Earlier start, long agenda, long meeting

It’s nice to have the two-week break between the August 15^th meeting and the September 6^th meeting.  But, we make up for it by having had substantial agenda items to go through on the 15^th with anticipation of sessions – both conference and Regular – on the 6^th.

Much of the session was taken up with discussion of the new tree ordinance that the Livingston Environmental Commission has been working on in conjunction with the Planning Board.  The motivation for updating the existing ordinance was an incidence or two of clear-cutting properties that were less than the one-acre threshold covered by the current ordinance.  The new ordinance primarily takes away the distinction between properties based on size (i.e., less than one acre, greater than one acre) and establishes parameters for which trees may be cut down with or without permits.  I applaud all those involved – with special kudos to Peter Klein of the Planning Board and Gary Schwartz, the chair of the LEC, and the entire LEC committee – for navigating all of the issues, including managing the delicate balancing of Township and environmental interests with citizens’ right to privacy and control of their own property.  Once the ordinance is introduced, the LEC will be very involved in organizing education and increasing awareness of the new regulations, including creating a registration of landmark trees.

There rest of the meeting was taken up with mostly administrative items.  One item approved was having Livingston participate in a National Moment of Remembrance on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 by issuing a proclamation and committing to sounding sirens for 1 minute at 1 PM on 9/11.  This resolution will be voted on at the September 6^th meeting – along with resolutions for NJDOT grant submission, a change order for landscape design services for the Town Hall (final change order we are told!), and for Title 39 (parking and other motor vehicle violations) enforcement at the Regency Club [which they requested and which is done for other private developments in Livingston.]

During the Public Comment portion of the meeting, three Livingston residents had questions for me regarding the release of the Township Counsel’s conflict of interest opinion.  I provided all of them with my personal contact information for additional offline conversation and thanked them for their continued interest in the matter.

And, in our packets, as had already been mailed to us, was the invitation to the 9/11 Ceremony of Remembrance taking place at 7:00 P.M. on September 11^th at the Living Memorial Garden on the Oval.  Among the thousands murdered that day by terrorists, seven of the lives were those of Livingston residents.  As this is the 10^th anniversary of this tragic event, I would expect a significant turnout – rain or shine.

During the roundtable discussion, I did raise several items – a few which had been outstanding from previous meetings.  First, Gary Schneiderman promised to have his revisions to the mission statement for the Community Outreach Program that has been outstanding since May.  Second, I inquired as to the status of televising the conference and Regular meetings.  Rudy Fernandez was meeting with LTV the next evening and I hope that we will have an answer on this soon.  This has been an ongoing issue with no resolution to date.   Third, I inquired as to whether we might be able to start budget talks before year end (as most businesses budget for the following year in the current year) and which I would hope would obviate having to approve an interim budget.  However, due to governmental issues/requirements of which I had been unaware, it cannot be done.  Oh well!  Finally, I raised the issue of going out to bid for other insurance coverages given the changes in the contributions now allowed by the State.  Michele Meade indicated that we would have difficulty in doing that as there is over 100% utilization of the current benefits (and, why not, as they are so rich and so cheap!) as well as a penalty that would be assessed should Livingston leave the State Health Benefits Plan.  I have found some information on how Parsippany saved $1 million by doing just that – and that was without increased premium participation by the covered employees.  This will be an issue worth coming back to and discussing more.

On another note:  At the August 1 meeting, Rudy Fernandez spoke about Soles4Soles, which is an organization devoted to collecting new and used shoes for charitable purposes.  I was pleased to see a collection box at the New York Sports Club on Northfield Avenue – which I am hastening to fill!

Conflicting views...but not interests

Charter school have recently become a hotly debated topic in Livingston and, I am afraid, a source of division in our community, as well as a wellspring of misinformation.  I want to take this moment to set the record straight regarding my beliefs on charter schools and my involvement with the Asian community.

As a candidate for council last year, I pledged that one of my priorities – besides cutting municipal spending and taxes – would be to create an Asian outreach program for Livingston.

About 16 percent of the township is of Asian descent – a sizable minority.  Many Asian-Americans face barriers to full integration into the community and it was my hope that a town council-supported Asian outreach program would break down communication and cultural barriers between our Asian neighbors and the community at large.   

Shortly after my election last November – as I sat down with leaders of the Asian community, I learned of their desire for greater communication with municipal officials and of their interest in creating a Mandarin language charter school.

I embraced the desire of our Asian Americans neighbors to pursue the feasibility of a charter school because I believed it was one way – and just one way – of helping the Asian-American community as well as the community at large.

Many Asian Americans had expressed to me their desire to retain their cultural identity as a minority population in our community – a concept I fully respect as Jewish woman whose family remains committed to following Jewish traditions.

 My support for a charter school was in no way meant to be an attack on the excellent public education offered by the Livingston School system, which I fully support.  Nor was it intended to divide the community along ethnic or political lines. I understand how much Livingston parents love their school system and the last thing I want to do is diminish the quality of education in the township. At the same time, I do not want to ignore the desires of our Asian community. It is their legal right to pursue a charter school in New Jersey.

A recent New York Times article highlighted the emotions churned up over charter schools, going so far as noting that some supporters of charter schools have received threatening e-mails from those opposed to charter schools.  I find that unfortunate, especially in an area that prides itself on its progressive diversity. This kind of heated community division is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I had hoped for when I embraced the idea of an Asian outreach program.  I want the community to come together to embrace its diversity, not be driven apart by that diversity.

For the record, you should know that despite what you may have heard, I have not been asked to raise funds, make any donations, or sign any bank guarantees for a charter school.  I have not been asked to sit on the board for the proposed Mandarin-language immersion charter school,  nor serve as a trustee, nor will I have ANY affiliation with the school when and if it is created.   My involvement has been purely as an advocate of school choice with a firm belief that this would be beneficial to Livingston residents and ANY town progressive enough to participate in this educational opportunity.

And, let me add, that any assistance I offered the charter school advocates is within my role as a private citizen.  My position as a Founder of the Hanyu school poses no conflict of interest (as some have mistakenly asserted and has been confirmed by Township legal counsel) since there is no personal gain for me if a charter school is approved. The faulty logic some are seeking to apply to the "conflict" issue could just as easily be applied to the council members who have children in our public school and oppose the charter school. They are acting in what they believe are the best interest of their families, are they not?

Rather than belabor the point, let’s just say that passions are strong on both sides and that everyone comes to the issue with a personal interest. Public debate is a good thing – and we need more of it in Livingston. However let’s keep the debate civil and on point and not use public forums for political bashing and character assassination.

Perhaps I have been naive in thinking that broadening school choice would be good for the community as a whole. Perhaps I have misread the depth of misperception that many parents have about the negative budgetary impact charter schools might have on the general public schools. It was never my intention to create such concerns and I welcome the opportunity to help allay them.

My goal from inception was to create a bridge to our Asian American neighbors, not to erect barriers to community tolerance. I hope that the community can move forward with respect for differing opinions and mindful of the fact that Livingston is a community composed of many interests and points of view – and we should be tolerant of all of them.