it. I worked in the Clinton and Bush administrations for 12 years, and I understood from my first day on the job that acting like a petulant child would not change the law or the fact that executive power comes with a price. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: “Dr. Ferguson, we paid for your computer and for your e-mail account,” and I appreciate anyone who puts the public’s business in front of the public. I know of the exemptions in federal and state law that let officials deliberate about certain matters in private, but this announcement from the superintendent to the whole board falls under none of the 24 OPRA exemptions. If I am wrong about this, I trust an attorney will correct the record.

So shame on anyone who used words like “untrustworthy,” “dishonest,” or “misuse.” Hiding a public communication is not something an Eagle Scout would do, and it boggles the mind to imagine how repeating verbatim the words of someone else could constitute “misuse” of anything. Accusing someone of being dishonest is a serious charge, and to do so falsely is simply despicable.

And Linda Mitchell needs refresher training if she thinks she should refer to Dr. Ferguson as the “CEO of this fine school district.” HVRSD is not Halliburton, as much as it might be run like it is—it is a wholly-owned enterprise of the people of this area. If you want to send private e-mails to each other about our children’s education, I suggest you do so on your own time and expense.

I too wish the board could get along better and stop wasting so much time. I’ve concluded that another election and a couple of long-awaited resignations can get us there, to a board that acts both with civility and with integrity.

Adam M. Finkel
Hopewell Township

It was just shy of a year ago that Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier were elected to the school board with their campaign slogan of “It’s Time for a Change!”

What have these two men contributed of substance so far? The difference they have been making is not the difference this community needs, or our children will benefit from. Mr. Tellier’s allegiance to his former campaign partner is demonstrated regularly when he never speaks up during the difficult board discussions.

Mr. Wulf is quick to make accusations about the board and administration, and yet he does not hold himself to a reasonable standard of behavior. It wasn’t Mr. Wulf’s misuse of the superintendent’s e-mail by forwarding it to his wife Rhona for her use that most caught my attention. Rather, it was Mrs. Wulf’s addition: “Go, Jim! He caught a mistake in their statement regarding waivers” that demonstrated to me just how calculating and destructive Mr. Wulf (and his wife’s) attitude is regarding the school board.

The “change” I am noticing is it appears Mr. Wulf’s sole purpose is to discredit the work of the board and the superintendent. I have tremendous respect for the countless hours they devote to solving tough issues regarding the education and employment of so many.

Personally, I am tired of all the negative press directed at Hopewell Valley’s school system!

Debbie Noyes
Hopewell Township

Former Hopewell schools administrator John Nemeth has been ordered to repay nearly $40,000 in pension benefits he collected last year while working as a consultant for the district.

Nemeth collected the benefits from July through December when he was also being paid $12,000 per month as a consultant to the regional district, a spokesman for the Department of Treasury confirmed yesterday.

Treasury officials ruled that Nemeth was acting as an employee of the district rather than a consultant at the same time he was receiving some $6,500 per month in pension payments.

The order also requires Nemeth to make an undetermined contribution to the state teacher's pension fund for the same six months.

"We rely on IRS guidelines in making the determination as to whether a relationship like this is truly a consulting relationship as opposed to an employer-to-employee (relationship)," said Treasury spokesman Mark Perkiss. "A determination was made that (it was) an employer-employee relationship."

Nemeth, who lives in Pennsylvania, could not be reached for comment on the deal, which was first reported by The Times of Trenton in October.

Members of the school board who originally approved the deal with the former business administrator said they could not comment on the decision by the state because they had not been notified.

"As far as I know the school district has not been given any notice," said Hopewell Valley Regional School District Board President Linda Mitchell. "I would consider it inappropriate to comment on something I have not (seen)."

In October, board member Kevin Doran defended the contract saying it would help with a smooth transition and calling it a "good management practice."

Doran did not return a call for comment.

District Superintendent Judy Ferguson also said she could not comment on the deal. Ferguson said Nemeth's consulting deal ended in December and she has not heard anything from the state regarding the contract.

The agreement was approved last summer by board attorney Robert Martinez, who said he had consulted state guidelines before blessing the deal. Martinez said at the time that the district's auditor had also OK'd the arrangement. Martinez was unavailable for comment yesterday.

Jim Wulf, a school board member sworn in after Nemeth's contract was approved, was critical of the deal in October. He said he hopes a lesson was learned.

"Obviously the state frowns on this type of stuff," Wulf said.

Nemeth's consulting contract was awarded just hours before voters narrowly approved a school budget that cut programs and upped fees for district students.

Nemeth had recently retired after more than 15 years with the district but was kept on to help the district close out construction projects and to continue labor negotiations, facilities planning and administrative consultation.

At the time, Wulf said he had heard from several residents and said the contract did not "sit well with the community."

After the deal was brought to light by The Times, the school board voted unanimously to hire a special legal counsel to review the $72,000 consulting contract.

At the same meeting, board members chastised Wulf for speaking to The Times about the contract before consulting with his colleagues on the board.

The Hopewell Valley school board is, once again, on the wrong side of the public's right to know ("A school board's e-mail hub bub," Feb. 18). Linda Mitchell, board president, last week reacted self-righteously because a board e-mail was forwarded to the wife of a member. For two reasons, she should rethink her reaction.

First, the board was considering having all correspondence among board members delivered electronically, via e-mail, as a regular policy. This is a clear violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. It should not even have been introduced as an idea. The board president, of all people, should want to follow the law to the letter. As leader of the school board, which is responsible for 58 percent of the entire tax bill in Hopewell Valley, Ms. Mitchell should recognize her responsibility to the public and want to expand communication, not propose policies that shut out the public.

Second, the e-mail that was forwarded was in no way confidential; therefore, board member Jim Wulf had every right to forward it to whomever he pleased.

Despite Mitchell's political attack, Wulf continued during the meeting to ask tough questions about how the administration is wasting taxpayer monies on excessive legal fees. While Mitchell's ambush of a fellow board member may make for sensational copy, Wulf's critical oversight is what makes a board member valuable to the public.

BILLIE MOORE, Pennington

One hopes school board member Judy Karp reads school board documents under deliberation more carefully than she reads this letters column.

This writer has consistently supported our schools and teachers. His clarion call: “The school board’s work-in-progress (the annual budget) should continue to focus directly on the student within that intimate learning experience with the teacher.”

Reacting to current economic conditions, the admonition continued: “It is administrative overhead that has to be minutely examined.”

As for the school superintendent, the question was raised: “Are we getting enough bang for our buck?” Cited were the creation of a high-priced administrative position in central headquarters, public relations functions provided by previous superintendents, time for her outside consulting employment, and a meaningful role in informal legal/statutory advice to avoid excessive attorney costs.

Since the majority of current school board members may be inhibited to speak up on these issues (how they are “romanced” into aphonia was addressed by this writer last week), one hopes forthcoming candidates for school board will.

Upon arrival 20 years ago, a community leader advised me the constituents in the Valley want straight talk and answers. I believe they still do.

Norm Goldman
Hopewell Township

After reading about and watching the latest disturbing events at the Feb. 11 school board meeting, I am sadly reminded of a pattern of negative behavior by various members of the board during the last 17 years. Is the pendulum swinging back to that place when our Board of Education finds it necessary to have an attorney present to enable the board to direct its full attention to the task of overseeing our school district?

Serious and thorough consideration of issues before a Board of Education is welcome, but the shenanigans that we have been witnessing from Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier exhibit behavior we as a community should pay close attention to. This climate of obsession with “special interest” issues compromises the board’s ability to achieve a financially responsible and educationally sound program for all our children.

Our community needs to be alert and informed. Let’s not allow history to repeat itself. The stakes are too high!

Sally Turner
Hopewell Township
FORMER SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENT

Let me get this straight! At the Feb. 11 meeting, when Jim Wulf was confronted with his misuse of an e-mail he received from the superintendent, his response included: “I’m very sorry... flog me, stand me out at the corner of one of the intersections and throw tomatoes at me ... whatever.”

However the next morning his tone and message had drastically changed. Mr. Wulf’s quotes to local newspapers show how he attempted to spin the inappropriate use of the e-mail. Mr. Wulf states, “All my wife was trying to do was to correct a misleading budget presentation.”

Please! He sounds like a child who knew he was guilty but has since thought of a way to detract from his own accountability. There are other ways for Mrs. Wulf to suggest correcting something on the district Web site. Sending it out to “Busing Advocates” as a “gotcha” on the superintendent is certainly not one of them.

Do the Wulfs really think this community believes they were acting in a respectful and responsible manner? Think again!

Sharon Squicciarino

Titusville

The antics of the Wulf-Tellier team are getting old. In the middle of critical budget deliberations, work has again been upstaged and slowed by Mr. Wulf’s irresponsible behavior, in this case, his sharing a board member-superintendent communication with his wife and ultimately with a political group lobbying for a special interest.

In his recent e-mail to the HVN, Mr. Wulf respun his apology given at the meeting and expressed mortification at the response of the school board to his wife’s “innocent communication.”

What should have mortified him was this: while he was being exposed at the board meeting as untrustworthy (No. 1 Boy Scout requirement —something Eagle Scout Jim must have forgotten), his wife hid in the hallway laughing. I guess she thinks the disruption is funny. It is not. The relentless campaign against our school district is destructive and shameless. Our school district should not be held hostage to these antics and the whims of an unelected spouse.

At an October meeting, Mr. Wulf needed to quiet an outburst from his wife. It is time for the community to wake up and repeat Mr. Wulf’s words that night, “Go home, Rhona!”

Alex Semple
Hopewell

It is a very sad state of affairs in the Hopewell Valley Regional School District.

Once again, Superintendent Judith Ferguson discovers that she cannot trust all of the board members she must work so closely with. The “paperless” board proposal was an excellent idea for those taxpayers like myself who enjoy seeing the Board of Education working toward ways to save our money.

It infuriates me to think that Jim Wulf would destroy this initiative with his unprofessionalism. I find it hard to believe that he forwarded Dr. Ferguson’s e-mail about busing to his wife, one of the leaders of the group opposed to the past year’s transportation cuts, and he had no idea that she would be passing it along to her fellow “busing advocates.”

How can Dr. Ferguson possibly do her job most effectively when she is dealing with this complete lack of professionalism and trust?

On election day in April, I will certainly be casting my vote for board candidates who will work well together as a team to make decisions in the best interests of our children. What are we teaching the children of this district by electing board members who try to push their own former campaign platforms at any cost?

I am disgusted by the dishonesty in politics we see every day in Washington. We do not need such behavior here in Hopewell Valley.

Kathy Coppins
Hopewell Township

Hopewell Valley school board President Linda Mitchell reprimanded board member Jim Wulf last week for allowing his wife to forward an e-mail from superintendent Judith Ferguson to a busing advocacy group.

Wulf apologized at last Monday's school board meeting but later said his wife did nothing wrong.

"I am disappointed my wife's concern for the safety of the children in our community should become so politicized," Wulf said.

But Mitchell said it was the Wulfs who were using the e-mail -- which dealt with the interchangeable use of certain busing terminology -- for political reasons.

"There has been a breach of trust within the board of education," she said.

The flap over the e-mail fueled the board last Monday to vote unanimously to shelve a proposal that the board communicate electronically rather than with printed materials.

The e-mail -- which corrected the misuse of "courtesy" and "hazardous" busing terms in a recent presentation to the board and discussed a transportation waiver -- was sent to Wulf and other board members by Ferguson.

Wulf's wife Rhona, who was active in a grass-roots campaign against the elimination of some school busing routes last year, forwarded the e-mail to her busing advocacy group.

"Go Jim!" she wrote at the top of the e-mail. "He caught an error in their statement regarding waivers. This statement by the superintendent will help our hazardous busing effort."

That communication evoked the anger of Mitchell.

"I cannot tell you how deeply disappointed and frustrated I am that at least one member of this board allows his correspondence with the CEO of this fine school district to be misused for political gains or special interests," Mitchell said.

Wulf, who has been at odds with Mitchell and other board members over policy and procedural issues since his election to the board last year, said he was "blindsided" by Mitchell's comments on the e-mail.

"It doesn't surprise me that an organization that has very little leadership or direction, that lives in a vacuum, would also have a kangaroo court as well. This is a distraction from the issues at hand," he said.

"All my wife was trying to do was to correct a misleading budget presentation and make sure the parents had the correct information."

Board member Judy Karp was dismayed by the lack of trust between board members.

"To have this stuff going on at the board level is crippling the district," she said.

Kim Robinson, of Hopewell Township, attended the meeting last Monday and was critical of Mitchell.

"I felt like we were reliving the Spanish Inquisition, with Linda Mitchell serving as the Grand Inquisitor," Robinson said.

"I think the board needs to stop criticizing its own members and focus on the business at hand -- our children's education."

I think I have finally figured out what arrives in our mailboxes every Thursday under the guise of a “news”paper. It is a collection of “interpretations.” For example, last week’s HVN contained, among many others, these “facts”: the Princeton Elks are having a St. Patrick’s buffet on March 8 at 7 p.m., and the “U-11 Hot Shots” lost to Robbinsville by a score of 18 to 9. But how do we know that the buffet won’t be on March 7 at 8 p.m., or that the Hot Shots didn’t win by 19 to 8? Surely, we can rely on these and other facts because the local paper understands the difference between a fact and an “interpretation.”

I assume that when the HVN continues to say, week after week, that the decision to direct four primary strings teachers to teach band this year was a hard fiscal necessity, rather than a clear signal that the board and superintendent value the latter and disdain the former, it is because HVN chooses to “interpret” the facts that way. We had the teachers in one place, and they were moved to another, but HVN says we couldn’t afford to leave things as they were, and anyone who questions the decision doesn’t understand the “fiscal realities.” So this coming year, if the district decides to change the job descriptions of the elementary math teachers and make them teach high-school weight-lifting (this is a rumor I just made up, just so readers can see what an honest journalistic disclosure would look like), HVN can print that it’s fiscally selfish for anyone to question this, and all debate can end before it begins. More pointedly, will HVN say we can’t afford not to have new playing fields, when parents question whether our limited funds should be spent on education instead?

In a democracy, people who feel strongly about policies often get outvoted; I count my blessings to live in such a society. But civil back-and-forth can never occur if one side’s policy choices get “reinterpreted” as saving resources, rather than moving resources around -- or in the case of athletics, as “educational adequacy” (the superintendent’s description, not mine).

I look with admiration and awe at the volunteers who devote so much of their time to serving on the board, and I admit that for selfish personal reasons, I cannot make that kind of commitment. But I also can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for board members to be interviewed (or not interviewed, as seems more often to be the case) by a publication that believes all facts that don’t align with its views can be “interpreted” at its pleasure.

I stopped advocating for strings months ago. I have been advocating for good journalism and sensible debate, and I urge readers of the HVN, when election time draws near, to seek out unbiased information about the candidates, from sources who understand the difference between a fact, a belief, and an untruth. Oh, and call first before you show up at any events reported in the weekly “interpretation paper.”

Adam M. Finkel
Hopewell Township

Obviously from reading this column last week, school decision-making in “Happy Valley” is not doing too well. The well-documented problems: lack of authentic community involvement, hazardous bus routes unresolved, and program cuts in spite of a surplus.

So why is it so difficult to get a broad-based debate, consideration, and resolution of these citizen concerns? Openly dealing with such issues is inhibited by the training board members receive from the NJ School Boards Association, which traditionally advises that board members should not disagree in public, but march forth as a united team. Otherwise, the organization claims, the school board will be vulnerable. This lack of publicly examining and revisiting all alternatives as well as reducing the costly often fat-laden area of administrative costs by school boards is further complicated by what I call “the romance factor.”

That phrase defines the basic relationship between board members and top school administrators with whom they come in contact most often as they pursue their elected responsibilities.

Examples: the late meetings at night they “suffer” together, the intense free-wheeling committee sessions with rolled up shirt sleeves, the trips to the caffeine dispenser to keep themselves alert during times of crises, the staff-developed report drafts that enable them to accomplish their objectives, the camaraderie before and during their meetings in addition to attendance at workshops, conferences, and retreats.

Such togetherness may not portend well for a very deep look into cutting costs at the top. “We did that last year” might be the first response. Skeptics might view that scenario as a form of “musical chairs.” Revisiting an issue might be “misinterpreted” as an admission by the administration or the board that it erred in the first place.

The question before the school board is how to maintain and enhance the instructional process at the same time reducing the unnecessary brass, bells, and flourishes. Board members might also use this weekly column as an early warning system.

Norm Goldman
Hopewell Township

Norm Goldman’s letter of Jan. 31 unfairly attacking the school district and its superintendent is rife with misinformation and I submit this letter as a private citizen to correct the record.

First, he dismisses the dramatic changes that have taken place over the past few years in downsizing central administration as a “game of musical chairs.” This could not be further from the truth. The fact is that Judith A. Ferguson has led the district in a smart plan to restructure and downsize administration in an effort to trim the budget and preserve programs. This reorganization resulted in a net loss of two high-level central office administrative positions and two school-level vice principal positions. These administrative changes alone saved the district well over $300,000 not just this year, but in every succeeding year.

In addition, Dr. Ferguson developed creative solutions to save money by securing new grant money, expanding cost savings with shared services and developing partnerships with organizations such as the Mercer County Vocational Technical School District, Hopewell Township and Hopewell Valley YMCA, to name just a few.

Attacking a superintendent’s salary is an easy, simplistic target to vent taxpayers’ frustrations with a broken state system. Looking to our comparable neighboring districts in the state of New Jersey and in Mercer County, in particular, Dr. Ferguson earns a salary on par with superintendents of her experience. The fact is that there is a dwindling pool of well-qualified superintendent candidates willing to endure the position’s hours and pressures. Surely, Hopewell Valley deserves a highly qualified chief officer to head up the $65 million organization that is our community’s biggest investment, our school system.

It is no accident that when other districts in this area are scrambling to balance their budgets, Hopewell Valley is balancing its budget while maintaining excellence. This is the result of three years of deliberate and intense planning by the Board of Education and the superintendent. Dr. Ferguson’s accomplishments in terms of fiscal prudence and enhancing our programs and facilities are too numerous to mention in one letter, but the positive impact of these changes will benefit this district for years to come.

Judy Karp
Hopewell Township

At a recent school board meeting, members Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier suggested reinstatement of last year’s hazardous bus routes cut. Unfortunately, their suggestion was shot down by board President Linda Mitchell and Superintendent Judy Ferguson, who both stated they had heard few or no complaints about the cut.

Seriously? Maybe they just don’t read mail (or letters to the HVN , or petitions) that oppose their view.

The majority members of the school board excel not only at ignoring opposing points of view but at spinning stories for the press. The HVN article about the above exchange referred to the axed routes as “non-mandated.” While it is true the routes cut are not “mandated” by state law, they are in a different category called “hazardous.”

Hazardous bus routes are those where the absence of sidewalks or other road conditions make foot or bike travel by children dangerous. Drive to the high school one day on Pennington-Titusville Road and think about a 14-year-old walking down and then up the hill, around the blind curve, in the dark, to get to school by 7:45 a.m.

Do we really want to wait until a child walking a hazardous route gets hit by a car for the majority members of the school board to pay attention to what many of us in the community have been saying all along?

To everyone who voted in the last school board election for the priorities that will make our students safe and well-educated, please, in April, let’s do it again. For more information about this issue, visit www.hvcusp.org.

Amie Rukenstein
Titusville

The current school board continues to cover up problems, avoid the real issues and ignores possible solutions.

Three years ago we saw it with the selection of the superintendent. Parents and teachers were told that they would be part of the selection process. That did not happen. We now have a mediocre superintendent who spends more time with her two consulting companies than addressing real problems in her own district. Two years ago, the board’s busing cuts put the safety of many children at risk. Last year the flag-ship 25 year strings program was demolished with little reasoning and many lame excuses.

What is next? We are currently entering the budget discussion time of the year with a $1.8 million surplus from the previous year. That’s right, a surplus! And yet for two years we have been told that we needed to make painful cuts. Parents have had to foot the bill for givens such as activities and safe busing. In fact, we have had surpluses for the last three years! This is now becoming the districts’ slush fund for special projects.

Isn’t it time to reinstate everything that has been cut? Give the taxpayers some relief? And provide needed capital improvements to the schools?

Jeff Van Order
Hopewell Township

Readers of the Hopewell Valley News (HVN) are aware that HVRSD is in the midst of the 2008-2009 budget-planning process. It is my belief that the school board should function as an intermediary between the school administration and taxpayers to ensure that a high-quality and cost-efficient education is delivered.

Unfortunately, anyone who has witnessed a recent school board meeting would be hard-pressed to describe board conduct as anything but dysfunctional. I was pleased to learn that Bill Hills was selected to fill Carl Swanson’s school board position. He claimed to have some technical experience and, unlike the other board members and the school administration, he might have enough competence and knowledge to consider my suggestions that would save millions and definitely enhance the quality of education! After all, wasn’t he selected to rejoin the board because he had budget-planning experience? Didn’t he claim to have the ability to satisfy the numerous district critics? I eagerly await his exhibition of common decency when he responds to one of the multiple e-mails I’ve sent him.

Readers of the HVN also continually hear of the exemplary HVRSD accounting practices. I saw in the 2005-2006 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that HVRSD spent $7,796,711 from the state of New Jersey, but saw on a state of New Jersey Web site that only $4,136,407 was provided to HVRSD. Without speculation or accusation, I filed an OPRA request to understand this almost $4 million discrepancy. HVRSD Business Administrator Robert Colavita claimed “there are no public records responsive to explaining the difference in state aid.” Should this brief reply be considered a satisfactory fulfillment of my OPRA request?

Lastly, readers of the Hopewell Valley News also are continually reminded of how cost-conscience HVRSD is, e.g., they changed voice providers and saved $56,000! Prior to this change, any parent will recall the multiple pleas from teachers to refrain from leaving voice-mail messages because the phone system operated so poorly. Having realized how much money was being spent on the phone system, I offered some technical assistance to Douglas Brower. Rather than accepting much-needed help or identifying any person responsible for overseeing this problematic telephone system, he replied that, “I don’t work directly with the phone system so I won’t speak to this directly.” Was this smug reply crafted to satisfy a taxpayer? Even if they claim no technical expertise and they represent a school district, isn’t it reasonable to expect any responsible consumer to be able to identify the basic specifications of their telephone service?

Is HVRSD a school district that desires to give the impression that they act responsibly and want community involvement?

I have a doctorate from Yale University in chemical engineering and am a member of Tau Beta Pi, the National Engineering Honor Society.

Brian J. McHugh
Hopewell Township

But members opposed to hazardous busing said that they had not heard enough negative feedback from residents about the cancellation.

I seem to remember that parents were in an uproar over the cancellation of hazardous busing. The Pennington Police even agreed to place an officer at Route 31 and Delaware Avenue during school start and end times to protect the children who are now forced to cross the potentially dangerous intersection.

What do you think about this?

Are Mr. Tellier and Mr. Wulf on to something here, or are Hopewell Valley residents OK with the way busing was handled this year?

Posted by Janine Logue, Pennington Post Editor at 11:53 AM on Jan 25, 2008

COMMENTS:

Citizens United for Safe Passage (CUSP) said...

It is absolutely outrageous that Ms. Mitchell, Judy Karp and others would indicate that they've not heard from parents upset about this issue. One only has to go to www.hvcusp.org and read the countless articles and letters from upset parents therein to see that this is absolutely false. Indeed, Ms. Mitchell herself stated during the recorded School Board session that she has been approached by parents regarding this topic on numerous occasions -- those who recognize that it's a thorny issue, and who (gee, what a surprise), allegedly sympathize with her.

I urge all those who still feel passionately about this topic – so critical to the safety of our children – to send Ms. Mitchell and the other School Board members an email by clicking here.  Let them know that people still care, and that hazardous busing should be reinstated immediately.

If you supported Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier during the last election precisely because Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Karp and others on the School Board seem unconcerned about the safety of the very people they are sworn to protect -- our children -- then you know what you have to do this election: Vote Karp and the rest of the old guard out.

It’s time for a change...again. Wulf and Tellier can’t do it on their own. They are still a minority and every time they try and raise this issue, they’re shouted down.

Three new School Board members will be voted in this spring. Let’s make sure that they’re the kind of candidates who put our children’s safety first...before new playing fields, bloated legal bills and sweetheart deals for former bureaucrats.

Last week’s school board meeting spent only about one hour reviewing three major areas of proposed spending including administration. And the old song about reorganization effecting savings was sung. It’s been mostly a game of musical chairs.

During times of fiscal restraint and overburdening property taxes, and while fixed costs — energy bills, negotiated salary increments, or health care provisions — will be higher, the school board’s work-in-progress should continue to focus directly on the student within that intimate learning experience with the teacher. Obviously, it is administrative overhead that has to be minutely examined.

The imperial superintendency still lives! The negotiated salary for the school superintendent this year is $178,573. Next year she will receive $184,823. A matching tax-deferred annuity provision awards an additional contribution by the district of $9,600 per annum. There are the usual expense items for convention-going as well as $5,000 per year for professional development.

Are we getting enough “bang for our buck?”

In past restructuring, a new expensive administrative position, director of instruction, was created. Such duties were previously conducted by the assistant superintendent of schools. Currently the responsibilities held by the assistant superintendent, an excellent hands-on educator, however, include human resources, which was originally processed by a talented support staffer.

Public relations was handled in the past by the school superintendent who picked up the telephone and was always available to the daily and weekly press. The school budget publication was accomplished with minimal temporary efforts. The current full-time employee, who functions quite creditably in this area, is also responsible for obtaining grants competing with our local parent organizations, parent support groups for high school athletics and music, and the education and recreation foundations.

It would seem logical that the current school superintendent — who also works for the national search firm Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates — might be able to pick up some of the slack in the above-cited administrative areas.

Blockbuster savings are in the utilization of attorneys. Some 12 law firms are currently being paid out of two budget accounts with a total allocation of $420,000. Consolidation might be effective. Also when viewing telecasts of board meetings with the board attorney always present, one asks why can’t critical legal advice be sought by correspondence or if an informal nature be provided by the superintendent, who is a former president of the statewide superintendents organization and still involved in their activities. One hopes the board members continue to dig into the “work-in-progress.”

For dig, they must.

Norm Goldman
Hopewell Township

By Ruth Luse, Managing Editor

On April 15, Hopewell Township registered voters will pick three Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education members who will serve three-year terms.

Hopewell Township residents interested in running for one of the three open seats have until 4 p.m. Feb. 25 to file nominating petitions, which may be picked up from Bob Colavita, board secretary, at the school district administration building, 425 S. Main Street, Pennington.

Board members whose terms expire this year are Edward R. Gainsborg Jr., Judy Karp and Bill Hills. Mr. Hills, appointed in December, is serving the final months of Carl Swanson’s term. Dr. Swanson resigned in November for health reasons.

Of the nine seats on the regional board, seven are Hopewell Township’s. The remaining two seats belong to Hopewell Borough and Pennington. These are not involved in this year’s election.

A would-be candidate must: be at least 18 year old; be a citizen of the United States; be a registered voter in Hopewell Township; be able to read and write; have been a resident of Hopewell Township for at least one year preceding the date of the election; and not be directly/indirectly interested in any contract with or claim against the board.

By law, those who want to file nominating petitions must obtain the signatures of at least 10 qualified voters living in Hopewell Township. One of the names can be the would-be candidate’s own.

School board members are volunteers. They also are state officials. They derive whatever power they have from the state, which is responsible for public education. Those who get it in their heads to run for the board because they want to represent a specific community group or interest should “forget it,” according to “Basic Boardsmanship,” a publication of the New Jersey School Boards Association.

The bottom line of the local school board member’s responsibility is to “ensure that local students meet the educational goals of the state and the community.” In other words, according to “Basic Boardsmanship,” board members “represent the community in its desire to see its children achieve.”

Today, a school board member’s job is difficult and time-consuming. It involves dealing with the innumerable pressures arising from the need to conserve costs in a state whose leaders continue to face a debt that exceeds $33 billion. In facing such fiscal challenges, which trickle down to the local level, school board members often must make hard choices that can adversely affect what some in the community might see as essential offerings. We have seen this happen in the Valley with busing service changes and courses like primary strings, to name just two of the more-discussed issues of recent times.

The job of school board member is for sincere volunteers, whose only remuneration will be the satisfaction of doing a job that must be done well.

We urge those who understand the role board members play and those who sincerely want to serve to come forth as candidates this year. We need you!

By R. Kurt Osenlund; Correspondent

Following a warm send-off for recently retired Board member Carl Swanson, the Hopewell Valley Board of Education commenced the second of four 2008-09 Budget presentations, as part of their Jan. 22 meeting. The main focus of the meeting was on hazardous busing.

Throughout the district, there have long been three types of busing services provided. However, recent changes made to the transportation policies have forced some of those services to be cut or reduced.

Courtesy busing, a non-mandated program that once served all students living within two miles from any of the district's six schools, was proposed to be eliminated district-wide in the spring of 2006. The action took effect the following September.

More recently, hazardous busing, which served students living less than two and a half miles from school but encountering potentially dangerous conditions in their commute, was also axed for those students in grades 6-12.

That action was put in place at the start of the 2007-08 school year, after a decision was made last March.

These students are now expected to walk to school, provide their own means of transportation or pay a fee of $150 per seat to receive busing.

Mandated busing, a service that caters to all students living beyond the two-mile mark (and is the only service ever to be funded by the state), remains intact.

Although the removal of the unsubsidized programs has significantly reduced bus routes and saved the district hundreds of thousands of dollars, the issue of busing sparked a bit of controversy when it was brought up at the meeting.

Certain Board members, including Aaron Tellier and James Wulf, expressed an interest in having the hazardous busing service reinstated.

"It's my strong feeling," Tellier said, "…to try to find a way to fund Hazardous busing this year."

Wulf, who was very vocal on the topic, raised the question of whether or not it would be practical to begin providing additional in-house service as opposed to outsourcing (the district currently has 81 contracted bus routes and 34 in-house routes).

While Colavita confirmed that a study regarding such had not been conducted (citing that the district currently "lacks the facilities to store the buses"), Hopewell Valley Superintendant Judith Ferguson was quick to give Wulf a response.

"Most districts that have studied [in-house busing services] have determined that it's better to outsource," Ferguson said. "It's not so much a question of quality, as it is cost."

While the matter of forcing certain parents to pay for busing out of pocket was considerable, both Teiller's and Wulf's major concern was student safety.

"I feel very strongly on the safety issue," Wulf said during a brief recess. "I'm worried about people having to cross [Route] 31, and children having to walk across 50 mph roads."

Not all Board members shared Wulf's and Tellier's viewpoint, and many felt that there hadn't been enough negative community feedback to restore the busing program.

Board president Linda Mitchell stated that most parents expressed to her a reasonable understanding. "I've had people that say, 'we don't love it, but we get it, '" she said.

After much additional discussion and deliberation, no definitive decision was made to bring back the service, and the Board concluded that the issue would be discussed in greater length at a later date.

Other key focal points of discussion were the school district's central office and maintenance, as presented by Business Administrator and Board Secretary Robert Colavita.

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Feb. 11, when budget topics of curriculum, athletics and staffing will be discussed.

Additional information can be found by logging on to: http://www.hvrsd.k12.nj.us/district/.

The proposed transportation budget is $4,024,798. This is $30,324, or 0.7 percent, less than the 2007-2008 adjusted budget and $8,033, or 0.2 percent less, than the 2007-2008 adopted budget.

The district saved $209,692 this year by making policy changes in grades six-12 busing not required by state law. Under those changes, families who want that busing must pay part of the cost.

On Tuesday, board members Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier said the board and administration should investigate the possibility of having the district pay for all this busing again. Mr. Tellier said he has heard comments to that effect “from more than a handful” of district parents.

"We’ve had very few complaints," responded Dr. Ferguson on the nonmandated busing issue.

Board President Linda Mitchell said she has heard no complaints at all. She asked the board if any other members had heard any complaints about the busing changes. No other board members said they had.

The truth of the matter is that some Board members -- namely Aaron Tellier, Jim Wulf and Mel Meyers -- continue to hear from dozens of unhappy parents affected by the busing issue each and every month.

No, this issue has not gone away.

And we're glad that Wulf and Tellier still remember the important role this plank in their platform played in last year's election.  Indeed, we hope they make good on their campaign promises, and refuse to sign off on any school budget that doesn't include the reinstatement of funding for hazardous busing.

The new School Board election is only a few weeks away.  Since Wulf and Tellier's unprecedented victory last time around, they have made significant strides in promoting greater transparency in the way the Board conducts business.  They've helped keep costs down, and we're likely to see a significant budget surplus as a result, in large part due to their oversight.

But they are still the minority.  Too often Linda Mitchell, Judy Karp and other entrenched interests on the School Board have shut down their complaints, often vilifying them personally, or through surrogate agents.

Last election, the community responded overwhelmingly to the message:  "It's time for a change."  And, indeed, a change has begun.

But, until Wulf and Tellier are joined by three new Board Members sympathetic to their views, the Board will remain what it has been:

• largely deaf to the voices of outraged parents -- on issues as varied as hazardous busing, holiday celebrations and curriculum changes;
• too eager to cut sweetheart deals with former employees;
• too free with our tax dollars on legal fees and in creating unnecessary bureaucratic positions;
• and not caring enough about the safety of our children as they are forced to walk unprotected along our sidewalkless streets.

We're almost there.  We've made a good start.  Let's not give up now.

Linda Mitchell is saying that no one cares anymore, that few even bother to voice their opinion.

Let's prove her wrong.  Click here to send Ms. Mitchell and the other School Board members an email telling them just how you feel.  Or call Ms. Mitchell directly at 609-818-1715.

By John Tredrea, Staff Writer

With school district elections less than three months away, the Hopewell Valley school board spent over an hour Tuesday night discussing three areas of its work-in-progress 2007-2008 spending plan.

Those areas are administration, facilities and transportation. Other areas of the 2008-2009 budget will be discussed in depth at board meetings in upcoming weeks.

April 15 is the date school district elections will be held statewide. On that day, voters will choose school board members and approve or reject budgets. A public hearing must be held on the school budget proposal before it can be submitted to voters on election day.

On Tuesday, district Business Administrator/Board Secretary Robert Colavita said that, in the area of administration, the current draft of the proposed 2008-2990 spending plan calls for expenditure of $2,155,405. That’s $588,381, or 21.4 percent, less than the 2007-2008 adjusted budged and $42,454, or 1.9 percent, less than the 2007-2008 adopted budget.

Administrative reorganization during the past year accounts for much of the savings in this area, Mr. Colavita and Superintendent Judith A. Ferguson said. The adjusted budget figures, required by state law, take into account goods and services paid for by the district but not yet received.

The proposed facilities budget is $5,887,849, Mr. Colavita said. This is $706,371, or 10.7 percent, less than the 2007-2008 adjusted budget and $276,081, or 4.9 percent, more than the 2007-2008 adopted budget. Included in this year’s proposed facilities spending plan is $500,000 for replacement of a portion of the roof at Bear Tavern Elementary School.

The proposed transportation budget is $4,024,798. This is $30,324, or 0.7 percent, less than the 2007-2008 adjusted budget and $8,033, or 0.2 percent less, than the 2007-2008 adopted budget.

The district saved $209,692 this year by making policy changes in grades six-12 busing not required by state law. Under those changes, families who want that busing must pay part of the cost.

On Tuesday, board members Jim Wulf and Aaron Tellier said the board and administration should investigate the possibility of having the district pay for all this busing again. Mr. Tellier said he has heard comments to that effect “from more than a handful” of district parents.

"We’ve had very few complaints," responded Dr. Ferguson on the nonmandated busing issue.

Board President Linda Mitchell said she has heard no complaints at all. She asked the board if any other members had heard any complaints about the busing changes. No other board members said they had.

PERSONNEL MOVES approved unanimously by the Hopewell Valley school board Monday night included:

• Granting a family leave of absence to Stony Brook Elementary teacher Lesley Moore, effective April 23.
• Granting a family leave of absence to Timberlane teacher Kristine Burns, effective Jan. 22.
• Approval of the following substitute teachers for 2007-2008: Eric Bradshaw, Kathleen Dougherty, Winne Fitzgerald, Kathleen George, Carey Higgins and Jo-Ann Marie Sciarrotta.
• Approval of Angela Drake as a substitute nurse for 2007-2008.
• Approval of the following student teachers for the 2007-2008 spring semester:
  • Joseph Luccio of Rider University, at Timberlane Middle School.
  • Vina Barnes of Rider University at Timberlane Middle School.
  • Heidi Haldeman of Rutgers College of Nursing at Hopewell Elementary.