Category: Village of Ridgewood

Posted on

>IS THE BOE WAIVING A PUBLIC INPUT BYLAW IN ORDER TO GO AGAINST PARENTS WISHES AND ATTEMPT TO AVIOD A LAWSUIT???

>***** PJ PLEASE POST THIS AS A NEW THREAD **** VER… ***** PJ PLEASE POST THIS AS A NEW THREAD **** VERY IMPORTANT – BEFORE BOE MEETING TONIGHT ****==============================
==============================

IS THE BOE WAIVING A PUBLIC INPUT BYLAW IN ORDER TO GO AGAINST PARENTS WISHES AND ATTEMPT TO AVIOD A LAWSUIT???TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOE Agenda for May 18, 2009.

Ridgewood BOE Agenda – May 18, 2009
Or cut and paste the following link:
https://schoolsite.capturepoint.com/assets/resources/post%205-18-09%20rpm2.pdf

LOOK At Agenda Item “Vi. CONSENT ITEMS”
Look at consent Item “B. ADMINISTRATION i. Approval: Waiver of Policy #6141”

It says:

i. Approval: Waiver of Policy #6141
Approval to waive Policy #6141, as listed on Attachment B, in
accordance with Policy #9314, as listed on Attachment C.
So what IS Policy #6141 and What IS Policy #9314?

Policy #6141 is a bylaw that states:
He/she (the Chief School Administrator) shall establish procedures for curriculum development
which ensure the effective participation of teaching staff members; pupils, as appropriate to their age
and grade; parents/guardians; the community; members of the Board; and the use of all available
resources.Policy #9314 basically is the right of the Board to waive bylaws

SO… WHY is the Board WAIVING THE BYLAW THAT REQUIRES PARTICIPATION BY TEACHERS PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY ????PERHAPS BECA– USE THE BOARD IS AFRAID OF BEING SUED SINCE THEY ARE RAMMING IN A MATH PROGRAM THAT THE PARENTS DONT WANT?

Perhaps because of posts like this one on the Ridgewood Blog:

District boards of education shall encourage the active involvement of representatives from the community, business, industry, labor…Or Cut and Paste:
https://theridgewoodblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/district-boards-of-education-shall.html

OR Perhaps because of posts like this on Laurie Goodmans Blog?
Anonymous said…
Laurie,I’m glad you’re reading about the role of board members. Please explain why you would violate our Ridgewood BOE Bylaw # 6141 which says the following, verbatim:”…New programs and courses of study should not be acted upon by the Board until the meeting following their presentation, in order for Board members to have an opportunity to review the proposed program.”Why are you planning to participate in a vote of a program at the same meeting during which it is presented?If you care so much about doing what is right, then explain why you would do this when it is so wrong.
And Why Laurie, is the BOE WAIVING #6141 when you state this on your blog?
For those who may have heard that the Board is somehow “breaking the law” in the process to be followed in approving the textbook…don’t believe it. Here’s the thing: Those who are claiming “foul” are mistakenly using the wrong section of Board policy. Policy 6141 states that the superintendent shall “establish procedures for curriculum development which ensure the effective participation of… parents/guardians and the community…” etc etc. This policy pertains to curriculum, NOT textbooks. We’ve had this discussion before, as you may recall: curriculum is what the students will learn… textbooks are how it will be taught. We’re not voting on a new curriculum — the curriculum is elementary math and we already teach elementary math. The curriculum that we follow is not changing. Just the textbook is changing. (An example of a new curriculum would be the RAHP program…or the new SAIL (special ed) program at the high school.)Something stinks in the Ridgewood BOE.

IF THIS IS NOT THE REASON… Then can someone please tell my WHY the Board is WAIVING #6141 ??? ************
MORE DETAILS
************
GO TO BOE Agenda for May 18, 2009.
https://schoolsite.capturepoint.com/assets/resources/post%205-18-09%20rpm2.pdf

Go to Attachment B (Policy #6141) in the Agenda:

HERE IS ATTACHMENT B:
======================================================
MAY 18, 2009 ATTACHMENT B

6141

Instruction
Curriculum Design/Development

The Chief School Administrator shall be responsible to the Board of Education for the development of
curriculum to meet identified pupil needs. He/she shall establish procedures for curriculum development
which ensure the effective participation of teaching staff members; pupils, as appropriate to their age
and grade; parents/guardians; the community; members of the Board; and the use of all available
resources. Care shall be taken that certified staff shall not be assigned to teach material outside the
limits of their certification and endorsements.
The Chief School Administrator shall report to the Board the objectives, evaluative criteria and costs of
each proposed program before seeking Board adoption. New programs and courses of study should
not be acted upon by the Board until the meeting following their presentation, in order for Board
members to have an opportunity to review the proposed program.Legal References:
N.J.A.C. 6:8-4.5 Curriculum and instruction
N.J.A.C. 6:8-4.8 Teaching staff and professional development
Old Bridge Education Association v. Board of Education of the Township of Old Bridge,
Middlesex County
Manual for the Evaluation of Local School Districts (June 1993)
Adopted:

Ridgewood Board of Education

Regular Public Meeting

January 27, 2003
======================================================

HERE IS ATTACHMENT C: (Basically it is just the right to waive Bylaws)

MAY 18, 2009 ATTACHMENT C

9314

Bylaws of the Board
Suspension of Policy or Bylaw

The Ridgewood Board of Education has developed a careful and deliberate process of
formulating and adopting its policies and bylaws. Requests for suspension of any existing
policy or bylaw should receive the same careful consideration.
Therefore:
1. Any request for a waiver of policy or bylaw shall be considered in light of the
policy or bylaw itself, rather than any particular circumstances of the moment.
2. The Board shall decide whether the policy or bylaw still reflects the considered
intent of the policy or bylaw. If it does, the suspension will be denied, and the
policy or bylaw reaffirmed in the minutes.
3. If the policy or bylaw does not reflect the intent of the Board, then the policy shall
be waived by a majority vote of the full membership of the Board, and
development of a revised policy or bylaw shall become the Board’s prime policy
priority.
In the event of an emergency requiring immediate action, the Superintendent shall have the
power to waive policy or regulation in the single instance. In such cases, the Superintendent
shall report the instance to the Board President immediately, and, where appropriate, to each
Board member and will request reconsideration of the policy at the next regular meeting.
Legal References: N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 General mandatory
powers and duties of
the Board

N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20 Superintendent; powers and duties
N.J.A.C. 6:3-1.12 Duties of the Superintendent
Adopted:
Ridgewood Board of Education
Regular Public Meeting
February 8, 1988
Reaffirmed:
======================================================
Publish Reject (

Match.com

Posted on

>BOE Matters

>ridgewood hs small
RHS Secretary (Administrative Assistant) Earns $112K Annually

From this week’s BOE regular meeting agenda:

HORNER, Lois – from Assistant to the Business Administrator to Secretary to the Math and Science Supervisors, Ridgewood High School, effective July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.

From: $111,646
(incl. Long.)
To: $111,646
(incl. Long.)(off guide)

Posted on

>At the BOE Reorganization Meeting:

>· Mr. Robert Hutton was sworn in as the new Board member.
· The Board re-elected Mr. Joseph Vallerini as President.
· The Board re-elected Mr. Robert Hutton as Vice President.
· The Board approved the continuation of the position of Student Representative to the Board.
· The Board approved various adoptions or appointments, including:
o the current Board of Education Policy Manual, the NJSBA Code of Ethics.
o The Record and The Ridgewood News as official newspapers for all legal advertisement and notices for the 2009-2010 school year.
o the firm of LAN Associates, Midland Park, as Board of Education Architect for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, at fees negotiated for each individual project.
o the firm of McKinley, White & Co., L.L.P., Paramus, to serve as Board of Education Auditor and provide accounting services to the School Board for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, to conduct the 2008-2009 audit of the Ridgewood Board of Education for an estimated fee of $37,200 to $38,800.
o Anthony Sciarrillo, Esq. of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook &
Cooper, P.C., Westfield as Board Counsel for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, at the rate of $160 per hour.
o McManimon and Scotland, Newark, as Bond Counsel for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, at the rate of $160 per hour.
o David B. Rubin, Esq., P.C., Metuchen, as Special Education Counsel for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, at the rate of $170 per hour.
o Adams Stern Gutierrez & Lattiboudere, LLC., Newark, as Special Counsel to continue handling a certain Board legal issue to its conclusion, at the rate of $150 per hour, for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.
o Willis HRH, Morristown, as health insurance broker of record for the 2009-2010 school year.
o continuation of participation in the Northeast Bergen County Insurance Group (NESBIG) for Workers’ Compensation Insurance for the 2009-2010 school year. NESBIG is a shared services cooperative purchasing arrangement whereby member school districts acquire lower rates for insurance through joint purchasing. This is the second year of a previously approved two-year agreement.
o continuation of The Burton Agency, Westwood, as insurance broker of record for property/casualty insurance and risk manager for the 2009-2010 school year. This is the second year of a previously approved two-year appointment.
o student activity fee of $75 at the middle schools and $100 at the high school for those students who participate in any co-curricular activity for the 2009-2010 school year.o tuition rates for the 2009-2010 for out-of-district-students and staff members’ children, as listed below:Kindergarten $ 9,517 $ 500
Grades 1-5 $ 12,730 $ 1,000
Grades 6-8 $ 13,824 $ 1,000
Grades 9-12 $ 13,159 $ 1,000
LLD $ 26,613 N/A
Autism $ 63,432 N/A
o substitute rates of pay for the 2009-2010 as listed below:
Teachers (first five days of one consecutive assignment): $ 90 per diemDaily/Permanent(6th day of consecutive assignment in system): $125 per diem
Long-term Determined by administration after evaluation of educational
background and experience
Nurse $130 per diem
Secretaries $ 12.50 per hour
Former RAES members $ 13.25 per hour

Microsoft Store

Posted on

>Tenure has the potential to benefit students

>Tenure has the potential to benefit students, but only if the broader community of tenured teachers and tenured school principals is willing to use the relative independence tenure affords to shield their students from the ill-effects of poor administration of schools by outsiders. By ‘outsiders’, I simply mean, individuals who are neither working in, nor directly responsible for what happens in, the classroom.

The question then becomes, are the tenured teachers and tenured principals in Ridgewood using the relative independence tenure affords to shield their students from the ill-effects of poor administration of schools by Cottage Place.

If it can be demonstrated that they are making the proper use of their powers as tenured individuals, and **each** of our students is being given a fighting chance to succeed, regardless of which RHS feeder school serve his or her neighborhood, the taxpayers and voters in Ridgewood should be satisfied. What more can you ask?

On the other hand, if it can be shown that more than a few our tenured teachers or tenured principals are failing to keep up their end of the bargain, and are allowing rotten ideas from Cottage Place to permeate their classrooms, why should dissatisfaction with the tenure system in Ridgewood be looked upon as some sort of aberration, or strange affliction?

I would think the opposite should be the case. Based on recent events, those who blindly support every unwise act and foolish utterance of Cottage Place should be the ones under regular and recurring inspection by the ‘jaundiced eye’.

I would be interested to know the opinions of TRB readers in the Travell district–does the record and recent performance of Travell’s acting principal indicate that an early award of tenure for her will be put to its proper use? If so, why? If not, why not?

show?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=97526

Posted on

>REQUEST TO DELAY BY ONE YEAR TENURE GRANTING DECISION

>

REQUEST TO DELAY BY ONE YEAR TENURE GRANTING DECISION FOR MS. MARGY LEININGER, PRINCIPAL OF TRAVELL ELEMENTARY UNTIL MAY 2010 UPON COMPLETION OF STANDARD 3-YEAR PRINCIPAL TENURE REVIEW PERIOD.
 
 
We, the undersigned parents, request that the standard three-year time period for performance as a principal within the Ridgewood school district apply to Ms. Leininger, Principal of Travell Elementary.  Travell’s principal’s 3-year performance completion date will be June of 2010.  We ask that Dr. Fishbein and the Board delay this tenure decision until May 2010 and allow for Travell community input.   We understand that her having teacher tenure was a factor behind offering an expedited tenure decision after her serving only two of the three years required of other principal tenure candidates. 
 
We firmly believe that teacher awarded tenure in no way confers upon them the ability to be an administrator, particularly in the leadership role at the center of a principal’s responsibilities.  In fact, the District’s defined job descriptions and responsibilities for a principal and teacher are completely different.  The leadership, and interaction skills required between teachers, students and parents to successfully carry out this administrative role are different and many do not exist in the teacher job description.  A three-year proving period for all principal tenure decisions is warranted as this District’s administration has so wisely set as the standard.  We firmly believe that a decision to delay tenure consideration until May 2010 for the Travell principal position is in the best interest of our children and demonstrates prudence by the superintendent and school board.  The superintendent and Ridgewood school board have an obligation and a history of protecting and serving the needs of our children.  They need now to follow those same standard guidelines that have proven to be effective for past principal candidates.  The Travell students, teachers, parents and community deserve the same three-year time period to vet the performance of their Principal as tha t which is followed by other Ridgewood district schools.
 
We request that concerned Travell community members meet with the superintendent to provide input in support or in dissent of the tenure decision for Travell Elementary school’s principal.  Given time is of the essence, we request this meeting take place no later than Friday, April 24th (1 school day prior to the tenure awarding Board Meeting on May 4th, 2009).
 
 
Respectfully submitted by the below Travell Community Taxpayers

Bunny Shop weekly promo 1 - 15% off orders over $75show?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=148969

Posted on

>BOE Launches New Initiative: StarBUCKS and the Budget

>Stop by the Ridgewood Avenue StarBUCKS from 5-7 p.m. on Sunday, April 19, grab a free cup of coffee, and talk budget with the Superintendent of Schools, Assistant Superintendent for Business, and Board of Education members.

Take advantage of this special opportunity to get your questions answered in advance of School Election Day, Tuesday, April 21.

This casual event is geared to members of the public of voting age.

Posted on

>Mike Kelly: Too many hospitals spoils the bottom line

>Mike Kelly: Too many hospitals spoils the bottom line
Thursday, April 2, 2009

By MIKE KELLY
RECORD COLUMNIST

For just a moment, think what good could come of $2 million.
You could, for example, buy a year’s worth of health insurance for almost 200 North Jersey families. You could educate 150 students in local public schools. You could hire 40 cops at $50,000 each.

Now consider how The Valley Hospital in Ridgewood would spend $2 million.
Valley wants to buy the state license to the defunct Pascack Valley Hospital in Westwood but never use it. By owning Pascack’s license, Valley could block a competitor hospital from opening.

This is no April Fool’s joke. It is, sadly, the latest battle in a war between North Jersey hospitals.

At issue is not improving care for sick people. Yes, hospital administrators will surely whip out their rhetorical violins and insist they are deeply worried about curing illnesses, repairing broken bones and giving life to damaged hearts. Indeed, most hospitals in the area offer top-flight care.

But another devil lurks in the shadows of this debate — a persistent worry by local hospitals about losing money.

Which brings us to Valley’s $2 million bid for Pascack’s old license.
Ever since Pascack Valley Hospital went bankrupt and closed its doors in December 2007, a funny thing happened at the remaining hospitals in Bergen County. They all turned healthy profits.

If you are trying to balance the books at your hospital, it makes sense to keep Pascack closed. Pascack is viewed as competition for the business of sick people. Indeed, a state report suggested that Bergen County had too many hospitals before Pascack closed.

But Hackensack University Medical Center bought Pascack’s campus and proposed to open a 128-bed hospital there. To other hospitals — particularly Ridgewood’s Valley Hospital and Englewood Hospital — the move by Hackensack was viewed as the equivalent of a new Shell gas station moving into a town that had been ruled comfortably by a Lukoil and a Sunoco.

In other words, Hackensack threatened Valley’s and Englewood’s profits.
In a free market, this would be just fine. But hospitals are not gas stations. Yet, on the other hand, shouldn’t Hackensack be allowed to expand its services? And, if you listen to the pleadings of many officials in the 18 towns once served by Pascack Valley Hospital, shouldn’t Pascack be able to reopen if someone puts up the money?
Valley did just that — in a back-handed way. As part of Pascack’s still-undecided bankruptcy proceedings, The Valley Hospital bid $2 million for the old Pascack license. Valley made no secret of its intentions: It plans to sit on the license and never use it. All in an attempt to keep many of Pascack’s old patients going to Valley.

In the cold calculation of hospital economics, Valley’s plan makes sense. If Hackensack is viewed as a competitor, why not find a way to beat it?
But isn’t this a pathetic strategy? The notion of hospitals fighting over customers who happen to be sick is not a matter of cold economics. This is about ruptured morals.

But this is also the state of American health care now, a grinding battle over money and marketing while doctors and hospitals struggle to make ends meet and ordinary people struggle under the crushing cost of medical insurance.
Given that state of medical affairs in America, we should not be surprised that this is where we have come: a bid to buy a hospital license merely to kill it.
But where are we going?

Read Mike Kelly’s blog at northjersey.com/freshjersey.

Posted on

>So here is the spin on Dr. Stotsky from Laurie Goodman

>

Did you hear the one about the math expert who wasn’t invited to the party?

I understand a few folks are riled up about a Harvard-educated math person, Dr. Stotsky, who supposedly “offered” her services to the District in our math quest. There’s an email circulating with plenty of misinformation and spin. Here’s my PERSONAL take on, and clarification of, the situation. (And, just so we’re clear, by “personal” I mean these are my opinions and perspectives only and I am in no way speaking for the Board.)

1) We are pretty far into the process (as the email writer says, 2 years) and the administration may feel that to bring in new participants now might bog things down, require backtracking, etc. I can understand that. We need to keep moving forward, the community has waited long enough.

2) The Math Planning Team’s experts are also learned and experienced. One could argue that they may be more math-focused than Dr. Stotsky, as my quick read of her background shows an emphasis also on reading/language. But I’ll agree that she’s at least “as expert” as the others. (And BTW, the more I learn about the politics involved in the National Math Panel, the less I view its report as the 10 Commandments, nor its participants as the high priests of math…sorry, not sure why I veered into religious terminology!)

3) Dr. Stotsky should not be characterized as a somehow “more objective” observer. Like many mathematics experts, she is also a consultant to a textbook company (Sadler-Oxford Mathematics). I have no idea if that company’s programs are being considered in Ridgewood, but the point is, everyone has a point of view; seems to me there is no such thing as a truly objective expert.

4) Dr. Stotsky did not benignly “learn of” our internal math divisions but rather was actively recruited by a parent with an agenda and admitted desire to undermine the administration. It would not surprise me if District personnel were at least suspect of the motivations. (This is my guess; no one said this to me.)

5) There has been no direct communication between Dr. Stotsky and the District administration. She did not approach, write, call or email the District.

6) The misinformation email says there’s “no end in sight” in our math effort. That’s not true. The Team is working according to a publicized schedule/plan and the end is certainly within sight.

7) The email mentions Dr. Stotsky’s involvement in Massachusetts’ high scores in the TIMMS test, and that Mass is “one of only two U.S. states to receive top scores in the international TIMMS tests, scores that rank them near the Asian countries that lead the TIMMS every year.” The truth of Massachusetts’ TIMMS performance should be taken with a grain of salt — there were only a few states who even participated in the tests as states. New Jersey did not. (It’s my understanding that any state or group of schools can pay to be scored as a group). The test mainly measures countries’ performance. Also, Massachusetts is not New Jersey (in a nutshell). (And as an aside, isn’t Massachusetts the home of TERC/Investigations? Aren’t they using it in a lot of schools there? What does that mean?. Kind of ironic, at the very least!)

You know what, Mr. Misinformation? This is not helping. (And by “this” I don’t mean talking about math. Talking and sharing are good. I welcome your comments. What’s not helpful is spreading misinformation and trying to fan the flames.) We have a plan. We have smart Ridgewood educators working on the plan. We have experts advising our educators. I’m looking forward to seeing what the Team comes up with and asking my questions at that time.

Posted by Laurie Goodman

Posted on

>South Broad Street was chosen for COAH housing because . . .

>As evidenced by recent postings on this Blog and others, spin doctors with close ties to Planning Board and Village Council members are working hard now to sell South Broad Street as the only “practical/reasonable” location for affordable housing in Ridgewood.

Thus far, we’ve heard the following rationales:

1) South Broad Street’s proximity to public transportation – Isn’t the property on Paramus Road where The Baker Organization wants to construct cluster housing within walking distance of several bus stops along Route 17 (including the Park & Ride) and Linwood Avenue?

2) South Broad Street’s proximity to shopping – Again, isn’t the Paramus Road site within walking distance of K-Mart, Stop & Shop, and other stores on Route 17 in Paramus?

3) The availability of a large parcel, a willing property owner, and interested developer on South Broad Street – Ditto for the Paramus Road location, correct?

It is being widely rumored now that South Broad Street was selected as the sole location for construction of all additional affordable housing units because Planning Board and Village Council members believe residents of the South Broad Street area would be less capable of forming an organized opposition group than residents of any other Ridgewood neighborhood.

Specifically, due to organized opposition to the Baker Organization’s Paramus Road cluster housing proposal, neither the Planning Board nor Village Council wanted to designate any area near Route 17 (including the Schedler property) as being suitable for affordable housing.

If Planning Board/Village Council endorsed COAH units had been included in the Baker Organization’s plan, it might have increased Baker’s chances before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Neither the Planning Board nor Village Council wished to be in a position of endorsing a project being opposed by a large block of potential voters.

The lesson here folks is certainly that the squeaky wheel gets greased. Like it or not, potential votes matter, even when the next Village Council election is more than one year away.

Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Posted on

>Still true to this day ……..

>

Food Court (Formerly Ridgewood), NJ

Towns That Might As Well Go With What They’ve Got

By JIM TOSONE

Published in the Sunday New York Times on June 24, 2001

The Village of Ridgewood. A town of charming center-hall colonials, schools that are thought to be way-stations to the Ivy League, and restaurants that are rated Excellent. And restaurants rated Good. And restaurants rated Fair.

According to my count, Ridgewood’s business district has 61 restaurants—and 62 parking spaces. On a typical Saturday evening, you circle the block in your Jeep Grand Cherokee in search of a parking space, ready to swoop in for the kill. On the following Saturday evening, you finally find a space. If you’re an early diner, you must calculate the amount of money to put in the parking meter with same care you use when fine-tuning your asset allocation model. You then duck into the Ridgewood Wine Seller for a quick purchase, since many Ridgewood restaurants still have not figured out whom to bribe for a liquor license. And after the mandatory 15- to 20-minute wait in the doorway of your favorite restaurant, you’re escorted to a table.

The sheer number of dining establishments in Ridgewood has transformed the business district and driven out other types of businesses. Those who see this as a problem fall into three groups: town officials, who see everything as a problem except for the problems they create; restaurant owners, who do not see it as a problem until after they’ve opened their restaurant; and restaurant patrons, who somehow manage to believe this is a problem while complaining about there being “no place to eat around here.”

Ridgewood’s restaurant situation raises a larger question. Why should all New Jersey towns struggle to be all things to all people? Why not have each town dedicated to one industry? There’s precedence elsewhere: Orlando for children’s entertainment, Silicon Valley for technology, Miami for drugs. It’s Adam Smith’s idea of specialization of labor.

And there’s only one way to ensure the free-market principle of specialization of labor. We must mandate it, we must make any alternative illegal, we must carve it in stone for all eternity. So I’m looking for a visionary state legislator (stop laughing) who is willing to sponsor a bill that would:

o Require that all restaurants in New Jersey be moved to Ridgewood and that the town be renamed the Garden State Food Court.

o Require that a translucent dome be built over Paramus, making it the world’s largest indoor shopping mall.

o Require that all local public schools be moved to Princeton. We’re paying Ivy League per-pupil rates for our kids’ education, so we might as well get a prestige town name thrown in. To transport our kids to Princeton each day, the state will confiscate all private buses currently used to haul the elderly to Atlantic City.

o Require that Atlantic City focus all of its efforts and attention on the gaming industry, while letting the rest of the city collapse. (Strike that. It’s already the policy.)

o Require that all local and county governments be moved to Trenton. This, along with moving the public schools, would provide us with true property tax relief, since our property taxes would then be zero. Sure, our state income tax will skyrocket, but that’s going to happen anyway.

o Require that all antiques, with the exception of Frank Lautenberg, be sold in the town of Chester.

o Require that anyone moving from Park Slope live in Montclair. This way they’ll already know their new neighbors, who moved from Park Slope last year.

o Require that all airports in New Jersey be shut down except for Teterboro. If this happens, the time for a Continental flight to Boston would be about eight hours—a one-hour improvement over the current flight time from Newark.

Specialization has the potential to make New Jersey a paradise on earth. And to those who ask where all the cars bound for these towns are going to park, I have but three words: the Pine Barrens.

Posted on

The name calling of those who criticize Spec. Ed. is typical and why we can never have a serious discussion about the expenditures.

>If you say one word that is critical, you are accused of “picking on the children.” We have a problem here in Ridgewood and it needs to be addressed without demonizing those who believe that it spending has gotten out of control.

The howls from parents are deafening when one suggests that maybe we should have alternatives to placing children in the mainstream of schools.

3balls Golfshow?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=149749

Posted on

voters as being potentially dangerous?

>We couldn’t help but notice that he refers to voters as “strangers” and later, anyone entering the schools as “visitors.” Is there something here that betrays a view of voters as being potentially dangerous?

THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Superintendent’s Corner
November 2008
by
Daniel Fishbein, Ed.D.

The Superintendent’s Thanksgiving Proclamation
Garlic potatoes! Those two words sum up Thanksgiving for me. Year after year this one concern defines the holiday in our household: Who’s making the garlic potatoes this year? Who makes them the best? Who really makes them the best?
Thanksgiving! There’s nothing better than spending time at home with family and friends, or visiting others to share good cheer and food. The pressures associated with gifts and other holiday trappings are absent, leaving only simple worries, such as whether the garlic potatoes make it to the table. Thanksgiving is a holiday that is casual in dress, yet rich in conversation and spirituality. My Thanksgiving Day always begins with a traditional Turkey Day run with former high school track teammates. We may all be getting older, but we would never dare complain to each other about our aches and pains (that’s what families are for). Later we enjoy the three standard Thanksgiving football games: the Ridgewood High School game in the morning, our family game on the front lawn, and finally, the Dallas Cowboys on TV later in the day. (Yes, I did write the Dallas Cowboys!) This wonderful, long holiday weekend is an ongoing celebration of family, friends, food, and home — all the things that make us feel safe.

The Ridgewood Public Schools are our children’s “home away from home” each day of the school year, and this reassuring sense of place is sustained by district policies and procedures designed to make our buildings and facilities as secure and safe as possible. This fall our district has dealt with trespassers in two of our buildings, two precautionary evacuations due to the smell of gas at another, and concerns about strangers entering our schools to vote on Election Day. In each of these situations, good decisions were made in accordance with the high value we place on the safety of each and every child and employee. These instances also presented opportunities to test and fine-tune our district’s safety procedures. Election Day, in particular, provided a unique living history lesson for our students as they observed our neighbors at the voting booths. Every child had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to witness both democracy in action and history being made as the country elected our first African-American president.
We want our buildings to be a welcoming place for our children and visitors alike. It is especially important that visitors – including parents and guardians – can enter our buildings and see the enormity of the education process and the excitement and wonder in learning that happens inside. Every day, dozens of times, we welcome visitors as part of the valuable partnership we have with the Ridgewood community.
To safeguard this partnership, parents, guardians, residents and all others are asked to respect and follow the district’s simple but safety-minded procedures when visiting our schools.

Everyone, except our students and school staff members, must be buzzed into the school buildings and report to the respective main offices to sign in and obtain visitors’ badges. We cannot achieve our safety goals without the assistance and support of everyone working in the district, as well as the community at large.
Our district has three important communication avenues in place to contact family members, guardians and caretakers in the unlikely event of a weather-related, or other safety-related, emergency during school hours. The first is our Swift911 system, which was established last year to facilitate rapid contact with parents and guardians about emergency situations, school closings, early dismissals or other important issues affecting our students. This system allows us to send personalized messages to a home phone, cell phone, work phone or e-mail, and to reach the entire Ridgewood Public Schools family within minutes. Parents and guardians should take time to make sure that emergency contact information is up to date. The Community Pass system is the venue for reviewing that data.

In addition to Swift911, any urgent communications will be posted on the home page of the district’s website, where links to the pages on Emergency Closings and the Emergency Response Plan can also be found. Finally, for those who haven’t already done so, please sign up for the free rps.eNews service, which provides up-to-date district news via e-mail. In the event of an emergency closing or other urgent situation, an e-mail bulletin will be sent to all subscribers. Links for subscribing to rps.eNews, editing emergency contact information using Community Pass, and reviewing the District Emergency Information pages can all be found on the home page of the RPS website at www.ridgdewood.k12.nj.us.

Finally, if you are a parent and hear rumors that concern you, please reach out to your child’s Principal. Borrowing from a post-9/11 radio ad: If you see something, say something.

As you celebrate Thanksgiving this year, I hope you find time to relax and enjoy the simple pleasures with family and friends. Whether it is garlic potatoes or some other favorite recipe, may it be sweet and delicious. I hope this Thanksgiving brings you all the hope and happiness that it brings me each and every year.

Posted on

>The result has been an absolute financial catastrophe for New Jersey.

>Just over five years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided on two of the most important cases in the state’s fiscal history– Lonegan vs. State I 174 NJ 435 (2002) and Lonegan vs. State II 176 NJ 2 (2003).

A disappointing loss in Lonegan I allowed Republican Governor Whitman’s plan to borrow $8.6 billion without voter approval to construct schools in 28 urban districts as ordered by the Supreme Court in Abbot vs. Burke. The Supreme Court would not allow voters to reject something it had mandated, no matter how costly or destructive.

But the court claimed it was troubled by the method used to borrow money without voter approval as required by Article VIII of the NJ Constitution. A “shell entity,” also known as a straw man, the NJ Economic Development Authority, issued bonds to borrow the money—even though it had no income. Then the state made contracts to pay all obligations on those bonds with tax revenues for the next 30 years. The problem is that there is no guarantee that future payments will be made. These annual payments are subject to approval by the legislature and conceivably can be voted down. Most purchasers of this contract debt are not aware of this risk, but investment firms continue to sell these bonds as if they are risk free.

Supreme Court Justice Stein, writing in 2002, was alarmed that this gimmick had been used to borrow $10.8 billion, 75 percent of the state’s bonded debt, without voter approval. He urged the Court to agree with my assertion and end the practice.

But the Supreme Court delayed that part of the decision until after Justice Stein, clearly sympathetic to my case, had reached the mandatory retirement age, and was replaced by Justice Albin, appointed by Governor McGreevey.

In Lonegan II, the Supreme Court in a heart breaking 4-3 decision approved all state borrowing for any purpose without voter approval—as long as a shell entity did the borrowing without pledging the full faith and credit of the state. In essence, the State Supreme Court is complicit in what could be the largest consumer fraud scheme by any state in the country-selling bonds as if they have been approved by voters.

The result has been an absolute financial catastrophe for New Jersey. In his 2008 State of the State Address, Corzine blamed Supreme Court decisions for “the sharp deterioration of our State’s finances,” which included $32 billion in bonded debt, only $3 billion of which was approved by voters. I agree with the Governor’s statements. But Governor Corzine’s actions do not follow his words. Six months after criticizing New Jersey’s “credit card culture” that ignored our Constitution, Governor Corzine approved using the old gimmicks to borrow $3.9 billion more without voter approval.

There are other reasons to reconsider and overrule the previous Lonegan decisions. First, Lonegan II relied on bad history. It claimed that New Jersey’s 1844 Constitution, which first required voter approval of new state debt, was framed to prevent states from defaulting on debts backed by the “full faith and credit” of taxpayers.

However, many scholars today, like University of Maryland Professor of Economic History John Joseph Wallis, take a different view. They suggest that the 1844 framers wanted to end “systematic corruption” where politicians had too many opportunities to get bribes and political support by favoring some businesses at the expense of others. The framers of 1844 reduced those opportunities by requiring voter approval of new state debt. Other reforms in that 1844 Constitution time included uniform laws that took the politics out of forming new corporations and local governments.

Second, Lonegan II put way too much faith in Wall Street.

“(T)he state has responded to changes in the financial markets that reflect modern economic realities. .
yesterday’s speculation has become ‘sound and economical current business practice. . . “ Lonegan,
supra, 176 NJ at 14.

In his October 23, 2008 testimony to Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan showed the framers of New Jersey’s Constitution to be far more reliable than today’s Wall Street “geniuses.”

“In recent decades, a vast risk management and pricing system has evolved, combining the best
insights of mathematicians and finance experts. . . The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed
in the summer of last year because the data inputted into the risk management models generally
covered only the past two decades, a period of euphoria. . .”

Finally, last November 4, 2008, New Jersey voters approved amendments to Article VIII of New Jersey’s Constitution which prohibits this type of borrowing without voter approval. But this case is far from moot. The Amendment only applies to future borrowing.

Also, the new Amendment has this troublesome language, which did not appear in the ballot question:

“No voter approval shall be required for. . . refinancing of all or a portion of any outstanding debts or
liabilities of. . . an autonomous public corporate entity…”

Does that mean the state can refinance NJ’s $29 billion of old “contract debt” with new debt backed by the full faith and credit of the state—without voter approval? Future litigation may be needed to decide that issue. But in the meantime, there are many reasons to reconsider and reverse Lonegan I and Lonegan II, and the future fiscal health of New Jersey will rest on this decision.

Steve Lonegan
State Director
Americans For Prosperity

Posted on

>At Bookends in December

>Rocco Dispirito
Saturday, December 6th – 4:00pm
Just in time for the Holidays, please welcome back Rocco Dispirito (from TV’s The Restaurant and most recently Dancing With The Stars) and “Mama” as they discuss and sign his latest Cookbook: Rocco Gets Real… perfect gift for the Chef in the family!

SPECIAL CHILDRENS EVENT!
Bernadette Peters
Saturday, December 13th – 2pm-4pm
Broadway Star Bernadette Peters will discuss and sign: Broadway Barks. This wonderfully illustrated Childrens Book includes a CD and offers the story of a scraggly, gray dog living in Central park who is befriended by a lady (Peters) who makes it to the Stage to sing and dance… bring the kids!

Santa
Saturday, December 20th – 12:00pm – 2:00pm
Come Meet Santa Claus and have him sign your favorite Holiday book.

if you are holding and event in Ridgewood this December please let us know …its FREE!