Three shorts and a long – not quite SOS – just SO …

Short #1 – ‘Politicizing the Budget Process’

What does that actually mean??  I attend meetings, ask questions, give comments and feedback, and, when I present my opinions in open forum, I am accused of politicizing the process.  It is true that the votes fell along party lines with the Republicans - Mike Rieber and me - voting NO and the Democrats – the other three councilmembers – voting YES.  Does that make it political?  Or does that just mean that Mike and I were more committed to ensuring that the budget that was passed was the absolutely best one we could have with no reasonable stone unturned.  I had not even considered the issue of party politics until it was raised and – even now – am confused by what it means.

If anyone out there thinks that I objected to the budget because of party and/or political considerations, you have another think coming.  Could we have gotten all the way to $0 budget increase without cutting services?  I don’t think so and I agreed with my co-councilmen.  But, could we have done better?  Absolutely.  Maybe as the new members on the Council, Mike and I are more willing to question everything and not willing to take things at face value or just because ‘that’s the way it’s always been.’  Don’t know.  But I also don’t know where politics came into this process either.

By the way, three weeks prior, my statement at the time was that I voted YES to introduce the budget for consideration to meet State mandated timing but NO to the contents of the budget.  Contrary to popular belief, there never was consensus on this budget.

Short #2 – School Choice and Charter Schools

My husband, Oliver, and I have long been proponents of school choice and the voucher program.  We believe that parents should have the ultimate say in the type and quality of education that their children receive.  We have met with gubernatorial candidates on this issue, attended rallies supporting this issue, attended meetings of E3 (Excellent Education for Everyone), and have been devotees of School Choice NJ.  That being said, I was delighted to be invited to participate as a founder of the Hanyu International Academy Charter School – the Mandarin language immersion school for Livingston, Milburn-Short Hills, and West Orange districts.

At the budget hearing – which was supposed to only cover the municipal budget and NOT the county or school budget – several people (and one councilman!) got up to accuse me of bamboozling the public by supporting charter schools because, after all, how can I be a bulwark against rising taxes when I am ready to spend $3.5 million of the Livingston school budget on a charter school that will benefit the few?  And, if everyone who expressed a concern about this at the budget hearing REALLY was concerned, why haven’t you approached me privately as this has been in the news for several weeks?

First – the numbers were nonsensical as ALL those who stood up (or sat down) to criticize should have known.  Just the facts, Jack – with 122 students to be enrolled, and assuming one-third will come from the Livingston district, and using $13,712 (as reported by the Superintendent during school budget meetings) with a 90% contribution – the math alone states (122/3) * (13712 * .90) = $501,859.20.  That is quite a far cry from the numbers being bandied about at the Council meeting. 

Now, I agree that $501,859 is not a trivial number – in fact, although it is less than the total municipal tax increase for 2011, it is still large.  HOWEVER, I truly believe that a charter school is an investment in the future and will attract new families into our community – which will ultimately bring more tax revenues, business, shoppers, and opportunities.  I perceive this as NO different that when I – along with my fellow councilmen – approved $730,000 for solar panels as an investment in the Township infrastructure for the future that we hope will mitigate energy expense.  Let’s take the long view on this, shall we?

 

Short #3 – Where are you?

It came to my attention recently that people have been missing me.  They wonder why I didn’t turn out for the Little League opening day or the Chamber of Commerce breakfast or some other community event.  I do appreciate that people want to see their elected officials and want to have an opportunity to hobnob with them at sundry events.  I do try to get to social and/or community events whenever possible.  But – if I’m not there – consider the following:

Ø      I am a Sabbath observer – which means that I don’t drive from Friday night until Saturday night, I don’t use electricity, and I don’t engage in business.  Most Saturday’s I can be found at home or my local synagogue – which is 1.25 miles from my house.  So, if the event is on the Sabbath, dollars to doughnuts, I will be observing Sabbath and missing the event.  If I can walk to an event and attend without violating the Sabbath, I do try.  But, the Oval is about 3 miles from my house, the Hillside Community Center is over 5 miles from my house – I think you get the picture.

Ø      I run a business – I am a small business owner and my business is located in Secaucus, NJ.  Most days I leave the house at 7:30 AM and don’t get home until 10 PM.  Many weekends find me working in my home office to take care of business I couldn’t get to during the week.  As for most working people out there, it is very difficult to just leave in the middle of the day to attend events.  I do it when I can.

Ø      I am a Councilwoman AND the Town Council Liaison to a number of Township Committees – This week, we had a conference meeting beginning at 7:30 PM, the regular meeting that began at 8 PM and I don’t think the festivities were over until well after 10 PM.  On Tuesday at 7:30 PM, I attended a special meeting of the HCHY to discuss Youth Appreciation Week.  On Wednesday at 7:30PM, I attended the HCHY monthly Board meeting.  On Thursday at 7:30PM (which lasted until 9:40PM), I attended the Livingston Environmental Commission Meeting.  I take my responsibilities very seriously – and commit my time to them.  This DOESN’T include the hours I spend on the weekends reading the materials given out on Friday in preparation for the Monday meetings.  I also make myself available by phone and email – and I return all calls and emails promptly.  If you want to talk to me, I am available.

Ø      Last but not least, I am a wife and a mother.  I have three sons – 24, 23, and 21 – and a wonderful husband of 31 years.  I also have a mother (my father passed two years ago, unfortunately) and 6 brothers and sisters. We are a VERY close knit family.  SO, any time not given to 1,2,and 3 above goes to them.  Okay?

The Long

For those of you who weren’t there to hear it, below is the statement I made at the Budget hearing.  The only thing I would change is the percentage that the employees get as an incentive NOT to take the health benefits.  When I asked the question, in a conference meeting, how much was given, I was informed that the number was 50% - which was when I asked if we could lower it.  During the budget hearing, it was related to me that the number was 25%.  I do not fault anyone for providing incorrect information – sometimes people misspeak.  But, the concept remains the same – no matter what we are giving, can we lower it?

We have spent numerous hours reviewing the proposed budget as assembled and prepared by our township administration. As we sit here at the end of the process, I must say: I am disappointed.

As everyone here knows, economic times in the world, the US, New Jersey, and yes Livingston are difficult. While there are some people in our town who are fortunate enough to feel the current pinch less than others, or perhaps even not at all, that unfortunately cannot outweigh the needs of the thousands of others.

In addition to having an MBA and consulting with a Big Four Firm in the public sector, I have been running a business successfully for the past twenty years.  If there is one thing that has been demonstrated to me repeatedly, it is this: people and entities cannot indefinitely spend resources, especially money, that they do not have.  And, during time of economic crisis, the need to economize where possible is paramount.

We find ourselves in the difficult position of maintaining as high a level of services as possible for the residents of this town, and at the same time refraining from taxing them to the point where they can no longer afford those services by maintaining a residence in Livingston. The proposed budget is continually miscast as a mere $44.03 per household tax increase; what it actually represents is over a half million dollars in additional municipal taxes.  Increase upon increase upon increase, year after year, after year is an untenable way to go; and is unsustainable in the long run.  It is precisely the mindset of explaining away “small increases” that led to $11.1 million in tax increases over the past five years.

 One of the areas that we attempted to look into for some financial tax easing was municipal employment compensation. It seems, to some of us, that to continually increase the compensation of workers who are already earning salaries and/or benefits that are at or beyond comparable pay scales in industry, all on the backs of the already overburdened Livingston residents, is an exercise in injustice of the highest order. I have no doubt that our employees understand the harsh realities of today’s economy. And, I am sure that they are grateful for the fact that while many private sector employees have foregone raises for the past several years, the town council has seen fit to continue to give raises to them.  In addition to ‘cadillac’ health insurance benefits that are provided, township employees contribute a token amount to their insurance premiums – where their private sector counterparts are contributing up to 30% of the cost of the premiums.  Not to mention that employees that don’t take the health benefits due to other coverage are paid 50% of the cost of these ‘cadillac’ premiums.  It does save the township from having to pay 100% of the cost of coverage, but surely some lesser amount might provide the same incentive. And, not to be the Grinch who stole Chanukah, while industry has been embarrassed to continue to have holiday parties for their employees (with some very public cancellations), Livingston not only has two parties with a budget of $25,000 but does it on “company” time and compensates employees for attending.  To date, Michael Rieber and I have been unable to obtain support in getting changes to these policies – and the concomitant reduction in budget – pushed through.

Some items had been previously proposed as potential areas for reduction – such as elimination of leaf collection or all social services – but these eliminations would either cost the residents more money by having to provide the services for themselves – in the matter of leaf collection – or would hurt the most vulnerable members of our community who are least able to help themselves.  It is right that these reductions are not supported.  However, to not insist that the Library remain at the same budget level as 2010 – which would result in not spending an additional $100,000 – does not make sense.

So, when services are not impacted and options to reduce the budget are presented, there really is no excuse not to take advantage of these opportunities.  Voting FOR the budget stating that this is the best we can do is not being honest with the taxpayer.  Mike and I know we can do better.  It is for these reasons that I vote an unequivocal NO and reject this budget.