Part of the reason for all the buzz about what Plainfield's City Council needs to do in regard to the defeated school budget owes to the rarity of such an event in Plainfield. I cannot recall a defeated budget in my 25 years, and even remember some horn-tooting when Plainfield voters approved a bond referendum for the construction of the Washington Community School when districts everywhere were losing bond votes.
While the new school funding legislation (which was promoted by Assemblyman Green, see here) may tie the hands of the local governing body with reference to CHANGING THE BUDGET, I am not aware that it supersedes the statutory requirement that the local governing body MUST adopt a RESOLUTION CERTIFYING the BOE's General Tax Fund levy when the voters fail to approve it.
(This matter is somewhat complicated by the fact that the constitutionality of the new funding scheme is being challenged before the NJ Supreme Court; oral arguments are scheduled for this coming Tuesday, April 28 -- see here and here. But let's assume the Court will uphold the new law.)
Councilor Burney takes up the matter on his blog (see here), and Plainfield Schools' Superintendent Gallon has posted a letter on the process -- including the state's position -- online here (PDF).
All of this notwithstanding, it seems clear (see NJSA 28A:22-37) that to fulfill its obligation, the municipality's governing body must pass a resolution. (Sidebar to all who think electronic info is sufficient: the State of New Jersey still believes that the 'real' actions of governing bodies are embodied in PRINTED DOCUMENTS ON PAPER WITH ATTESTED SIGNATURES. For now, anyway.)
Here's a little help from my studies at Clerk University: A Sample Resolution on a School Board Budget --
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE GENERAL FUND TAX LEVY FOR THE (MUNICIPALITY) BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR (20xx-yy), BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE (MUNICIPALITY), (COUNTY), STATE OF NEW JERSEY
WHEREAS, the voters of the (Municipality) in a duly held election, did fail to approve the General Fund Tax Levy Budget of the Board of Education of the (Municipality) for the school year (20xx-yy); and
WHEREAS, the Education, Budgets and Appropriations Law, N.J.S.A. 28a-22-37, requires the Governing Body of the (Municipality), after consultation with the (Municipality) Board of Education, to determine the amount which is necessary to be appropriated in such budget and to certify to the County Board of Taxation the total amount so determined; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the (Municipality) has consulted with representatives of the (Municipality) Board of Education, and has thereafter determined the amount necessary to be appropriated;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Body of the (Municipality), (County), State of New Jersey, that the following determination is hereby made:
1. The original tax levy on the ballot for the base budget:
$____________
2. The amount of reduction to the tax levy for the base budget:
$____________3. The amount of tax levy being certified for the base budget:
$____________4. Specific line item reductions:
Account Number Description Amount
a.
b.
c.
5.
Supporting reasons for reduction: Based upon a review of all data provided by the Board off Education, meetings with representatives of the Board of Education, numerous public hearings and consideration of the public need, it has been determined that the reductions set forth herein can be effectuated without a reduction in programs or negatively impacting upon the education of the students.
6.
The revised budget is sufficient to provide a thorough and efficient education.
7.
There was no additional general fund levy considered by the voters.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this resolution be forwarded to the (Municipality) Board of Education, Superintendent of the (County) Department of Education, and the Administrator of the (County) Board of Taxation.
Does the governing body need to REDUCE the budget? The sample resolution presumes it will, but at Clerk U. we were not instructed it HAD TO. However, the governing body does have to allow the public to have a say at a properly noticed public meeting, and must pass a resolution certifying the budget.
Simple enough?
We'll see.
- Councilor Burney: As I See It: "School Budget rejection - a process emerges"
- Schools Superintendent Gallon: "Letter to Stakeholders, 4/23/2009" (PDF)
Posts
6 comments:
So -- Dan, if I am reading this correctly -- why bother to vote??
Or, have I missed something here?
Dr. Gallon's letter is quite clear: the City Council has no power to alter the school budget.
And by the way, the fact that Plainfield got back on the Abbott list was due to Assemblyman Green's efforts. Plainfield was not involved in the Abbott v. Burke lawsuit which produced the NJ State Supreme Court decision, but Jim Florio added us when he was governor. Christine Whitman removed us after she became governor. (But I think you knew all that.)
Dan- I believe the school budget failed at least once while I was on the Council in the early '90s.
Donna Vose
Dottie -- Alter schmalter. The issue being discussed is the CERTIFICATION of the budget by the Municipal Governing Body which the law requires. Besides, didn't I say that though the presumption is a reduction would be made, we were NOT instructed it had to be?
As to getting back on the Abbott list, yes, the Assemblyman did try to get us back on, but let's not forget it was Sen. Donald DeFrancesco who did the trick -- and the Assemblyman and I were both present at Hubbard School on the day the inclusion was celebrated, along with Larry Leverett, the BOE and Mayor McWilliams. Let's not rewrite history just because Donny D is no longer around to push back.
To 9:22 AM --
It seems the state, in its great wisdom, does not think that public education should be abolished in a community by a vote on the budget in any given year.
The presumption in the law seems to be that if the community votes the budget down, it is because of the AMOUNT of that year's budget, not the idea of public school education.
So, if the AMOUNT is in dispute, somebody has to resolve it, right? And the state, in its wisdom, decreed that the municipal governing body should do it.
After consulting with the BOE and the public.
The new funding law evidently removes the possibility of any changes being made by the local governing body.
Should the Legislature cure this issue?
Or should the State be allowed to dictate to a municipality no matter what the public feels?
What do you think?
Dan, you know perfectly well that Donny D, in his capacity as acting governor, signed the legislation after it had been passed by both houses--Whitman was "out of town." I was at Hubbard that day, too.
But the legislation was sponsored by Assemblyman Green and his now-deceased colleague, Assemblyman Smith of Neptune--a Republican, by the way--and put both districts on the Abbott list. Neptune had not been on the list previously.
Talk about rewriting history!
Post a Comment