VIDEO: The following is a statement from the Board of Education, and an exclusive video from attorney Michael Inzelbuch on the ongoing school district crisis:
The Board of Education wishes to set the record straight regarding the January 26, 2016 special election on courtesy busing that was defeated by the Lakewood community.
First, although there has been much press in the Lakewood Scoop about what the correct amount of the referendum should have been, and whether the public was misled by the amount, the Board wishes to remind the public that its members overwhelmingly voted down having a special election to raise taxes for courtesy busing in the first place because it did not believe that the already overtaxed community would ever support it.
Of course, its prediction came true. However, at the time, the State Monitor vetoed the Board of Education’s “no vote” and decided to proceed with the special election anyway.
The $6.2 million that was put to a public vote was the full amount of the courtesy busing, whereas the $2.5 million that is now being discussed is the amount being sought from the Township to maintain busing for students currently receiving busing through the end of the school year.
As was explained to the Board at its November, 2015 meeting, a referendum for anything less than the full cost of the courtesy busing would not have been viable solution because, even if it passed, it would not have solved the problem for future years. It would have simply been a “band aid” approach for this school year.
On the other hand, if the $6.2 million referendum passed, the amount would have been built into the District’s budget going forward on a permanent basis for courtesy busing and could not be cut as other “discretionary” spending can be.
Second, when the idea of a referendum was first raised in the Fall of 2015 by the Commissioner, the Board was told that DOE officials sought the go ahead from the Attorney General’s office as to the legal implications of the referendum and the potential breaches of the Board’s contracts with its bus companies which could ensue if busing was terminated mid-year. Any statement that “the Board of Education cannot be trusted” because it changed the deal with its bus companies is completely misplaced and directed at the wrong party. The Board did not decide to alter or rescind its contracts with the bus companies, the State did. If the Board had its way, there would not have been a referendum in the first place and the deal that was consummated in August, 2015 with the DOE and the Township would have been honored.
Therefore, any potential litigation by bus companies should be against the State, not the Board.
Finally, the Board wishes to reiterate that its most immediate concern is making sure that courtesy busing is saved for this school year so that it can focus its efforts on the overall budget shortfall and Lakewood getting its fair share of State aid and funding under the School Funding Reform Act.
As discussed at February 11, 2016 special meeting, this is being done through a Petition to our Legislators from the 30th District as well as sought after changes to the law on courtesy busing. Getting our children safely to and from school is the Board’s highest priority at this juncture, however, a more long term State and local solution is necessary. Otherwise, it is clear that the Lakewood school community will be facing this same issue year after year.
—————————————–
Expert Attorney Michael I Inzelbuch made it clear today that his clients, the public and nonpublic clients who stand to lose hazardous busing and vendors, do not lay fault at the doorstep of the Board of Education members who graciously volunteer their time.
Inzelbuch also made it clear that the Referendum Question and the PowerPoint put out by the Lakewood Board of Education Administration prior to the failed Referendum was less than clear as to how much money was really needed to continue bussing for the 2015-16 school year.
Inzelbuch also confirmed that even if the Referendum would have passed the $6.2 million would have gone to the “General Fund” year after year, yet, there would be no legal mechanism to insure that these monies would be used for hazardous busing, especially in the current climate where the State can arbitrarily override any decision or votes of the Board.
Lastly, Inzelbuch revealed that he has been contacted and learned that the district’s transportation department is reportedly expending unnecessary funds despite an ever growing deficit and is the subject of several legal actions among its own staff suing each other for harassment and assault that allegedly occurred during the work day.
my friends this is just starting!!
Great Entertainment.!!! Even better than Trump
Thank you Mr. Inzelbuch for clarifying the hot mess, and calling a spade a spade.
Hopefully the BOE’s wheels will stop going round round round!
How much $ was spent on the failed referendum?
Thanks about bringing up Trump.
I would like to be the first one to declare Michael for President.
(after Trump, you never know)
WAIT!!
The Yeshivas agreeing in August to stagger their school hour times, saving the BOE millions of dollars in transportation costs, was supposed to be used to pay for the cost of courtesy bussing.
SO WHY ARE THEY ASKING FOR **ANOTHER** $6.2M OR EVEN $2.5M?
So much for the “Courtesy” in bussing…..
Although the BOE members do not have control over the district, they do have the ability to force the district staff to answer questions. Why are they not exercising that power?
The expert attorney was the BOE solicitor for ten years. Apparently Lakewood’s unique demography was only brought up in an exception to the ALJ decision when the Commissioner reviewed Bacon in 2003.
Why wasn’t Lakewood’s unique status aggressively litigated when the case was properly before the the ALJ? Why did the attorneys let Judge Metzger conclude that Lakewood has wealth and was wasting resources on courtesy bussing? Why didn’t anyone care to fight afterwards?
“The ALJ opined in passing that the relative size of Lakewood’s nonpublic school population was a unique circumstance perhaps requiring individual attention, but that such a policy question was beyond the scope of the administrative forum. The district noted this comment and, in its exceptions, ‘formally requested [the Department] to immediately consider and establish a mechanism to address head-on the ever-growing and unique situation of Lakewood*** .’ (Lakewood’s Exceptions at 4) The Commissioner declines to do so in the present context, finding this situation to be best addressed directly by the Legislature, should it deem appropriate.” Ft. nt. 14. Commissioner decision in Bacon 2003
Then the attorneys go back to the people and say that the arbitrary and capricious method of measuring the wealth of Lakewood was within the judge’s discretion.
“In actuality, the Court did not render its decision until the fall of2002, and the decision was highly unfavorable to Lakewood. At a Task Force meeting held last fall, the District’s Assistant Superintendent, Ed Luick, and its General Counsel, Michael Inzlebuch, Esq., made a presentation regarding the Court’s adverse decision, and the reason the Board
elected not to appeal. In brief, the Court’s standard for a district obtaining special state funding included an element that measured the amount of a school district’s property wealth per pupil. The Court set this property wealth per pupil threshold at a very low level, so low,
in fact, that several current Abbott districts would not meet this criterion if they were being evaluated for eligibility today. Since the Court was within its discretion to set these low standards, and since the Court did not make any obvious errors of law in making its ruling, Lakewood did not have a solid basis for appealing the decision. In sum, Lakewood’s hopes of being designated as an Abbott or a quasi-Abbott district had been eliminated.” Lakewood Township Funding Task Force page 2.
What is even worse, the BOE voted to pursue Bacon and its miserable record, which Lakewood lost, in 2014 when Mr. Sciara decided to take the case and its administrative record back to Superior Court. Judge Jacobson in Trenton can be heard saying in her ruling, “Mr. Sciara, based on this record, what do you want me to do, order an end to the courtesy bussing?”
It was not just the bussing. The BOE does not care. The Commsioner [Libera] did not care. Nobody cares.
The expert attorney was the BOE solicitor for ten years. Apparently Lakewood’s unique demography was only brought up in an exception to the ALJ decision when the Commissioner reviewed Bacon in 2003.
Why wasn’t Lakewood’s unique status aggressively litigated when the case was properly before the the ALJ? Why did the attorneys let Judge Metzger conclude that Lakewood has wealth and was wasting resources on courtesy bussing? Why didn’t anyone care to fight afterwards?
“The ALJ opined in passing that the relative size of Lakewood’s nonpublic school population was a unique circumstance perhaps requiring individual attention, but that such a policy question was beyond the scope of the administrative forum. The district noted this comment and, in its exceptions, ‘formally requested [the
Department] to immediately consider and establish a mechanism to address head-on the ever-growing and unique situation of Lakewood*** .” (Lakewood’s Exceptions at 4) The Commissioner declines to do so in the present context, finding this situation to be best addressed directly by the Legislature, should it deem appropriate.” Ft. nt. 14. Commissioner decision in Bacon 2003
Then the attorneys go back to the people and say that the arbitrary and capricious method of measuring the wealth of Lakewood was within the judge’s discretion.
“In actuality, the Court did not render its decision until the fall of2002, and the decision was highly unfavorable to Lakewood. At a Task Force meeting held last fall, the District’s Assistant Superintendent, Ed Luick, and its General Counsel, Michael Inzlebuch, Esq., made a presentation regarding the Court’s adverse decision, and the reason the Board
elected not to appeal. In brief, the Court’s standard for a district obtaining special state funding included an element that measured the amount of a school district’s property wealth per pupil. The Court set this property wealth per pupil threshold at a very low level, so low,
in fact, that several current Abbott districts would not meet this criterion if they were being evaluated for eligibility today. Since the Court was within its discretion to set these low standards, and since the Court did not make any obvious errors of law in making its ruling, Lakewood did not have a solid basis for appealing the decision. In sum, Lakewood’s hopes of being designated as an Abbott or a quasi-Abbott district had been eliminated.” Lakewood Township Funding Task Force page 2.
What is even worse, the BOE voted to pursue Bacon and its miserable record, which Lakewood lost, in 2014 when Mr. Sciara decided to take the case and its administrative record record back to Superior Court. Judge Jacobson in Trenton can be heard saying in her ruling, “Mr. Sciara, based on this record, what do you want me to do, order an end to the courtesy bussing?”
It was not just the bussing. The BOE does not care. The ALJ did not care. Nobody cares.
I Wonder how a hired attorney took no time to get his hands on these documents, and with a little digging finding all kinds of misuse. – and our board just seems like they are accepting any facts presented and have no control, or better yet, any real knowledge what’s going on with the actual numbers and spending.
i wonder what the referendum cost. it probably would have gone a long way to eliminate the short fall
Trump- inzelbuxh 2016
I downloaded the June 30 2015 audited Lakewood Board of Education Financial statements.
Its publically available just do an internet search.
On page 39 you can see that total district bussing is 24million dollars. The state kicked in about 4.5 million last year however they considered it a loan (see page 70 of the financial).
As a matter of fact the 4.5 million must have been a last minute addition because if you go to page 92 you can see that the original budget was 18.3 then it increased to 24.
In addition as you can see on page 131 bussing costs for the district has been going up between 1.5 to 2 million every year from 2011 to 2015. So this going to be a continuing problem.
So unless the state kicks in another loan like last year and i’m not sure who has the pull to arrange that, it looks like one way or another we are gonna get stuck with the bill. Either through taxes to the township to pay the bussing companies or to our schools to pay the bussing companies.
It is the BOE (and the “expert attorney”)!
Look at whom they made superintendents since Dr. Canava left. Are they people with vision, innovation and an understanding of the dynamics and needs of our community?
The school district will one day become the engine of growth, prosperity and well being for an entire community. But not before the whole status quo is demolished.
There are people in the organization that they and their bosses want to remain at the bottom of the food chain; that they have slandered and made sure to minimize their parnasa; that they fear simply because their credentials are what they know, not whom they know.
So glad someone finally noticed that mandated bussing contracts were cancelled. Still waiting for mandated bussing for my kids!!!
what right does the township committee have to spend 2.5 million dollars on busing that we the voters just said a resounding NO to?
Why just look at busing why don’t we look at the whole department and see how many millions are being wasted!
Just doing some math
$6MM for bussing 10k kids total .
That’s $600 per kid.
Public school 2500 kids x $600 $1.5MM
State pays this amount and Township kicks in $1MM
Bussing for 7500 “non public” aka. Private school kids total $3.5MM
Cost per student $466 per year.
If the actual costs are correct that is the amount for private school bussing. As a taxpayer is that a fair amount to ask the taxpayers of NJ to pick up?
What will that $ amount look like in 5-10 years as the population grows?
This cost is not sustainable.
This is really getting to be my nightly entertainment! Lakewood surely takes the cake.
No place like Lakewood!!!! The very best place to live.
Take it as a bargain. If all the private school children sent to public school it would cost approx 8 -10k Now go do some math
Take it as a bargain. If all the private school children were registered in Public School at a cost of 8,000 – 10,000 EACH now go do some math please.
My taxes are high enough and without bussing I am getting nothing from the 5000 – half my taxes that goes to board of ed
When are we all going to finally register all the lakewood children in the public schools. it will solve all our problems overnight. i could just picture the lines.
And why wont you publish my comment?
“When are we all going to finally register all the lakewood children in the public schools. it will solve all our problems overnight.”
What problem are you solving? You would prefer your kid walked to public school instead of yeshiva?
Follow up question—
Why doesn’t Lakewood have subscription busing for non mandated transportation? That would give every child a bus for 5-6 dollars a day. Big mistake.
If all the private school kids enrolled in public school is would initially be a nightmare and the state/Fed would have to pick up the tab.
Plus they would bring in a bunch of trailers to serve as temporary classrooms.
But we all know, that ain”t gonna happen.
Enrolling the children in public school will finally give our blessed town all of the funding it should be getting. I would imagine the state would be so desperate for space they would offer to contract some of the private schools to now be buildings for the public schools.