Your November consolidation talk open thread:
…From the pages of South Jersey Magazine…
UPDATE 11/28
Merchantville residents have banded together to push for a merger with Cherry Hill. Could consolidation spark a statewide phenomenon?
UPDATE 11/28
90 comments:
Great article, but all of the council members and mayors (former and present) are against this. I'm pretty sure that they'll have plenty of chances to kill it before the people can vote on a study. Shouldn't the people decide?
A majority of both five member committees would have to endorse any study in order for the people to vote.
That works out just fine as Cherry Hill does not want a merger either.
If you want to share trash responsibilities, that's fine but there will be no merger including schools
thats funny, because everyone in cherry hill that i have spoken with couldn't care less either way. Another thing i know about cherry hill citizens, is that they don't hang out on merchantville blogs, so why don't you drop the anonymous tag, and own up to the fact that you live in Merchantville.
Or you live somewhere else, but your spouse works for the town....
In the "voice and vent" poll on the South Jersey Magazine web site 73% of the people voting support merger, 13% don't, and 13% don't know.
This issue and Merchantville are in the Sunday NYTimes.
The NY Times article is amusing. Much space is devoted to Teterboro, a very small town (1.1 sq. mile) with 2 residential streets, a population of only 50-60, and a town manager who’s paid $130,000 a year. The town’s budget is $5.3 million, but their tax rate is only 98 cents per $100 assessed value. They have no school. Teterboro is basically an airport. In November, Teterboro voted 20-1 against dissolution.
I found the few sentences about Merchantville to be misleading. Bob Stocker’s statement: "There’s no way to stay independent and maintain services without much higher taxes" is just not correct. It's factually wrong.
Merchantville School does have a Superintendent/Principal, but our K-8 school has fewer than 400 students. Other small single school districts also have one administrator. And while it’s true that we did away with the "borough manager" a few years ago, Merchantville managed very well with a Borough Clerk for many, many years. We still have a Borough Clerk. In my opinion, we never should have created the additional borough manager’s position in the first place.
I believe Mr. Stocker was giving his opinion Gail. There is nothing factually incorrect here. If Mayor North didn't spend 40+ hours a week on Borough business (largely unpaid), we would indeed be in trouble with out professional management.
Springfield - Mayor North is very committed to our town and goes above and beyond, however he does not spend 40+ hours working on our town.
I think the mayor easily spends 40 hours per week on borough matters. If you include time spent thinking about borough matters, the total time is more than 40 hours.
The NY Times likely spent more space on Teterboro because it is in the New York metropolitan area and their readers understand the situation and the ludicrousness of the situation (that is, a substantial business, the airport, not being taxed the same as other businesses in the area causing, among other things, the taxes on the other businesses to be higher). Like Tavistock and Pine Valley ("towns" which are private golf clubs) in South Jersey, it represents ridiculous unfairness in the way property taxes are applied.
If Mayor North works an 8 hour day at his business, are you saying he work another 8 hours on the boro?
9-5 on job.
5-midnight on boro.
I don't think so. More like 10 hours a week, if that.
Realist, the flaw in your logic is the assumption that he works 40 hours per week at his business. I do not know for sure one way or the other. My reckoning is that if you kept a stop watch on him, he does not work 40 hours per week at his business. Borough telephone calls, documents, etc. consume a significant amount of time he may spend at the business. Attending meetings on borough matters also use up his time. When there is an unexpected event, (substantial fire, police event, business opening, sewer collapse, heating breakdown at Wellwood Manor, etc.) he is there. All of these things take time if the job is to be done right.
So he is "at work" but not working on the business.
My boss calls that "stealing from the company."
Anon - I believe he owns the company or at least a substantial portion of it. Correct me if I am wrong.
I understand that a meeting with reps from Merchantville and Cherry Hill was held in Trenton the first week in November. Does anyone know the outcome of that meeting?
The Merchantville.gov. website says: “Information regarding the study for consolidation with Cherry Hill and Merchantville will be available here as it becomes available.” But no update has been printed. Does anyone know the current status of the consolidation study?
"Anon - I believe he owns the company or at least a substantial portion of it."
This doesn't change the concept at all. If only "a substantial portion" then he is stealing from his partner. If he owns the whole thing, he is stealing from his customers and employees.
But I think you are wrong,cruiser, and he doesn't spend more time on boro biz than on work. And as little "at work" as he can--which is really hardly any boro biz at work. He has previously extolled the virtues of council members "giving up personal time" to work on boro business. Not "giving up time at work."
At the merger meeting in Trenton of Merchantville and Cherry Hill officials with Dept. of Community Affairs personnel and elected State representatives, The D.E.A. offered NO FUNDING for a consolidation study.
D.E.A. recommended that the two towns proceed WITHOUT A PROFESSIONAL CONSOLIDATION STUDY, saying the local appointed committees could do it on their own.
So much for professionals sorting out the facts. It will be local politicians, former politicians and community "friends" deciding the gospel.
Everything written above was read out to Merchantville citizens at the last Council meeting.
How come all the bloggers who previously wrote that all they want --all we really need-- is a disinterested, fact-finding group of professionals to produce the facts ... HOW COME THEY ARE NOW SILENT?
Cruiser, Gail, Alice, Lavardera, and Anonymous, you were big talkers about good facts first so citizens could decide. Was it all just talk to keep the consolidation wagon rolling? Was the Consolidation Study a lost leader to get everybody into the store?
What do you say to Senator Beach's pronouncement that ours will be the perfect pilot for other towns to follow?
We're all ears! Where's your tongue?
The reason up to now for my silence is that I had not heard of the borough council reading you cited. Don't read any more than that into it. Thank you for advising me of it.
I would like to see DCA, the Dept of Education and other affected Trenton agencies put in writing that they would not object to a ballot which does not have a profesional study behind it.
Polls on the Merchantville merger are very supportive of a merger. It is reasonable to assume that a ballot would also be favorable to a merger. As more people come to understand the essence of this merger, they realize they do not need a study to convince them to vote yes. Voting yes is the blatantly obvious thing to do. This is a golden opportunity for Merchantville. When Trenton agencies affirm their absence of need for a study, they should also affirm that a ballot result for merging is a valid result even though a professional study was not done. Their legions of lawyers within the agencies right up to the Attorney General and the Governor's office should likewise affirm that a professional study is not needed, that a citizen committee study is adequate.
If things are as All Ears says, I doubt such formal legal opinions will come from the lawyers. The lawyers of some agencies will say no because their opinions will be biased by the long-standing positions of their agencies; some because the law seems to read the other way - that a professional study is necessary. I am not a lawyer but in reading the 2007 law, I think that a professional study is necessary.
A professional study would still be the best way to approach this. If New Jersey wants the benefits of fewer local governements and wants the 2007 law to mean something, then all of this talk about citizen committee studies being adequate has to be carved in stone. If citizen committee studies are all right to have valid ballots and mergers if the ballot wins then those concepts need to quickly be clarified in enforceable writing by the legislature and governor.
The quote ascribed to Jim Beach that "ours will be the perfect pilot for other towns to follow" is absolutely correct. Nothing said so far diminishes the correctness of that statement regardless of who said it. If Merchantville and Cherry Hill merge it will be good for both communities and good for New Jersey. The statement does not mean it will be easy. What All Ears described seems exactly like the shenanigans expected from those who are opposed to mergers. Those who are favorable to mergers and the ability of the people to directly choose to merge need to rally their forces to get this situation clarified and then proceed to let people decide in a way which will have concrete results if there is a favorable vote. Remember, it was freedeom-to-merge forces which got done the daunting task of getting the 2007 law passed.
Having said all of that I will simply add that I doubt high level Trenton folks really said that citizen committees are all right. In any event, it needs to be clarified.
A professional study is needed. In our experience we've seen that whenever the petitioning group is this quite, something is happening. I guess we'll all find out soon.
If you don't get the professional study, you (the Merchantville resident) should raise holy hell with your Council. You are not getting honest and impartial consideration of the consolidation proposal. Period.
To All Ears -- you said there would be a study done by the locally-appointed commissions, rather than by a professional group.
All of the people on the Merchantville commission are opposed to consolidation, except for one alternate member. I don't think there's anyone on the local commission with a financial background who could assess the tax impact or anyone with enough educational expertise to assess the impact on the school system.
Was anything said at the Council meeting about having a decision made at the Council level, rather than by public referendum?
Surely the local government will not do its own study and then make its own final decision, with no public input. The State regulations require public meetings, and I thought a public vote was also required. Residents will want a chance to vote. They should have it.
There's nothing in this for Cherry Hill. This will never happen. Without the study, the issue is dead.
There is already the formal Rutgers studey that says Merchantville should merge with Pennsauken. Why would another study be needed.
The mayor's commission will never recommend a merger. It looks like the consolidation study is dead. Yeay!!! I'm so happy that their won't be any vote on some "study". If you people love Cherry Hill so much, then show some innitiative and move! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
The simple fact is that a majority of people want to see this process through to the end and have a say. A super majority want to see an impartial study to make an informed decision when that time comes. A consolidation affects a majority with higher property values, continued quality services, and a much improved school system. It negatively affects a minority in town. They are the employees, leaders, and those who benefit from relationships with them. It is quite simple. See it through Merchantville. It is your only hope.
It's probably true that a majority favors consolidation, because they don't really understand what they would be losing. A lot of newer residents don't really understand Merchantville and what we have. It may be true that Cherry Hill has lower taxes and better schools but long time residents- the people with Merchantville in their heart would rather pay higher taxes and keep our town. I know that the mayor's commission will do what it can to keep Merchantville alive and unthreatened by any popular vote and for this I am greatful.
Well, Anonymous, we certainly wouldn’t want “the people” to decide what they want, would we? Who in their right minds would want to have lower taxes and better schools when they could have Merchantville in their hearts instead?
The Mayor’s commission must get a professional study done, they must make the results of that study available to the people, and then they must allow the people to vote.
If you don’t understand that, “long time resident” -- then YOU don’t understand what you would be losing.
The mayor's commission is hand picked to stop this thing in its tracks. We all know this. Unless the petitioners application is accepted, this thing is done. They tried their best and I respect their efforts.
Cruiser: ...do not need a study to convince ...Voting yes is the blatantly obvious thing to do. ... I think that a professional study is necessary.
My head would best be mounted on a swivel to complete the spin that Cruiser's thinking causes.
How come we don't hear from the Merchantville petitioners. They had representation at the Trenton meeting. With that and the Attorney General's review of their petition, I'm sure some petitioners' comments could bring us all up to gyro speed.
But enough of DCA's "Do It Yourself" recommendation. I want to talk about Cruiser's "blatant YES" to being absorbed into a municipality 48 times our size and population.
Cruiser loves bigness. It's cost efficient he says. Here's an example.
Yesterday I had to park on the street in a large metropolis with parking kiosks. Now, Cruiser would say, if I might take the liberty of speaking for him, he would say a kiosk is a great invention because it reduces the number of parking meters by, what?, fifty or more. A handful of kiosks must eliminate one job of an old man or young woman and accounting security is centralized. All "good" the first few years.
However, five years down the road which is about the age of the kiosks around Penn Univ., those kiosks --I forgot to mention their initial cost quadrupled the parking fees-- begin failing to spit out the parking tickets for which your credit card was just debited $4.50. Oh Hell, try it again because you are now late for the appointment. Poof, another $4.50 gone without a ticket.
Cruiser would say the professionals running the town will surely credit your card ... but, no, it's a high school graduated clerk who tells you, "Sorry, unless you bring your tickets to our center city office we have no way to return your money." You answer that you have no tickets only to hear again, "Sorry!"
That won't happen in Merchantville. We're too little for that. And we have the little red bags over our meters for the holidays anyway.
ktbfw by any other name is still ktbfw. If all you can come up with to refute the propsition that a merger of Merchantville and Cherry Hill is is good thing is a lame story about parking kiosks, then the merger is indeed a very good thing.
Wow look at everyone changing their tune.
Evertyone "we will get the study then decide if it is the right thing to do"
Now everyone " it is ok there is no study we will let the commission make a rercommendation"
I am in cherry hill hill and am thrilled this is another nail in the merger coffin. We don't need additional stress on our township and schools. Either move to cherry hill if you want the "lower taxes" and betteer schools or merge with pennsauken.
You are fooling yourself if you think your taxes will decrease. By my calculations they will increase 15%.
No one in Cherry Hill cares enough to be on this blog everyday . You are a joke.
I complained about the short notice of the sewer bills, issued on November 29 for payment on December 3 with 10 days grace before an interest penalty. In response, the mayor sent a memo out to council members asking if they would object to extending the pay period to the end of December, making it a 30-day notice. LOOK FOR THE DECISION ON AN EXTENSION ON THE TOWN WEBSITE.
One might argue that the payment date has always been at this time. I say, yes, but the raised rates retroactive back to last January make the bill 50% higher. My bill went from $410 in June to $650 this month.
That rate jump is my second complaint. Would someone explain the real reason why the charge rose 25%. The pitch for the sewer bond was that rehabilitation of the lines would reduce repair costs tremendously. With a smile I conjectured that the rates would go down.
My third complaint is the extraordinary burden that residential rental properties bear for sewer and water service. My building has five bedrooms. New Jersey law precludes having children above 2 years old in a one-bedroom apartment. So, there is no dense occupation of one-bedroom units. Furthermore, the building once was a pair of twin houses like the Centennial House and others nearby. I have a sewer lateral for each side, two all together.
Why, then, should I have to pay FIVE fees?
Water rates are also based on the number of units as opposed to the number of service connections. Again, the service connections are equal to any twins but the water rates are skewed to the number of units.
What is the purpose of discriminating against income properties? Is it just because municipalities can?
I hope Cruiser will tell me that merging with C.H. will bring a nondiscriminatory policy on sewer and water services. That should pull me off the fence.
Increased sewer rates are a back door tax increase. Here comes the 2% cap. We're going to start seeing all types of "fees".
Extended pay period - you need to check with CH to see what the fees and other rules will be after the merger.
There was a time, it seems not that long ago, when you had to disclose if you had a garbage disposal and your sewer charge was higher if you had one. Rules can change; times change. Complain to the Sewer Authority if you feel the rules are unfair.
...you had to disclose if you had a garbage disposal and your sewer charge was higher if you had one
Perhaps you were processing your sewage at that time. That raises another complaint. I pay another $393 quarterly for processing.
Do you people know that sewage rates in Camden County are DOUBLE those across the Pennsauken Creek 3 miles away?
Is the service better? NO. Are the facilities and lines better? NO.
As I see it, the only discernible difference is that one county is run by Democrats touting bigger, higher, denser.
Does the boot fit, Cruiser? A size 12 and up to the hip? That's what we will need to wade through this consolidation stuff.
Where can I find the Rutgers study re: Merchantville and Pennsauken merger?
Anon, I have a paper copy of the study and would be glad to make a copy for you and get it to you via e-mail or pick up. I am not sure about how to communicate in this regard through the blog.
Kepp in mind that this study is not specifically about a merger of just Merchantville and Pennsauken. It is about mergers of school districts throughout New Jersey and the benefits of such mergers. Appended to the study is a list of districts which the author indicates would be logical to be merged. In the list, the recommendation is that Merchantville be merged with Pennsauken. The only time Merchantville and Pennsauken are mentioned in the document are that one time on the list.
[Anonymous said...
Where can I find the Rutgers study re: Merchantville and Pennsauken merger?]
Anonymous should try to understand what the “Rutgers study” is before he refers to it again.
As Cruiser said, the study (written by a retired Rutgers professor) is not about consolidating the municipalities of Merchantville and Pennsauken or about consolidating TOWNS at all. It’s about consolidating school districts. As I understand it, the report was a common-sense approach to consolidating school districts. Here’s a 2-sentence summary:
“A Plan for School District Consolidation in New Jersey (July 1995), written by Dr. Ernest C. Reock, Jr., detailed a proposal to eliminate half of New Jersey’s school districts. The plan would consolidate existing limited purpose regional high school districts with their constituent elementary districts and would also merge districts that have sending-receiving relationships. ...”
That’s from pg. 3 of a report published by the Assembly Task Force on School District Consolidation, Feb. 1999.
Here’s a link to the Assembly report: http://tinyurl.com/27hrk9p
In my opinion, such a merger would not be in Merchantville’s best interests, nor would it save a lot of money.
The problem with hypothetical reports and logical reasoning is that they often void out what individuals want. In California, Texas and Florida, perhaps in other states too today, a school district cannot buy a textbook if it has not been approved by its State Department of Education. That uncompromising situation is the end result of consolidations.
Do Merchantville parents really want to have no say in their children's education? Cruiser has complained on this blog a number of times about the insensitivity of Trenton school authorities. So why would anyone foster consolidation? It leads in one step or in a dozen quiet steps over time to "HAVING NO SAY".
If you want to change your school, go to your school and say something meaningful. You won't like what's around Robin's Barn.
Big boots - a starter for the reason Burlington County has lower rates is the density of population. All things considered, including the widely disliked higher sewer bills, Camden County is a better place to live so more people live here. They have lived in Camden County for years, well before environmental regulations came about. The county sewerage authority is an attempt to catch up with decades of high population and minimal sewer treatment.
Burlington County has many virtues but not enough to attract the population which Camden County has long had. Large parts of it were developed in the environmental era so it does not now have to go back and correct the sins of the past.
All Ears:
I think a professional study is needed.
My understanding of the statute is that DCA is responsible for producing a financial report which would show the effect of merging the town's budgets. It wouldn't show what would be saved, only a direct consolidation of current budgets.
"Do Merchantville parents really want to have no say in their children's education?"
A huge overstatement which is so over the top that your argument is just plain silly. Do Cherry Hill parent's have "no say" in their children's education? As of today, CH still has an elected school board. And Cherry Hill has more voters and so has greater weight with Trenton. And it's larger budget gives it more flexibility and bargaining power in the education marketplace.
I just got my Sewer bill. It states that it is due "12-3-2010" which is very generous of the Sewer Authority--they mailed me a bill only 4 days late.
The frank on it says "11-29" which makes me think (1)someone backdated the machine or (2) someone forgot to mail it or (3)the post office lost it for awhile.
Paying more for less is just about the best feeling in the world, isn't it?
Get ready for more shenanigans. The 2% cap is in effect and the surplus has been spent. Merchantville will now bleed to death without significant cuts to the police department or additional fees/ increases such as this. Know what's coming.
Realist: As of today, CH still has an elected school board.
When C.H. absorbs us there will no longer be a Merchantville School.
So which Cherry Hill School Board candidates will you be voting for? The ones campaigning on what Merchantville issue?
Get real, Realist.
Candidates for the Merchantville School Board have been very hard to find over the past 10 years, to the point where you can win a seat if you just run for a seat. Sometimes there are not even 3 candidates for 3 seats, and a write-in candidate can win with only a few votes.
I’m curious about what you would consider a “Merchantville isssue”.
ktfbw, I don't see how Merchantville residents will "have no say" in their children's education in the event of consolidation. Indeed, with the greater choices of schools, they would have more say, wouldn't they?
Merchantville residents will vote in school board elections; run for office; attend Board meetings and speak up; write letters and petitions; be active in the PTO; meet with the Superintendent, principals and teachers and guidance counselors. In short, all the things they do now.
Parents will always have to be advocates for their children whether the school district is small or large.
And as a parent who dealt with both large and small districts, public and private schools, I can say that it was no easier in any of them. Persistence was rewarded whether the district was large or small, public or private.
Alice: I can say that it was no easier in any of them.
I had the opposite experience with children in a small, rural school where everybody knew everybody. Parents felt welcome to visit, to volunteer, to monitor classes, to join in school events, and to make requests in their children's placements. Faculty came to all kids' parties at homes and to events in the community, whether they were parents themselves or not.
I saw no comparable communion in large schools, in large districts.
My guess is that half the parents in Merchantville are as connected as they could be. That's the portion whose children do well. My prejudice is that the school needs to reach out to the failing half both in school and in the community. It seems a lost opportunity.
If Merchantville chooses to be absorbed into Cherry Hill, I see even less hope for the disenfranchised.
I agree with Alice on that one, believing there isn't too much of a difference between any one citizen's say in a large or small district, however, if you ask any parent in this town if they would trade the potential for less say in a large district for the luxury of not having to send our kids to Pennsauken, I'm pretty sure every parent would choose cherry hill.
lets stop making up reasons that cherry hill's school system isn't far superior to our elementary and pennsauken's high schools.
Chris: lets stop making up reasons that cherry hill's school system isn't far superior to our elementary...
If we were only talking about changing schools, you might have an argument. But your proposal is to change both schools and town.
Those of us who have raised children, working through or around the obstacles, have a complaint that you are trying to solve your school problem by stealing our local governing autonomy.
That may be too much to ask and it is certainly too much to take.
Did you know that Cherry Hill has the lowest property taxes in Camden county? A friend of mine lives right down the street in Cherry Hill (in a bigger house) and pays more than a thousand dollars less than me per year. I support a study. Why bury our heads in the sand and not explore options?
We all understand that the primary interest of the consolidation group is to get our high school students into a significantly better school system. A merger of municipalities may be the only way to sever the Merchantville/Pennsauken send-receive agreement. Note that there has been no effort to merge Merchantville with Pennsauken just to save taxpayer money.
To say that Chris and others are trying to solve their school problem by stealing our local government autonomy is almost laughable to someone who has watched the local “autonomous” government at work for the past several years. Getting the paternalistic government to listen to the people sometimes requires a legal battle.
Those of you who read the Nov. 9th School Board minutes will have noticed that Cherry Hill’s Superintendent of Schools contacted Merchantville’s Superintendent about a meeting date to discuss shared services.
Also, the Haddon Heights Superintendent advised that their district could accept about 25 students in each of their high school grades and suggested that Merchantville’s BOE move forward with a feasibility study.
Minutes of the Nov. 23rd BOE meeting have not yet been approved/published.
Haddon Heights Superintendent advised that their district could accept about 25 students in each of their high school grades...
Great news!
Petitioners should jump on this opportunity. It has a greater chance of happening and happening sooner than the chances of a merger. Just knowing there is this Haddon Heights offer will satisfy some Merchantvlle residents that a merger is not necessary.
"Opportunity Knocks" has jumped to a false conclusion.
Since the Haddon Heights Superintendent suggested that Merchantville move forward with a feasibility study, it's clear that he was referring to the number of students the H.H. high school could accept in the event a send-receive agreement is reached between Merchantville and Haddon Heights.
To the best of my knowledge, Haddon Heights has NOT agreed to participate in the new School Choice Program. That means there is no opportunity for Merchantville students to jump on.
The School Choice option is not the "solution" some people think it is, for 2 reasons:
1) "Receiving" school districts must AGREE to accept incoming students on a first-come-first served basis from any other district. They must submit an application to the State to participate.
2) A maximum of 10% of students from any "sending" district are allowed to participate in the program.
Merchantville School graduates will continue to have the same options they have had for many years -- attend PHS or pay tuition at another high school, public or private.
"Parents felt welcome to visit, to volunteer, to monitor classes, to join in school events, and to make requests in their children's placements. Faculty came to all kids' parties at homes and to events in the community, whether they were parents themselves or not."
All of this happens in my sis-in- laws district in Old Bridge--a large district my any measure.
If parents are engaged then the school will be responsive to them.
Gail,
"paternalist" isn't the word that comes to my mind when talking about our local despots.
I'm glad that mayors North and Brennan have shut down all merger discussion. It would have been dangerous to allow this to get voted on. I think that most of the pro-consolidation people haven't lived here very long. They're just passing through.
Alice: If parents are engaged then the school will be responsive to them.
BUT "If parents are engaged " is insufficient when parents live on the other side of the tracks and are uneducated themselves and poor to wit.
The school needs to reach out to the failing half both in school and in the community with all of its resources and ingenuity.
Over past years there have been suggestions on how the school can "reach out" even in hard financial times.
One of the suggestions offered to the Board last spring was to combine grade levels in order to cut costs and develop within those combinations a student-guidance / parent-involvement mechanism.
Whatever the Board should implement, pulling in the failing students and their parents is critical.
Alice, you assert that it is the persistence of parents that creates a successful educational program. I suggest that it needs to be the persistence of the school.
Gail: Haddon Heights has NOT agreed to participate in the new School Choice Program.
It would be helpful if Gail could move beyond the "School Choice Program" she repeatedly raises when anyone talks about a send/receive agreement between H.H. and Merchantville.
Beyond that box, Merchantville has the perfect governor to turn his new Dept. of Education towards allowing two consenting districts to change an unsuccessful situation. All that would be needed is a simple D.O.E. "yes".
Senator Beach could lobby for it.
Haddon Heights' offer to accept 25 or so students per grade is a better solution for our school program than consolidating our school and town into a neighboring giant.
I must have misunderstood what you were saying, “Opportunity”. My apologies.
The Merchantville BOE has been trying to negotiate a send-receive agreement with Haddon Heights for more than a year. The new H.H. Superintendent recently said they could accept 25 students in each high school grade and said that Merchantville should do a feasibility study.
I have a few questions, but I hesitate to ask them for fear of being way off base again. I’m a little slow -- maybe you can explain how you think petitioners should jump on this opportunity.
On second thought, I’ve decided to ask my questions anyway. I’m sure Opportunity will be able to answer them.
1. Are 25 seats per grade enough for Merchantville students? Last year we had 36 eighth grade graduates, and 10 of them elected to pay tuition at high schools other than PHS. Would some of those10 have chosen to attend Haddon Heights if that had been an option?
2. Haddon Heights would have to provide programs for our special education students. Are those students included in the 25 students per grade?
3. Do we know if we can get out of our existing send-receive agreement with Pennsauken? Should we expect a legal challenge?
4. How much would a feasibility study cost? Would Haddon Heights share that cost with Merchantville? If not, do we have that kind of money in our budget?
I'm still curious about how you think the petetioners might jump on this opportunity. What's step #1?
You are looking at 2 plus years of hearings to complete a new send receive arrangement. And that is if Pennsauken does not fight. If they fight, then it will be longer. Remember Haddonfield many moons ago. The process has to go through the courts.
Gail should realize that ktbfw and Opportunity Knocks are the same person. ktbfw/OK is speaking facetiouly when saying that HH is an opportunity for the petitioners.
The petitioners should not be distracted by this talk. They should stay focused on the merger opportunity.
A deal with HH has some merit but it is not nearly as good a deal as a CH merger. HH deals were frequently talked about when I was on the Board (the seven years ending in 2006). They never went anywhere. Such talk was often just someting convenient to speculate about when the Board was being criticized for not doing something about send-receive. M's chief school administrator has long had a working relationship with the HH superintendent and HH could be depended on to always show interest.
Such deals (with HH or any other desirable partners) would be very expensive for Merchantville. When these deals were analyzed in the past, the feeling of the Board (including me) was that the community would be willing to take on the substantial additional costs. Among the many advantages of a CH merger is that Merchantville could obtain the benefits of vastly improved high school services without substantial additional costs.
It would be interesting to see if the State Department of Education would change its lost standing opposition to send-receive changes in reaction to Christie administration direction. Without clear direction, the career people at the DOE, who are stalwarts of NEA/NJEA ways of doing things, will be steadfast in their dedication to block send-receive changes.
In short I think the HH talk is merely a smokescreen by the M BOE to mask its opposition to the merger. It seems to me the M BOE (or a least a majority of them) opposes a merger, even though there are substantial benefits for the children, because its focus is not on the chldren but rather on the adults associated with the school. M BOE should come out clearly with a communication which describes their position on the CH merger. They should certainly be protective of the adults affected by a merger (the merger law itself is already very protective of the adults), but not to the detriment of the children. They should get their priorities in the correct order - children first.
From what has been described on this blog of the current HH deal, it does not seem suitable for Merchantville. Twenty-five students per grade does not seem like enough. The tuition rate is high. Transportation costs, which Merchantville has to pay, would be higher (more kids, longer distance). If there is anything serious going on in this regard, the M BOE should back-burner it until the CH mereger matter is resolved.
Money for the cherry hill study has been deed for the state. No study, no commission, no potential merger --issue is dead.
Haddon heights send/receive would be our best bet. Why would pennsauken release us foam our send/receive when they wouldn't do it 20 years ago.
It you will recall pennsauken filed suit angaint merchantville and then haddonfield. It was determined by the court in the decision that the reason to move school district was racially motivated. Why would we not have the same result?
Guys, you have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. It's over. Move on. Haddon heights is your best bet.
[Cruiser: Gail should realize that ktbfw and Opportunity Knocks are the same person. ... ktbfw/OK is speaking facetiously when saying that HH is an opportunity for the petitioners.}
It’s obvious that K.T.B.F.W. and Opportunity Knocks are the same person, but I don’t think he’s speaking facetiously. Because it’s clear that KT.B.F.W. opposes consolidation of Merchantville Borough and Cherry Hill Twp., I believe he’s quite serious about looking for a different high school solution.
[Cruiser: In short I think the HH talk is merely a smokescreen by the M BOE to mask its opposition to the merger.]
I don’t personally believe the HH talk is a smokescreen by the M BOE to mask its opposition to the merger. I know the M BOE has approached the Cherry Hill BOE about a send-receive relationship and has consistently been rebuffed. I also believe they want to keep an elementary school in Merchantville.
In my opinion, the best action would be to do a consolidation study and have a vote -- by residents of Merchantville and Cherry Hill.
I credit the petitioners with being much more clever than council and they've been awful quite. I don't think this is done.
Anonymous 12/12 10:12 AM - your statement about the send-receive is not correct. First of all, the issue never got to any court. Merchantville's request to be released from the send-receive was held in front of an administrative law judge ("ALJ")(not a judge in the regular court system). In the course of testimony before the ALJ, both the experts for Merchantville and Pennsauken agreed that M leaving P would not have a significant negative racial impact on either school district. The ALJ then found in M's favor and said it could end the send-receive with P. P then appealed the ALJ decision to the State BOE (not to the court system). After several years the State BOE reversed the decision. The explanation given by the State BOE was that diversity was good for education and that because Haddonfield was less diverse than Pennsauken, a Haddonfield education was inferior to a Pennsauken education and the State BOE would not approve Merchantville children getting an inferior education.
I have always considered this ruling just more evidence that the career people at the State Department of Education are just against any change in any send-receive in accordance with NEA/NJEA preferences. They made up the quality of education thing as a gimmick to just say no.
After the State BOE ruling, the next step would have been for Merchantville to appeal the matter into the regular court system. It could not do this because, meanwhile, Haddonfield had withdrawn its intent to enter a send-receive. Haddonfield had been the subject of a legal suit by Pennsauken. This suit never got to court. Haddonfield just gave up because of the aggravation. After Haddonfield pulled out, Merchantville had no standing in the court system. That is where we are today. We need for a desirable district to provide us with a letter of intent that if M can get out of the existing send-receive, it will enter into a send receive with M.
There is a law and regulations about how send-receive relationships can be changed. One part of these rules is related, as it should be, to racial matters. In the Merchantville-Haddonfield deal, the laws and regulations were complied with. Merchantville leaving Pennsauken did not have a significant negative racial impact on either district, which is what the law requires. The State BOE/DOE fabricated this educational quality nonsense merely to stall, hoping that the parties would lose interest, which they did. The NEA/NJEA/BOE/DOE cartel prevailed.
No court decisions. Nothing in the Merchantville-Haddonfield deal was racially motivated (as a matter of fact, the exact opposite was found to be true).
I've come to know one of the petitioners and she seems pretty confident that they will prevail and get the study.
the state said they will not pay for the study. that is a fact. due to township push back cherry hill will not share in the cost. therefore, merchantville pays the $100k+ or we can only hope there is no study.
The Chester study cost roughly $40,000 and the petitioning group claims that they can find funding (from their facebook page). According to LaVradara: If the mayor's application is approved then council will pay for the study.
I love the the annon(s) trying to spin the death of the study. They are doing a fantastically credible job. I believe you and thank you for your sincere "facts". Cruiser, if an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), holds a hearing, isnt that court? Dont they convene a hearing? And didn't Pennsauken file a suit during the Haddonfield case? Isnt that part of the courts? It is no big deal and your recolection is appreciated. But if a judge holds a hearing, I would call that holding court. And if Merchantville wants to sever its ties with Pennsauken, they will have to go to court in Atlantic City and argue their case before an "AJ". That I know is fact. I also know the timeline is at best 2 years. If my assumptions are incorrect,
I apologize. Now back to the "real" citizens of Merchantville. Keep getting that inside information about the death of the study and process. I believe you, I really do!
No, an administrative law judge is not a "court". It is part of the executive branch of gov't, not the judicial branch.
this is a bit different that the Chester study. If merchantville wants to pay all the costs - Go for it!
have you read the articles in the paper lately regarding consolidation of schools. they are determining it is not cost effective.
as i have been saying all along - it will never happen.
Thanks for the clarification, my apologies to cruiser!
The following e-mail was received today from Courage to Connect:
Courage to Connect NJ
Late yesterday the Department of Community Affairs(DCA) of NJ sent a rejection letter to the citizens of Merchantville. This group, known as Merchantville Connecting for the Future received a six sentence letter after waiting since September to hear about the status of their application to study consolidation with Cherry Hill. The State's reason for the rejection is based on a short-sighted and rigid interpretation of a law that was intended to be flexible. This ruling serves no one in NJ.
The law allows citizens to petition or governments to approve a resolution to study consolidation. The DCA ruling says the citizens of one town cannot work with a neighboring town's government to start the consolidation process. C to C-NJ believes that the law intends to allow citizens and local officials to move toward consolidation together. As stated in the legislation: "...more flexible opitions need to be available to the elected municipal officials and voters..."(40A:65-25a)
The truly sad aspect of this ruling is that the State has ended the first cooperative effort between a group of citizens and a local governing body. No wonder there have been no consolidations in New Jersey.
The Merchantville citizens have asked C to C-NJ to appeal this decision. We are now looking into all our legal options.
We will keep you posted. Gina
Here is the letter that is certainly more than 6 sentences. Before taking the comments by Gina as accurate, read the actual letter in its entirety.
To: Merchantville Connecting for the Future Mayor and Borough Council, Borough of Merchantville Mayor and Township Council, Township of Cherry Hill From: Thomas H. Neff, Chairman Local Finance Board Date: December 15, 2010
Re: Proposed Cherry Hill and Merchantville Consolidation
During the summer of 2010, the Local Finance Board received an application under the Local Option Consolidation Act (N.J.S.A. 40A:65-25, the “Act”) from Merchantville Connecting for the Future and the Township of Cherry Hill, as well as an accompanying petition from Merchantville Connecting for the Future attesting to their status as a “representative group of voters” on behalf of the Borough of Merchantville.
The Act provides that applications may be submitted in one of two ways: (1) from the governing bodies of two or more municipalities; or (2) from a representative committee of registered voters from two or more contiguous committees through a petition signed by registered voters in an amount equal to at least 10% of the total votes cast in the last general election at which members of the General Assembly were elected. Notably, the Act does not allow for a hybrid application process through action of a governing body of one municipality and a representative committee of another municipality.
The application submitted to us for consideration does not meet one of the two standards and will not be considered for that reason.
We appreciate the efforts of the parties thus far. Municipal consolidation is a serious matter that will be given the full attention of the Board and the Division of Local Government Services upon receipt of an application to the Board that meets applicable statutory requirements.
Cruiser's quote from Gina: C to C-NJ believes that the law intends to allow citizens and local officials to move toward consolidation together.
We are back to Ground Zero ... just as the first letter to Mayor North explained straight forwardly.
How many times do we regular people have to tell the petitioners they have grappled floating driftwood on a tide thinking it firm legal anchorage.
Courage To Connect NJ is a one-word organization. "Courage". Nothing else. No experience. No expertise. No braa, sorry I have to say it, no brains.
Get smart, people. Form you own group and hire a good lawyer. How do you think the rest of us will decide in your direction if you cannot even figure out what to do?
I had a boss once who said, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there."
We suggest that this blog should link to the articles coming out tomorrow.
And...?
We should start a new thread dealing with the DCA rejection of the merger application.
Here is the short version of the story folks. DCA could not answer the legal question so they passed to the State Attorney General. The AG made a poor judgment on the Application and advised the DCA, who had not choice but to refuse.
So we are submitting a legal opinion to DCA which will be discussed with the AG, and hopefully clear that up.
And if it does not, then there is legislation on the floor in Trenton which will make the configuration of our Application clearly in conformance, and it will be accepted.
And if for some reason neither of these two things happen we are preparing an Appeal to the decision.
Its not going away, and this is just another delay. Supporters of a study keep heart. Contact us if you wish to be involved. Opponents of a study - sorry, you will have to continue to gripe, complain, and keep making up crazy stories. I know you are up to it.
lavardera,
Why not go to the Council meeting Monday 12/20 and ask Merchantville's Council to step up and pass a resolution to support a study?
Maybe you'll get what you want without having to go through the AG. Maybe you have more support there than you think.
lavardera: The AG made a poor judgment on the Application and ... Opponents of a study - sorry, you will have to continue to gripe, complain, and keep making up crazy stories.
Hey, our "crazy story" was that DCA reported one resolution and one petition did not meet the legal requirements for consolidation. That was way back when. The recent A.G. opinion affirms that interpretation. Where's the "crazy" part?
Ask Cruiser to explain to you his trust in bigger government being better than local government because the governors are professionals, not HVAC specialists.
I seem to remember we heard really crazy stories from consolication proponents -- (1) the mayor was lying, (2) the DCA letter writer did not know what he was talking about, (3) Courage To Connect got approval, (4) a study was guaranteed, (5) a petition was being conducted in C.H., and (6) that opponents did not have the right information. We were to wait and see; a meeting would be held to explain everything. Should that be (7)?
I may be crazy but it seems the Attorney General's opinion is correct. But Gina must know better because she has no experience in law nor in government, so that should make her opinions pure, and even a tossed coin comes down each way half the time.
Tell us more about crazy, lavardera. Some kid just drove her car into my tree out front and I need something to make me smile.
Tonto must be kidding. Council already passed a resolution and they appointed a committee that was blatantly biased against any merger vote. We should be able to vote on this! The mayor and council are trying to keep the people from deciding. I don't even really care if this happens or not, but I'm disappointed that I won't have a say.
While I am disappointed in this bump in the road, the situation does not tarnish the image of big government as ktbfw (in one of his several pseudonyms) suggests. I am not a lawyer but when I read the 2007 law it seems to me that it does require the same approach in each community. So, big government correctly interpreted the law as written.
It seems to me that the best next step for the Merchantville community would be for the mayor and council to go forward with a companion resolution to the Cherry Hill version and the two communities then go again to Trenton. The Merchantville community wants to get a fair, honest study on this matter and then get to vote on it. The mayor and council should now come to the rescue and advance the wishes of the people.
[tonto said...
lavardera, Why not go to the Council meeting Monday 12/20 and ask Merchantville's Council to step up and pass a resolution to support a study?]
The Borough website lists December Council meetings as Dec. 13 and Dec. 27. There is no meeting scheduled for Dec 20.
Has that been changed?
Gail there iaa Council meeting tonight, December 20, at 7:30 pm. That was decided at the last Council meeting.
Post a Comment