School board elections will likely revert back to April this year, barring litigation, because there was no City Council consensus Monday for Mayor Adrian O. Mapp's move to keep them in November.
Corrected Consensus on a resolution for November school board elections failed 4-3, with Barry Goode, Rebecca Williams and Council President Cory Storch saying "yes" to putting the measure up for a vote at the Jan. 19 council meeting and Gloria Taylor, Bridget Rivers, Diane Toliver and Tracey Brown saying "no." Before seeking consensus, the council heard more than 20 residents, including six school board members, speaking out on their perceived pros and cons of school board timing.
In 2012, either the Board of Education or the City Council had the power to move school board elections to coincide with the November general election. The matter could also have become a public question for voters to decide. The City Council acted first, voting to move the election to November. The law allowed for either entity to reverse the timing after four years, and on Nov. 10 the school board did so at a work and study meeting with no prior notice.
Charges flew in public comment. Terri Slaughter-Cabbell said the board showed a "total lack of transparency" with the walk-on vote, calling it "a disservice and slap in the face to the community." But Board President Wilma Campbell said it was done in a public meeting.
"We have not done anything improper or illegal," she said.
School board attorney Lisa Fittipaldi also defended the action, though later Plainfield Corporation Counsel David Minchello said later he "disagreed vehemently" with her. Minchello said there was nothing in the statute to say the date could not be changed after the board's action.
Board member David Rutherford, who defended the change to April on his Plainfield View blog, called New Jersey "the most meddling state" and wondered whether the city budget would turn up in the Board of Education packet.
Opponents of the April election said Plainfield is the only district changing back from November and it will cost $100,000 or more. But residents will get to vote on the budget in April, supporters said. Resident Jim Spear punched a hole in that argument by pointing out that Plainfield is an Abbott district, which guarantees budget passage even if voters reject it.
Besides possible costs of an April election, opponents said polls will only be open from 2 p.m. to 9 p.m., in contrast with November's voting hours from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. But April election supporters argued that November elections are too political, even though school board candidates are separate and labeled as nonpartisan.
In remarks after the consensus failed, council members repeated a lot of the same arguments.
"People don't go all the way down to the end of the ballot," Rivers said of the November elections.
Taylor said she liked November elections better, but called the mayor's proposed resolution "too fast." She also found the proposed reversal of the board's decision "disrespectful." Repeating her charge that it was "too soon," she said the matter could be fixed "next year." Taylor also saw it as a turf issue and said it was disrespectful of the city to take on the board's role. Calling it a "power play," she said of the rejected resolution, "It's not all wrong, but it's not right."
Storch said litigation over the issue would be a one-time cost, but the estimated $115,000 cost of an April election will be recurring.
Barring a stay of the board's decision, the new timeline means candidates must file by February 29 for an April 19 election. See all election dates here.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bernice, are you sure Tracey Brown abstained? Please check. It sounded like "no" to me.
ReplyDeleteBernice Rev. Tracey Brown voted no to move elections back to Nov., she abstained on the PMUA vote.
ReplyDeleteI was hoping for a positive move by many on the Council in representing all of the people in town, but we didn't get it. The public is being disenfranchised and perhaps if people feel that way they should let their Council member(s)know. Email addresses of all Council members are available on the City website: www.plainfieldnj.gov.
ReplyDeleteSo let me see if I got this right . . . . .
ReplyDeleteThe NON-PARTISAN (all Democrats) City Council voted along PARTISAN (it's a Plainfield thing) lines to move the NON-PARTISAN Bd of Ed elections back to April.
Who knew!
The move to hold the BOE elections in 2012 was a political move and now the chickens have come home to roost. Suck it up and let's move on.
ReplyDeleteTo the board member that declared every child will not go to college - I think we all can agree that’s a true statement, however, every child should be prepared to go to college. Providing the best education possible and preparing our kids for college whether they chose to go or not should be the school systems main concern.
ReplyDeleteCareer, technical and vocational opportunities should also be made available to students. There is more than one path to success. Vocational programs can be effective in preparing students for success because they provide a hands-on and engaging environment and develops skills that a 4 year bachelor degree does not. Our students should have that option. Every child will not go to college.
ReplyDeleteSince the school board knows they are blowing $100k of Plainfield taxpayer money being as Plainfield doesn't fully fund it's school district, it's a drop in the bucket for them to throw that money away. But, rest assured, when push comes to shove... who will lose a job when the money comes out of the budget?? An administrator or other over paid school official ? Oh no my friend..it'll be a couple janitors or teachers..that's who'll lose their job. But kudos on keeping the competition down in the elections by moving them to April. Not at all self serving.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that a paid attorney of the school board was allowed to speak in public comment? She is not a resident of Plainfield. I have two issues with this: taxpayers money were used to have her there and if the rules allow for this, then does it allow for others to hire professionals to come represent their interests? Let's say things like PMUA or .....the list would almost include anything
ReplyDeleteDid I hear correctly that the BOE President doesn't know that the Plainfield school budget is from Abbott money, and not from the citizens? I thought one of her reasons for moving the BOE election is because people will focus on the school budget. Does she not know that the Plainfield BOE does not get their money from Plainfield but from the state? Did I hear her correctly?
ReplyDeleteWasn't there an error in the mail in ballots where the number of candidates voters could chose was not specified? That could lead people not to trust being bundled in with the highly politicized general elections.
ReplyDelete