The DCA rejected the dual application of Merchantville citizens and Cherry Hill government for a study to look at consolidation.
Merchantville Connecting for the Future says it will continue to work toward its goal, which it says will save taxpayers money. The Merchantville group ...
Commenter lavardera in the previous thread made the following statement on behalf of the Merchantville Connecting for the Future group:
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.
64 comments:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/S2500/2465_I1.HTM
Shortcuts.
Windows allows one to create shortcuts from Desktop to any file and many commuters use Volan or Gilmore and Franklin Aves to get around downtown Merchantville BUT in the legal world shortcuts are not that successful.
As Cruiser says, a simple reading of the 2007 Consolidation Law summary makes clear that either resolutions of municipalities or petitions of both citizenry open the door to consolidation.
Why would the Merchantville petitioners try a shortcut with one resolution and one petition? They wasted a lot of energy, a lot of time, and a lot of hope.
My mother used to admonish us kids for "carrying the lazy man's load", meaning we would pile so much in our arms in order to save a trip that much of it would drop along the way.
Sit down and think through what you want and how to get it successfully ... following the law. To waste time and money appealing two rejections, both DCA and the State Attorney General, would be a lazy man's load.
Use your resources to get another petition or get another resolution.
Lazy Man,
You and everybody reading should know the facts. Merchantville Council has already passed a Resolution to request a study. Their Resolution is not part of an Application because they do not have the cooperation of Cherry Hill. If Borough Council came to our group and requested help getting their Resolution off the ground we believe we might be able to help them. We meet on Thursdays.
In the meantime our Application will be accepted in a matter of weeks, or months perhaps. Delays are the cost of being ahead of the curve on the format of the Application.
No taxpayer dollars have died in the making of this Application for a Study Commission.
Lavardera: Delays are the cost of being ahead of the curve...
Grreat response, Lavardera. You may not know public law but you sure have climbed to the top of the political-spin ladder.
Which curve is that? Cuthbert Blvd at the Courier Post building? The paper reported that the MCFF truck was stalled at a U-turn.
[Laverdera said: Merchantville Council has already passed a Resolution to request a study. Their Resolution is not part of an Application because they do not have the cooperation of Cherry Hill.]
Are you saying that Cherry Hill has not, in fact, adopted a Resolution requesting a consolidation study at the request of Merchantville Council?
The record shows that there are 2 versions of Merchantville’s Resolution 10-103 on the Merchantville website (MerchantvilleNJ.gov): one in the official minutes of the Sept. 27, 2010 Council meeting and another in the list of resolutions. The latter refers to a resolution for a consolidation study adopted by Cherry Hill Twp. on September 13, 2010; however, the official Merchantville Council minutes do not include that statement.
Did Cherry Hill Council, in fact, adopt such a resolution on Aug. 9, 2010, at the request of the Merchantville Connecting for the Future group?
Can you direct me to a link that would show that Resolution? Are Cherry Hill Council meeting minutes available online?
The Cherry Hill resolution in August was tailored to the MCFF petition. There have been no additional Cherry Hill resolutions on this.
[Lavardera said: "If Borough Council came to our group and requested help getting their Resolution off the ground we believe we might be able to help them. We meet on Thursdays."
That strikes me as being a little arrogrant. It's that kind of attitude that prompts some residents to not support MCFF even though they really want to have a study done.
Maybe the MCFF petitioners could consider offering to help Borough Council get their Resolution off the ground. Council meets every other Monday. The mayor and council are Merchantville's elected representatives and you need their cooperation.
Do you happen to know why the Cherry Hill government does not seem to want to work with the Merchantville government to put an application for a Consolidation Study before DCA?
Merchantville's Resolution 10-103 requires joint Merchantville/Cherry Hill approval of a person/corporation to perform a consolidation study and equal sharing of associated costs. That seems to be more than fair.
Branding is very important in today's world. Remember the BASF factory sitting next to the NJTP above exit 8 for 30 years? BASF used to have the branding logo, "We don't make your products. We make them better".
Well, brands and logos change over time. This year it is BASF--The Chemical Company.
A few years ago United Way executives (remember the $750,000 salary or was it a million?) decided that branding would be beneficial to their organization but they could not decide what slogan was the best. In a couple of years they tried several, including my favorite, United Way -- Who Cares? We Do. I always dropped the second sentence.
The petitioners seem to have branded themselves over the past six months. Now they need a slogan. How about:
Courage To Connect NJ -- Arrogance Is Our Middle Name.
MCFF -- We Don't Do It Right. We Do It Again.
LAVARDERA -- Say It Like It Isn't.
Personally, I think smart thinking and hard work are in themselves the best marketing strategy. I recommend both to MCFF. The sooner the better.
The privately-sponsored Merchantville Facebook page recently announced that there will be a Borough Council meeting tomorrow night, Dec. 20. I think that's wrong.
My understanding of the Borough Calendar on the official website is that the next Council meeting will be on Mon., Dec. 27th. No meeting is scheduled for tomorrow night.
If anyone knows about a change in that schedule, please advise. Thanks.
At the P.B. meeting the mayor mentioned an "emergency" Council meeting on the 20th. Will Mr. Volkert be appointed to fill a coming vacancy?
Sorry, don't mean to be arrogant, just speaking plainly. Council claimed our Application was rejected back in August, so in 4 months they've not made an application to DCA. I'm just saying that either they can't, or they don't want to. So if they do want to make an application I think we could help them.
I think it would be arrogant to go to a Council meeting and stand up there and tell them they need help. That is for them to decide.
The council meeting scheduled for Monday, December 27th has been canceled. The meeting will take place on Monday, December 20th at 7:30.
If you read the minutes from the November meeting with DCA and Mayor North's letter to Commissioner Grifa found on the Borough website under News and Information Merchantville has in fact moved forward. It states that Mayor North was waiting for Mayor Platt to pick his study commission then the two commissions would work together to submit the application. I think North, Platt and the Commissioner are all on the same page with this. I seriously doubt that they need any help from Lavardera. I wonder if Lavardera needs "help" understanding what it means to do it right the first time.
Those minutes were from 4Nov. And nothing's happened. That is all.
There is a regular Council meeting tonight, December 20, at 7:30 pm in Borough Hall. It is NOT an "emergency" meeting. The meeting is on the advertised schedule (published at the beginning of the year), so it is a regular meeting.
The purpose of having the meeting on December 20 is to be able to provide a timely response to the consolidated trash pickup plan.
Other topics can be brought up as well, since it's a regular meeting.
I think the idea was to cancel the 27 December meeting, but that may still be up in the air.
So what you're saying is that the meeting tonight was a regular meeting?
anything happen?
More news media coverage. From 12/23 Inky (front page of the South Jersey section if you have the printed newspaper)
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/kevin_riordan/20101223_Kevin_Riordan__Merchantville-Cherry_Hill_merger_more__Twist__than_waltz.html
Re: Kevin Riordan's editorial on the Attorney General's review of the consolidation law.
I hold with Cruiser's opinion that the consolidation law is clear that either municipal resolutions or citizen petitions are required to start a consolidation process. To cherry pick a petition out of one community and a resolution out of another, for whatever reason, does not conform to the law. There are reasons why laws are written with specific verbiage. Legal counsel, legal departments and our system of courts exist to assure proper interpretation of our laws.
Hidden in Riordan's remarks is a quote from Mayor North to the point that the local municipalities should be involved in the consolidation. The wording of the consolidation law assures such involvement.
The Merchantville petitioners created an application and situation that bypasses Merchantville Borough -- for whatever reason. The Attorney General said "NO" to that twist. I agree.
Merry Christmas to all.
A kid drove her car through a stop sign at the intersection next to the vacant EMS building, removing the front of a vehicle traveling Park Ave and puncturing a hole in the century old maple at the curb.
Our police prepared an accident report that included names and insurance companies.
This week our public works personnel and our shade tree commission decided the maple should be taken down due to the extensive damage caused by the errant driver.
My guess is that the tree removal and stump grinding operations plus the tree replacement might cost the Boro $500 or more.
Why shouldn't we file a property loss claim?
ktbfw - a property loss claim against the errant driver should routinely be made by the borough in such situations. I don't know for sure but I will venture that is the routine prodedure.
This DCA rejection has been a welcomed relief. I don't think people realize how dangerous this situation was for Merchantville. If the petionistas had been able to name the committee- no doubt their committee would have endorsed a study and this would have been decided by a popular vote. That means that any Tom, Dick or Harry thats lived in a Merchantville apartment for four months would have the same vote as the rest of us. I put my faith in our elected officials to steer us clear of this scenario. Happy New Year!
As I see it, the difference between the petitioning group and the Boro, at least from what each has said, is that the petitioners want consolidation and the Boro wants an investigative study. The committee each would choose would reflect what each wants.
The petitioners' maneuvers around the consolidation law appear to be aimed at stacking the study committee towards consolidation.
It's disconcerting.
Why do they bother with a study committee? They might best try to maneuver around that too and go straight for the communities' votes. Lavardera would like that part of the "curve". But he already knows what the outcome of the voting would be, so why waste money on an election ... just go for the consolidation.
The petitioners want a study and a vote. The borough government wants to stop both from happening. They've been successful.
Sunday evening, lots of snow and no sign of Merchantville's snowplows. I guess December is a bad month for public works.
Our public officials at work, I guess.
Anon: I guess December is a bad month for public works.
Not true at all. On Sunday at football game time I saw Public Works out on Gilmore Ave. vacuuming up leaves. I wonder how that temperamental machine works with snow-covered piles. Anyway, there was less than an inch on snow on the streets when the truck and vacuum trailer took off for the recycling yard. Where is it? Gloucester?
That was the same situation last year when anons gave Mr. Brunton the raspberries for not being hooked up for snow plowing. Not a peep this year although favorite son Brickley is caught doing the very same thing. Is that a surprise to anyone?
Garrison Keillor was on TV yesterday talking about courtesy and the lack of it today. He said, "Anonymity is the enemy of courtesy."
I saw the plows at work yesterday.
"That means that any Tom, Dick or Harry thats lived in a Merchantville apartment for four months would have the same vote as the rest of us."
Funny how democracy works, isn't it?
A couple of new articles on the Study status:
Courier
NJ Monthly Magazine
Citizens of Merchantville, as always beware of the spin, and personal attacks. The few who oppose a study try to make our Citizen Group out to be villains. We have always been for a study, and if a study shows a merger is bad we will not support it. Borough Council has opposed a study, then capitulated when the mood of the citizens was made clear by our petitions. But now they advance a resolution for a study, however it is flawed and has not produced an Application to DCA.
No matter the spin posted to this blog people know council is not for this. The reporters know, the newspapers and magazines know. Don't expect them to do what needs to be done to fix their resolution. They really don't want it to move forward to a study. Everybody knows it.
It's not funny at all. My family has been involved in Merchantville for years- we have Merchantville in our hearts, but now these young families (who are just passing through) want to take it all away, because they are selfish and don't want to spend a little money for their child's education. I'm glad that the mayor and council are opposed to this and have assured us that this will never happen.
Fanilies which have been involved in Merchantville for many, many years recognize the undeniable appeal of a merger with Cherry Hill. It is a golden opportunity to maintain the best aspects of the Merchantville community.
The continuity of some aspects of Merchantville life which all would like to be maintained forever will have to be put at risk so as to obtain the tremendous benefits of a Cherry Hill merger. The prospects are that if a Cherry Hill merger does not happen, these aspects will go away anyway in a not-very-appealing Trenton-driven merger.
Exactly where and when did the mayor and council say they are opposed to a Cherry Hill merger and have assured that this will never happen? This sounds like a simple, malicious lie to me.
You are master of the simple, cruiser. You can't seem to grasp anything that isn't.
With a merger, Merchantville will lose 1/2 its Police coverage (when your house is burglarized, let's see how much you talk about the "Wisdom of the local government" then). The signs pointing the way to Merchantville on 70 and 38 may remain for years, but in a short time "Merchantville" will mean no more than Erlton and Ellisburg. Places on maps with no local autonomy or focus from the Cherry Hill government.
Anybody with half a brain rejects the merger idea.
What Trenton-driven merger, cruiser? Are you expecting a state constitutional amendment to allow Trenton to force mergers between incorporated municipalities?
This is just another weak-minded scare tactic from the merger freaks.
a state constitutional amendment to allow Trenton to force mergers between incorporated municipalities?
No doubt Cruiser would like that amendment. He loves big government. He champions every merger ... but with Pennsauken.
None of this matters now. The MCFF/ Cherry Hill application was rejected and the mayor opposes merging. Don't dream it's over.
A "Trenton-driven" merger to me would result from the trends in Merchantville's finances which will cause our taxes to increase to much higher levels than they are now. According to prior postings on this blog, the surplus built up in prior years which has been used to minimze tax increases in recent years will soon be gone. Council will have no choice but to pass on the full brunt of increasing costs to the local taxpayers. Eventually sufficent numbers of local taxpayers will become so enraged thay will do anything to get relief from the taxes. Trenton will come to the rescue saying, "we will arrange a sweet deal with Pennsauken" as the social planners in Trenton have long wanted to do. Merchantville residents will then say, "We should have merged with Cherry Hill when we had the chance to. It would have been much better for the Merchantville community."
Keep in mind there already is a program in Trenton to consolidate school districts. I believe it started with the districts which have no schools and send all of their children to schools in other districts. Next on that agenda are school districts like Merchantville which have no high school.
So, from both cost of governmental services/taxes and quality of education perspectives, a merger with Cherry Hill is a golden opportunity, much better than the alternatives. When Merchantville residents, regardless of how long they have been Merchantville residents, hear about the alternatives and truly understand them, the more likely they realize the value of a merger with Cherry Hill.
There is certainly an emotional side to keeping Merchantville governmental arrangements as they are, but the mores, aesthetics, customs and values of the community will not appreciably change because of a merger. Harsh, cold facts regarding finances and the quality of education outweigh the emotions. A merger with Cherry Hill is a golden opportunity.
"(who are just passing through)"
What are you basing this statement on?
Passing through refers to young couples that move here from elsewhere because they can get a beautifull house for far less than Moorestown or Haddonfield. Within a few years they change their tune and don't want to send their kids to PHS, they move out. They leave within 10 years. This type has been moving to town in growing numbers. They shouldn't move here in the first place if they don't like PHS.
They leave within 10 years.
I read years ago, perhaps after the analysis of the 2000 census, that the mobility rate in the United States, primary due to job transfers and job changes averages seven years for homeowners, less for tenants.
So, Anon, Merchantville appears ahead of the game if your ten-year data are good.
As to rentals, my landlordish policy since the early 1970s was to select tenants that I hypothesized would leave in two years. I frequently pitched home ownership for young couples and through the years of high inflation the advice was good.
But my primary reasons for moving tenants along after two years were economics- and management-based. A two-year turnover allowed me to raise rents to the fast-rising market prices and readying the units required only touch-up painting and maintenance. Always rented to young couples or young women, especially the latter, because they kept the units cleaner, didn't try to do self-repairs, and had nicer furniture and furnishings that showed well to the next prospects. Single women were never home and that saved on utilities, noise, everything ... and they didn't stay long too.
Today's rental world is totally different. Sub-prime mortgages put every young couple into a home directly. Landlords are left with a poor rental market and poor renters whom we stand on our heads to keep happy and renewing.
Ten years is good: you're mostly right, but don't you think that newcomer young families should accept Merchantville as it is, before moving here? These Petioners are causing all of this trouble because they didn't completely think through their decision to move here in the first place. They didn't use their heads.
Sounds like ktbfw (posing as Ten Years is Good) illegally discriminates against young male renters.
In any event, the intricacies of rental property management are not pertinent to the discussion thread. The discussion in the thread is about the length of residency of the petitioners and the supporters of the movement to have a study conducted regarding a merger with Cherry Hill.
Opponents of the study have long insinuated that the petitioners/supporters are relative newcomers to Merchantville and their ideas do not have any merit when compared to the "do nothing" ideas supposedly supported by longer-term residents. The two fallacies in this are that (1) the petitioners/supporters are made up of long-term residents of the community and (2) substantial numbers of long-term residents are very supportive of a study, a vote and a merger. There is no truth in what the study opponents say about the length of residency of the petitioners/supporters and the disposition of long-term residents toward the study. The study is a good idea and has support from throughout the community.
Regardless of the source of an idea, the idea should be considered on its merits, regardless of who said it. I always thought that was the American way. The idea of a study, and vote regarding a merger with Cherry Hill is a good one. It does not make any difference who came up with the idea.
The crap from anonymous posters that newcomers should accept "Merchantville as it is," is ridiculous. In the thirty plus years I have been here, part of "Merchantville as it is" has been a strong desire to improve educational opportunities for its children. Such is a very significant element of the Cherry Hill merger deliberations.
Merchantville is as good as it is because over the years it has constantly strived to consider new ideas and improve itself. Consideration of this golden opportunity with Cherry Hill is part of that long term trend.
don't you think that newcomer young families should accept Merchantville as it is
Rising star Anthony Perno hasn't accepted our town "as it is" since he moved here a few years ago ... rebuilt his street, curbs and sidewalks, added a speed hump, got funding to expand our bike path, got Mr. Brunton to resign heading Public Works, refused to allow upgrading of alley behind Wellwood Manor so the redevelopment project stays on course, and now is petitioning to replace Merchantville with Cherry Hill.
Certainly not an "as it is" posture for a popular public servant, don't ya think?
One think Cruiser is long time about is his lobbying for merger. His proposal for improving Merchantville's educational program is to disband it. Guess he feels he did not do much to improve it in the long run, but then, he failed to wrestle down the union.
There are alternatives to absorbtion by another municipality. Our school administrator met with Cherry Hill's superintendent. He is mum about the discussion AND NO ONE ON THE BOARD has asked. And who is pursuing the Haddon Heights offer? And the biggest question, why haven't the test test results been released which were received by the school several weeks ago?
There's a lot to be said about our people not doing their jobs and then proposing consolidation with those who do theirs.
Isn't the best way to create a stable community, filled with neighbors who know each other and support local businesses, to do everything we can to prevent young professional couples from using our town as a stepping stone and leaving every 7-10 years? I can't stand the sentiment that if you have lived in this town less than 20 years, you don't count as a resident. We should be building our community around these young couples and showing them why they shouldn't want to move away in the first place.
The reason consolidation is seemingly so attractive is because for 40 years we have been trying to get out this relationship with PHS and it is NEVER going to happen. At some point you need to look for a different route to acheive your goals.
Cruiser is correct. Merchantville will be forced financially to be with pennsauken. The state will also tighten not only funds to the municipality but also to the school district. it is already happening. the district will no longer be able to function. I believe what will happen within the next 5 years is that MES will become a k-5 school sending to Pennsauken for Intermediate and Middle. After 10 years MES will shut its doors with a complete merger with Pennsauken.
Cherry Hill will not absorb Merchantville. the student population is not proficient, it will impact our AYP, and we do not have the additional funds to get the kids up to par. Pennsauken is a better choice for the Merchantville population as it closely mirrors pennsauken academically and they receive more state funding.
sorry but cherry hill is not an option. there is nothing in this for cherry hill.
seriously anon, you are the same dude who just keeps posting the same thing over and over again. why don't you man up and remove the anon cloak.
and if there wasn't anything in it for cherry hill, they wouldn't have voted unaminously in favor of a study. clearly, they think there is something in it for them.
Chris nails it. Healthy communities attract young professionals who buy single family homes and stay. Communities like Merchantville are bleeding to death with older residents and renters. Rentals will grow as those older couples retire and leave. You need cherry hill's resources to stabalize and reverse this trend. Then Merchantville will actually look and behave like the small intimate community it claims to be. For a 1st teir suburb to flourish there needs to be a progressive govt. that regulates rentals aggressively. This is what Collingswood did. There should be a program with inscentives to turn big old homes from apartments back to single family homes. Collingwood did that too. And their should be a public school that has the resources and staff that meets the expectations of highly educated young professionals. Merchantville either refuses to do this (rentals). Or does not have the resouces/tax base (schools). And without that, you get swallowed by urban decay.
In the healthy, tax rich communities of Bergen County, it is very common for families to sell as soon as the youngest child graduates from high school.
Yet I never heard anyone complain that these families were not invested in the town. No one even suggested that they not be allowed to decide important matters in the town. Indeed, these younger families were the backbone of the community and did the heavy lifting in PTO, sports, and community events.
Young families are not a problem.
They are a problem in merchantvile because we don't have any.
I think ktbfw (posting again as somone else) does not like Mr. Perno. In the customary style and manner of ktbfw, he posts things about Mr. Perno which are wrong.
Mr. Perno's ideas and actions demonstrate the long standing characteristic of "Merchantville as it is" to constantly seek ways to improve and preserve itself.
I do not approve of every idea advanced by Mr. Perno and have expressed my concerns about them on this blog. Elected officials represent all of the people, not just me. I would like for every elected official to see things my way but in reality I do not expect that to happen. But for the specific matters ktbfw has cited, I have to tell all that I am in complete agreement with Mr. Perno's positions on them. These are/were good ideas/actions. I appreciate his hard work on them.
If ktbfw wants to diminish the high regard in which Mr. Perno is held in the community, he will have to come up with better ammunition than the drivel in his recent blog posting.
If ktbfw wants to diminish the high regard in which Mr. Perno is held in the community, he will have to ...
Stick to the moniker ascribed, Cruiser, whichever it was. Don't borrow mine to launch an attack on other comments.
I consider Anthony an asset to the community, whether or not I agree with his politics. He takes assertive actions, many of which are needed and others of which we can ponder to determine what might be a better course.
Look back at my comments over the past few years to see compliments and criticisms equally offered, including agreement with his R/R bridge cleanup idea and disagreement with his posture on Wellwood alley cleanup.
I both agree and disagree with your ideas, too, making you an asset, too. Just aim before you shoot, please.
ktbfw, well if I got the moniker wrong on the first go round, I apologize. In any event our chatter shows there is, indeed, widespread support of Mr. Perno in the community, the two of us at least.
Notice that k.t.b.f.w. just asked you to stick to the moniker ascribed, Cruiser. He didn’t deny posting the comment from “As You Like It”.
Anyone who has read k.t.b.f.w.’s comments over time will realize that As You Like It sounds a lot like k.t.b.f.w.. The complaints are the same and even the style is similar. I suspect he’s also “Doing the Jobs” and probably some others. That doesn’t matter. We can play along.
It doesn’t even matter if k.t.b.f.w. approves or disapproves of Councilman Perno’s actions, although I do agree that his comments should be accurate. Of the 5 items As You Like It mentioned, it’s no secret that Mr. Perno obtained funding for the bike path and approves of consolidation with Cherry Hill. Nobody “got Mr. Brunton to do anything” (least of all Anthony Perno), and the actions to repave a street and not upgrade an alley are Council decisions. Perno is only 1 of 6 votes.
Cruiser: You said you do not approve of every idea advanced by Mr. Perno. I don’t recall any of your disapprovals. Would you mind just giving a couple of examples?
Comments on remarks made by “Doing the Jobs”on 12/19:
With regard to shared services between Cherry Hill and Merchantville, it’s true that the CH superintendent met with the Merchantville superintendent and it’s also true that our superintendent is mum about the discussion. It’s NOT true that no one on the BOE has asked about that discussion. I believe the President of Merchantville’s BOE attended the meeting with the CH superintendent; also, the Board minutes of Nov. 23 say this matter was discussed with all BOE members at the closed session.
The Haddon Heights offer was discussed at the Board’s open session of Nov. 9 and its closed session of Nov. 23. It was reported that the Board was waiting for a meeting date with a representative of Porzio, Bromberg and Newman to discuss the data needed for a feasibility study. That law firm represents the district on the sending-receiving issue. In answer to your question, the Merchantville BOE is pursuing the Haddon Heights offer.
With regard to results of the 2010 State tests, on 9 December I sent an e-mail to the BOE president and vice-president asking that the test scores be released to the public. At the 14 Dec. BOE meeting, it was announced that an analysis and interpretation of the scores would be presented at the 11 January BOE meeting.
Districts are required to report test results to their boards of education and to the public within 30 days of receiving them. I believe that test scores were sent to the District in late August, so they probably should have been released to the BOE and to the public by mid-October, the same time they were sent to parents.
Gail, that is incorrect. there has been no meeting between the Superintendents. Any such meeting would be completely premature.
I've posted a reply to Anonymous twice during the past several hours, but the comment doesn't seem to have staying power. I give up.
Gail, the idea on which I disagree with Mr. Perno is the wisdom of opening the old railroad bridge.
What is the deadline for filing petitions to be a candidate on the April school board election ballot?
This is my 4th attempt in two days to respond to Anon. of 1/2/11 5:25PM. All 3 previous comments were initially accepted and then deleted within a few hours.
[Anonymous said... Gail, that is incorrect. there has been no meeting between the Superintendents. Any such meeting would be completely premature.]
I refer you to Merchantville BOE minutes of 11/9/10, which say: “Dr. Campbell, Cherry Hill’s Superintendent of Schools, contacted Mr. Swanson regarding a meeting date to discuss shared services.”
At the Dec. 14 BOE meeting, I personally asked if the meeting mentioned in the 11/9/10 minutes had taken place and Mr. Swanson verified that it had. I also asked what “shared services” were mentioned and if sending-receiving was discussed. I was told that several topics were on the agenda and that sending-receiving had been discussed.
The Blogger program seems to be sensitive with posts that include hyperlinks. If you post something and it does not stick, post a follow up note, or send me an email.
Hi Gail,
The topic of send-receive was not discussed. Dr. Campbell would not have this discussion without the Board President present. The Board President did not attend the meeting.
There will be no send receive. I believe Merchantville will be better recived by Pennsauken or haddon Heights.
Q. for Anon. 1/5/11, 7:24PM: Are you the same person as Anon.1/2/11, 5:26PM, who said there had been no meeting between the Cherry Hill and Merchantville Superintendents? If so, are you now suggesting that there was such a meeting after all?
Would there be any reason Dr. Campbell, who is retiring on June 30, would NOT be permitted to participate in a simple fact-finding meeting without the Board president being present?
Gail, it didn't happen. Send-receive is not an appropriate discussion at this time. Go to a board meeting. they don't want this to happen.
Post a Comment