Ridgewood NJ, From “Take Back Ridgewood” Facebook page the Village manager Roberta Sonefield claims the garage can be vacant, and we can still pay for it with the street parking revenue. Lets build a 4 level garage instead of 5 levels. The Village Manager herself is confirming it this short video.
Which begs the question to anyone who will ever pay it, why increase the meter rates…? If she’s so sure. Why put a further burden on the CBD and potential shoppers. Video courtesy Gail McLaughlin McCarthy https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7885900
Ridgewood NJ, The Ridgewood News controversial edit of “Letter to the editor” sparks further controversy on Hudson Garage and a the referendum at next general election.
According to Gail McLaughlin McCarthy ,”They edited. We gave them our attorneys contact info and they chose not to call them to fact check. ridiculous. The petition will be submitted April 12. We are confident that if a special election is called, it is because the council majority chooses to spend more money. On top of the $600,000.00 already spent according to Gwenn.
Here is the letter we actually submitted, before the editors got hold of it. We supplied backup of all statements, yet they still edited.
By Lindsey Burke, Neal McCluskey, Theodor Rebarber, Stanley Kurtz, William A. Estradaand Williamson M. Evers
Stop a federal bureaucrat, a schoolteacher, and a parent on the street and you will likely hear three different observations about what education can, and should, do. Considering these differing perspectives provides insight into why opposition to Common Core has been strongest among parents. National standards may provide useful information to state and federal policymakers, but have driven curriculum and pedagogy in a way that dissatisfies parents. Each of the essays contained in this short compendium delivers a different perspective on the shortcomings of the push for Common Core national standards, but each concludes that American education will not flourish under a system that is increasingly centralized.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Lindsey BurkeWill Skillman Fellow in Education
Domestic Policy Studies
Neal McCluskey
Theodor Rebarber
Stanley Kurtz
William A. Estrada
Williamson M. Evers
Introduction
What should education accomplish? The question has a narrow answer when the respondent is a federal bureaucrat, charged with counting academic outcomes in the aggregate to assess student performance relative to some national metric. But as the respondent gets closer to the student—or is himself the student—the answer is far more refined and paints a more nuanced picture of what individuals hope to achieve through education.
Stop a federal bureaucrat, a school teacher, and a parent on the street and you will likely hear three different observations about what education can, and should, do. The federal bureaucrat may respond in terms of what education should accomplish for the nation; the teacher might filter her response through the lens of her classroom; and the parent, naturally, will think in aspirational terms of what she hopes education can do for her child.
Considering these differing perspectives on the purpose of education provides insight into why opposition to Common Core has been strongest among parents and why national organizations and governors—responding to federal incentives to stick with the national standards and tests—have been slower to reverse course or even reconsider. National standards may provide useful information to state and federal policymakers, but they have driven curriculum and pedagogy in a direction that dissatisfies parents.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative was created by Achieve, Inc., and driven primarily by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association. The effort began moving forward in earnest in 2009, with the financial support of the Obama Administration. Following the introduction of Common Core, the Administration offered $4.35 billion in federal Race to the Top grant money, along with waivers from the onerous provisions of the widely derided No Child Left Behind Act.
Forty-six states signed on to Common Core, either enticed by the waiver/grant package dangled before them by Washington, or out of a belief in the project itself. Whatever the motivation, the Common Core standards, along with federally funded common assessments aligned to the standards, put American education on the path toward a national curriculum.
Some policymakers and many parents voiced concerns about what would surely lead to significant growth in federal intervention in education as a result of the federally funded Common Core push. As columnist George Will put it, Common Core is “the thin end of a potentially enormous federal wedge.”[1] As Will concludes:
It is not about the content of the standards, which would be objectionable even if written by Aristotle and refined by Shakespeare. Rather, the point is that, unless stopped now, the federal government will not stop short of finding in Common Core a pretext for becoming a national school board.
To improve education, choice is the only “common standard” that is needed. Parents should have choice among schools, teaching methods, and, critically, curricula.
The essays contained in this short compendium each deliver a different perspective on the shortcomings of the push for Common Core national standards, but each concludes that American education will not flourish under a system that is increasingly centralized. They are each adapted from talks delivered at The Heritage Foundation on November 19, 2014.
—Lindsey M. Burke
The March Toward Centralized Education
A historical review of federal education policy makes one fact clear: the trajectory of Common Core is a direct path to a federal curriculum.
During the colonial period and into the 1830s, education was something that was expected to occur in the home, in voluntary communities, in religious communities—the government, especially the national government, did not have a large role. Indeed, until about 1830 and the beginning of the Common School movement, education was something that was based in civil society. In the 1830s, Horace Mann became the “Father of the Common Schools,” and he and others pointed to Prussia, France, and the Netherlands to make their case for nationalized education. This is not to argue that Mann desired federal control, but in the common school model the germs of federal involvement in education are visible.
In 1867, the first iteration of the U.S. Department of Education was introduced. But within two years it was downgraded to just a bureau of education, the function of which was to collect statistics, not in any way control education. The next federal foray into K–12 education—though the law was more about higher education—would not come until almost a century later, with the 1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA).
At this juncture, the federal government was still trying to find constitutional justification for its involvement in education by arguing its actions were, for instance, connected to defense, something over which the Constitution gives the federal government authority. In any event, the NDEA was the first time the federal government became significantly involved in trying to control education. This federal involvement was not limited to higher learning; it also encompassed K–12 education, driven by science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) issues, the justification being that the United States needed more scientists, more engineers, and better mathematicians.
By 1965, the federal government, through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), expanded its involvement beyond areas with explicit defense connections. Importantly, the government did not mention increased federal control over education; rather, funding was the primary justification for this expansion
In 1979, the Department of Education was created, largely at the behest at the National Education Association (NEA). The NEA was, at this point, a new teacher’s union (albeit a very large teacher’s union). When Jimmy Carter was elected President, power over education became further concentrated in Washington.
In 1983, with the publication of “A Nation at Risk,” further centralization of education in Washington became a moral imperative. People began to look to the federal government to fix the nation’s crippled education system. Shortly thereafter, the ESEA reauthorization required, for the first time, that states define achievement levels for federally supported students and identify schools in which students were not making acceptable progress.
In 1994, GOALS 2000 was proffered, which contained a small financial incentive for states to adopt standards and assessments. At the same time, the ESEA was reauthorized as the Improving America’s Schools Act, with an eye toward linking adoption of standards and tests to a state’s ability to acquire Title I funds. Meanwhile, the federal government funded the development of national standards in several subjects, but the history standards were pretty much reviled by the entire country, and Congress halted, at least for the moment, the overt move toward national standards.
In 2001, the debate over the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act began, and by January 2002 the legislation had been signed into law. The passage of the NCLB is a landmark moment for federal control in education, as, for the first time, Washington was to dictate state standards, while mandating state testing and yearly progress goals—even the breaking down of scores by sub-groups of students. The NCLB did not, however, prescribe what would be taught.
In July 2009, the Department of Education announced Race to the Top, which called for states to be evaluated on a number of criteria proposed by the Obama Administration. For example, states would now have to adopt common standards that were common to a majority of states. There was only one standard that met that requirement, so it was not stated specifically in the regulations; its identity, however, was obvious: Common Core. Race to the Top was followed by waivers from the NCLB, again attached, in part, to the adoption of common standards by states.
Why is Common Core problematic? As evidence from both inside and outside the United States makes clear, centralization and control do not work; rather, freedom is the force that sparks educational improvement. Freedom unleashes competition, which, in turn, drives innovation and leads to specialization. The idea that there should be one monolithic set of standards and that everybody should move at the same rate makes no sense, as anyone who has met more than one child can readily attest.
Moreover, real accountability, immediate accountability, comes from freedom, choice, the ability to leave a provider that is not giving you what you want and take your business elsewhere. That is why there are a lot of recommendations for what to do when states get rid of Common Core.
Ultimately, the solution to America’s education problems is not more centralization. Instead, the answer is to create school choice for everyone. Furthermore, America’s teachers need to be free to try different approaches, so they can focus on the needs of unique subsets of students. Funding should also be attached to students, so that parents can seek out those providers that are best for the unique needs of their child. Ultimately, this nation has moved in exactly the wrong direction. Americans do not need centralization at the national level; rather, we need to move to complete decentralization so we can treat children as what they are: unique individuals.
—Neal McCluskey
Instead of Nationalization, States Need to Provide Local Flexibility on Standards and Assessments
At the dawn of the educational standards and testing reform movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s, two very different arguments were advanced on behalf of state academic standards and tests as a replacement for what had been a local decision. These two arguments were based on different models for how reform based on standards and tests would impact schools and students.
The first of these models was advanced by Chester “Checker” Finn Jr., a former Assistant Secretary of Education in the Reagan Administration. Finn maintained that a shift to school choice—which he supported—required that parents be informed choosers; that as in any market, consumers must be able to make an informed choice in order for the market to be effective in promoting quality products and services. Within the education context, Finn argued, parental consumers would need to be informed by standards-based tests developed by the states in order to ensure their rigor and reliability. In this model, the standards-based assessments serve as an end-of-year quality check that parents can use to inform a decision to choose a different school for their child or to keep him or her in the same school. Because this model relies on market-based language, many conservatives, and even some libertarians, were persuaded to support the state standards and testing movement.
The second intellectual model for state standards and testing, referred to as “systemic reform,” was advanced by Marshall “Mike” Smith, who later became Undersecretary of Education in the Clinton Administration. In Smith’s model, as it was refined over time, curriculum standards serve as the fulcrum for educational reform implemented based on state decisions; state policy elites aim to create excellence in the classroom using an array of policy levers and knobs—all aligned back to the standards—including testing, textbook adoption, teacher preparation, teacher certification and evaluation, teacher training, goals and timetables for school test score improvement, and state accountability based on those goals and timetables.
As it turned out, it is the second model that now predominates and drives instruction in most public schools and districts. Rather than a state-validated metric used to inform parental choice at the end of the school year, state academic standards became a blueprint according to which schools and classrooms operate throughout the year as well as a tool used by policymakers to oversee them from above. The disappointing track record of this approach in achieving its ambitious goals resulted, in 2009, in its adherents proposing national—rather than state—academic standards and testing: Common Core.
As the full effects of standards-based “systemic reform” were felt in state after state since the implementation of the federal NCLB, opposition—including from parents—has grown. Parents support testing when they can use it as one piece of information among others to evaluate whether the needs of their children are being met. Such usage has been the historical role of testing in private schools, where it does not drive the curriculum or school operations. If the results are not what parents expect, they are free to discuss the matter with the school’s educators and, if not satisfied, transfer their child to a different private school. Parents continue to support this use of testing; however, support for standards-based tests as a major, even dominant, focus of instruction and academic operations is now declining. Standards are, after all, not well-designed as a roadmap for instruction. Indeed, from the standpoint of many parents, having your child reduced to a decimal point in a state accountability formula used by bureaucrats to judge your school is problematic. Parents do not support such testing because it does not necessarily meet the needs of their child; in fact, such rigid formulas are often not very useful in evaluating overall school quality either.
Common Core defines and constrains the content and sequencing of the curriculum—and, in many cases, even the instructional methods—to such an extent that the distinction is disingenuous.
The Singapore math standards, for example, require mastery of the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction at early elementary grades. (On this point, they are generally consistent with the standards of other high-achieving Asian countries.) In first grade, Singapore starts with applying the standard algorithm to addition of 2-digit numbers. The expectation is increased to 3-digit numbers by second grade, followed by 4-digit numbers in third grade. Singapore increases expectations gradually, teaching conceptual understanding as well as computational fluency.
Common Core has a dramatically different approach, even though it claims to be internationally benchmarked. It delays mastery of the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction until fourth grade. Why? At earlier grades, Common Core has students practicing until fluent various “non-standard” approaches, typically based on place value, with the goal of teaching conceptual knowledge. After spending their early elementary years on these alternative approaches, in fourth grade, students are suddenly expected to demonstrate mastery of the standard algorithm with large numbers. Such questionable, unproven approaches should not be mandated nationwide.
Apart from particular topics, Common Core encourages the teaching of all mathematics through an approach that is at odds with what is used in high-achieving nations. Andrew Porter, a scholar who largely subscribes to Common Core’s instructional philosophy—the modern version of instructional progressivism—performed a systematic comparison of all of the Common Core math standards with those of top-achieving nations. He found striking differences in emphasis across grade levels. At the eighth grade, for example, 75 percent of the curriculum standards in high-achieving countries address the “doing” of math—such things as solving word problems or equations. At the same grade level, only 38 percent of the Common Core standards addressed “doing” math; instead, Common Core placed much greater emphasis on such things as talking about math. Common Core is not consistent with international standards.
The bottom line is that these critical curricular differences are at the core of what schools do: both what is taught and how. Schools must be able to differentiate in these crucial areas, offer parents a meaningful choice, and compete to see which best serves the needs of each student.
Instead of states mandating a single curricular approach within their geographic boundaries—much less a single national approach such as Common Core—states should empower local school systems and other educational providers to select quality standards and aligned tests that fit their instructional philosophy, while also empowering parents to choose from among different schools the one which best meets the needs of their children.
—Theodor Rebarber
Curriculum Constriction: Common Core and the Advanced Placement Program
Americans today are divided about the meaning of our history. This division appears to be growing, and represents a significant challenge for our society. Yet, the genius of the Founders was to devise a system that grants citizens at the levels of the state, the school district, and the classroom the freedom to teach not only history, but also every other subject as they see fit. So America’s constitutional system is adept at accommodating our divisions over the meaning of our history, but only for as long as we cherish and protect the principles of federalism, local control, and freedom they embody.
Sadly, these great principles now face a challenge. Until recently, debate over the creeping nationalization of the school curriculum has focused on Common Core. In the fall of 2014, however, the College Board, the nonprofit entity that creates and administers the SAT and Advanced Placement (AP) tests, released a detailed, controversial, and highly directive “framework” for the teaching of AP U.S. History. Prior to this, AP U.S. history teachers were able to follow a brief topical outline that allowed our national story to be taught from a wide range of perspectives.
The release of the new AP U.S. History framework stirred up a national debate. Traditionalists and conservatives criticized the framework for giving short shrift to both the Founding and our fundamental constitutional principles, for highlighting America’s foibles and failings at the expense of our strengths, and for downplaying America’s distinctive characteristics.
Let us first consider the question of which subjects fall under the purview of Common Core. While Common Core is meant to have implications for the teaching of reading and writing in the sciences, in social studies, and in technical classes, for the most part, Common Core is about English and math.
Common Core’s architect, David Coleman, has become president of the College Board. Under Coleman’s leadership, the College Board has begun to radically redesign all of its Advanced Placement exams, not just AP U.S. History. Ultimately, this transformation will also include subjects such as Physics, World History, European History, U.S. Government and Politics, and Art History. So in effect, Common Core covers English and math, while the College Board’s AP subjects cover the rest of the curriculum.
It is important that we do not lose sight of what is happening here in a haze of semantics. No doubt we will be told that AP U.S. History is not formally part of Common Core. That is merely an evasion, like all the other evasions Common Core advocates have thrown up to obscure the federal power grab that has been driving Common Core.
We need to bring the College Board and the AP redesign process into the center of the debate over Common Core. The distinction between Common Core and the AP redesign effort is artificial and only serves to insulate the College Board from public accountability.
We also need to take steps on both the state and federal levels to break the College Board’s monopoly on Advanced Placement testing. After all, even Common Core, which is far too nationalized as it is, has two testing consortia. Yet the College Board is the only company to offer AP testing. And as of now, state and federal governments channel tens of millions of dollars to the College Board, making it in effect a government-supported monopoly.
Congress needs to see to it that its AP testing subsidies are distributed in a way that encourages competition rather than preventing it. Furthermore, states need to consider authorizing the development of alternative AP tests that can compete with those developed by the College Board.
It is time to wake up and realize that Common Core has radically expanded its reach, capturing the entire spectrum of the curriculum, not in name, but in fact. If we are ever to restore local control and public accountability to America’s education system, the College Board’s recent power grab must be a central component of the debate over Common Core.
—Stanley Kurtz
Common Core Even Impacts Those Who Have Chosen Something Different Than Government Schooling
Common Core is good for homeschooling.
In 1999, the National Center for Education Statistics found that there were 850,000 homeschooled students in the United States. Thirteen years later in 2012, the National Center for Education Statistics (an arm of the Department of Education) found that there were 1.8 million homeschool students in the United States.[2] Now homeschooling is growing, and, as those of us who have been fighting Common Core know, 2012 is about the time when Common Core began to be implemented. All of a sudden, Common Core was being foisted upon kids and families in the public schools of states that had adopted the standards.
Homeschooling is skyrocketing. In Alabama, for example, it was reported that growing numbers of families are choosing to homeschool their children in part because of concerns about Common Core in their states.[3] Genevieve Wood reported at The Daily Signal that in North Carolina, where numbers are starting to come out for the 2013–2014 school year, they have seen a massive increase in the number of students who are being homeschooled over the previous year. There were 60,950 homeschoolers in North Carolina in the 2013–2014 school year, a 14.3 percent increase from the prior year. There are now almost 100,000 homeschooled students in North Carolina.[4]
In a recent article in Politico about moms winning the battle of Common Core, there appeared the following great first sentence: “The millions have proven no match for the moms.”[5] Moms and dads—whether in public schools, in private schools, or in homeschools—are frustrated. Parents are losing local control over the education of their children. They are losing the ability to do something as simple as homework with their kids. And now, they are voting with their feet.
The playful opening sentence of this article—that Common Core is great for homeschooling—is true on one level: Yes, homeschool numbers are increasing. But Common Core also threatens the foundation of homeschooling.[6]
Specifically, there is language in federal law—the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—that says that nothing in the act will apply to homeschoolers and private schools that do not receive federal funds.[7] The current Common Core effort has applied solely to the public schools thus far, but if proponents are successful at establishing a nationalized one-size-fits-all approach to education, policymakers will likely inquire as to why homeschoolers and private-schoolers are not taking the same tests. How do we know, the argument will go, that these children are receiving a good education?
Some of the other concerns that we are seeing are tests (SAT, ACT, PSAT) being re-aligned to Common Core.[8] Will homeschoolers be disadvantaged even though they have received an excellent education?
Then there is the concern from school districts misinterpreting these policies. Westfield, New Jersey, for example, tried to force homeschoolers (who are independent of the public school system) to follow Common Core. The Home School Legal Defense Association intervened, and Westfield backed off its outrageous demand. This incident, however, is but a preview of what homeschoolers will face in a truly nationalized education system.[9] Finally, there is also the issue of student databases.[10] Many of the same people who were concerned about Common Core are also concerned about this parallel rise of the loss of control over students’ private information.
In an actual slide presented at a conference in Orlando, Florida, in 2011, the Counsel of Chief State School Officers, which was heavily involved, along with the National Governors Association and Achieve Inc., in pushing Common Core, discussed their recommendations for how to improve their statewide databases with the goal of having national databases. The slide read: “Include student groups not now included, e.g. homeschooled, in the data system.”[11] There is a push, when it comes to centralized education, to include all students (homeschool, public school, and private school) in these databases.
In an effort to be free from Common Core and its onerous mandates, more and more parents are removing their children from America’s public schools. But this battle against Common Core does not just concern homeschoolers—all families, no matter whether their children attend a public school, a private school, or a home school, must work together in this struggle against the standardization of education. As the Supreme Court held in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children is a fundamental right. If we lose control over what our children are being taught, then we have lost that fundamental right.
—William A. Estrada
Common Core: Blocking “Exit” and Stifling “Voice”
One of the most influential and most cited books in social science in the past 50 years is economist Albert Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.[12]
Hirschman’s book discusses how individuals respond to a situation in which the services on which they rely are deteriorating. The book provides valuable conceptual tools for analyzing the design of the Common Core national curriculum-content standards.
Hirschman points out that the two basic responses to deteriorating services are “exit” and “voice,” where exit means turning to a different provider or leaving the territory, while voice means political participation.[13]
Exit usually has lower costs than voice for the individual. But here we should add the limiting case: Exit can have high costs when individuals are loyal to institutions—thus the third component in Hirschman’s trio of “exit,” “voice,” and “loyalty.”[14]
With exit, you can simply turn to a different provider or move to a different place (sometimes quite nearby, sometimes afar). Such a move is sometimes called “voting with your feet.”
Loyalty can be strong in politics, but it can also be lost.[15] Think of the American Revolution and the breaking away of the United States from the British Empire.
In the 1830s, when Alexis de Tocqueville visited America from France, he found Americans intensely loyal to, and participating in, their public schools. These Americans saw the public schools as extensions of their families and neighborhoods. They viewed public schools—even though public schools in those days usually charged a fee—as akin to voluntarily supported charities and as part of what Tocqueville then, and social scientists today, call “civil society.”[16]The public in those days saw public schools as something quite separate from distant political elites in faraway state and federal capitals.
Tocqueville feared that if ever Americans neglected their participation in associations or local government entities like school committees, the tendency would be toward a loss of liberty and a surrender to what Tocqueville called a “mild despotism.”[17]
Today, many years after Tocqueville, public sentiment about the public schools still retains much of the feeling of “loyalty” that people had in Tocqueville’s day, a feeling that fuels the current passion for local control. Yet—not surprisingly, given the public school monopoly—parents and taxpayers view the public schools as an unresponsive, declining bureaucracy carrying out edicts from distant capitals.[18]
This monopoly problem in public school education was precisely why economist Milton Friedman called for opportunity scholarships (also known as vouchers) to create a powerful exit option.[19]But even in the absence of opportunity scholarships and charter schools, competitive federalism has, in the past, created exit options.[20]
Common Core undermines the exit option and undermines competitive federalism. Indeed, in part, it was designed to do so. It likewise evaded and negated the voice option during the adherence process—and continues to do so. The designers of Common Core wanted nationwide uniformity. States have to adhere to the Common Core in toto because of boilerplate memorandums of understanding. A few topics can be added, but none can be subtracted or moved to a different grade.
There is no feedback loop and no process to consider and implement proposed changes.[21] Any proposed nationwide fixes would have to be negotiated between the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers jointly, as well as each of the adhering states. Such a process is prohibitively difficult to put into practice. Therefore, frustrated constituents who have complaints about the merits of Common Core have no place to exercise their voice in a way that would lead to repair or what Hirschman would call “recuperation.” Instead, critics are driven to oppose the curriculum content of Common Core as a whole.
But as Lenore T. Ealy writes, “regardless of the merit” of the Common Core national standards, “it still matters…whether there are rights of exit.”[22] The policymakers of this malign utopia forgot a few things. They forgot that the desire for voice—the desire for political action—can become particularly intense when people are faced with the prospect of “nowhere to exit to.”[23] They forgot that hemming in parents and teachers would create a demand for political change, alternatives, and escape routes.[24]
Alternatives to the national tests have arisen. Organized parents are pressing for repeal of Common Core and the dropping of the national tests that support it. Some states are already rejecting the national tests.[25] States are also struggling to escape the Common Core cartel itself.[26] Parents are opting out of the Common Core tests.[27] Indeed, what Hirschman calls an “intimate fusion of exit and voice is already underway.”[28]
Ultimately, public response to the imposition of Common Core may bring about what Hirschman calls “a joint grave-digging act.” As of this writing, exit and voice are working hand in glove against Common Core. Perhaps, to use another of Hirschman’s metaphors, “exit” and “voice” will “explode jointly” and “bring down the whole edifice.”[29]
—Williamson M. Evers
About the Authors
Lindsey M. Burke is the Will Skillman Fellow for Education in Domestic Policy Studies, of the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation. Neal McCluskey is director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. Theodor Rebarber is CEO and founder of AccountabilityWorks.Stanley Kurtz is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a contributing editor to National Review Online. William A. Estrada is director of federal relations at the Home School Legal Defense Association. Williamson M. Evers is a Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. This essay contains considerable material from longer research projects on the history of efforts to establish a national curriculum in America (sponsored by the Pioneer Institute) and on the history of conservatives and the public schools in America (sponsored by the Hoover Institution). A condensed version of this essay appeared in Education Week, January 14, 2015.
Can we start a thread on the Financial Advisory Committee?
What is their mission? Are they supposed to be a nonpolitical group? Is it the bull pen for council positions?
How did the committee get so big? Who appointed them?
Will their job ever be complete or will they hang around forever?
We sincerely hope that the current Village Council will have the wisdom and
courage to act, thereby avoiding the urgency for another “independent” review of the Vil
lage budget and management process in the future.
Our committee focused only on the municipal budget and practices, not the Board of Education (BOE). Since
the BOE budget represents 64% of the property tax burden in Ridgewood, we hope that this report wi
ll also serve as a template for the BOE to establish a similar process for cost and efficiency improvements
.
Given the time and resource constraints mentioned earlier, the report is not an exhaustive study, but attempts to raise
issues and make actionable recommendations for the Village Council’s immediate attention and further
consideration. We held almost 50 hours of meetings, including with current and past Village representatives
and various Village constituents. We met with consultants in municipal government operational efficiency and
studied all of the Village’s collective bargaining agreements.
Finally, we carefully reviewed the Village’s budget trends over the past 10 years to understand key budget influences and, more importantly, what they tell us about Ridgewood’s future liabilities. Collectively, our Committee devoted hundreds of hours in an
effort to deliver recommendations that we hope will have great value for Ridgewood taxpayers.
While our committee has no authority to enact any of our recommendations, we appreciate and are honored
to have the opportunity to serve our community in this manner. We took the responsibility of Mayor
Aronsohn’s mandate seriously. We respectfully submit the following recommendations to the Village Council
with the hope that you will make every effort to act on them fully and expeditiously. We wish to be clear that
these recommendations do not, necessarily, represent the unanimous opinion of all members of our
committee. However, they do represent the consensus of the committee. It is the opinion of the committee that the consequences of failing to act on these recommendations have never been more momentous or urgent for the sustainability of our Village, as we know it, and for the rising fiscal burden on Village taxpayers.
The Members of the 2012 Financial Advisory Committee (alphabetically)
Rich Barclay
Bayard DeI\/Iallie
Ed Feldsott
Nancy Johansen *
Charlie Kime
John Maxwell
Jim McCarthy
David Sabath
Jim Schimmei
Fran Shovlìn
Roberta Sonenfeld *
Bob Zeller
Nothing above gives the FAC authority to submit letters to the editor and promote the agenda of the mayor.
That was the 2012 roster. Are they all still on? Some of them are just wanna-bees. No real financial expertise. A couple have oversized egos but can’t even manage their personal finances
By Noah Cohen | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on April 01, 2016 at 2:04 PM, updated April 01, 2016 at 2:18 PM
HACKENSACK — A 36-year-old Florida man was accused of sexually assaulting a girl when she was approximately 11-years-old in Ridgewood, authorities said Friday.
Joseph McCain, of Orlando, was charged with child endangerment and aggravated sexual assault after his arrest in Florida on Thursday, Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Gurbir Grewal said.
Ridgewood NJ, The Orpheus Club Men’s Chorus will present its annual Spring Concerts on Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 7:30 pm, and on Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 4:00 pm at the Ridgewood United Methodist Church, 100 Dayton Street, in downtown Ridgewood, NJ.
The concerts feature a diverse selection songs ranging from Beethoven to the Beach Boys to delight every age and interest. Among the choral offerings are Auf Dem Meere from the Brahms concerto, Rinaldo; a medley of songs from the hit Broadway show Jersey Boys; Palestrina’s O Bone Jesu; Blackbird by Lennon and McCartney; Hallelujah from Beethoven’s Mount of Olives; and A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square by Maschwitz and Sherman. Rounding out the program, the Orpheus Doo Woppers will perform their rendition of Kokomo, and so much more.
Tickets for the concert are $15 in advance and $25 at the door. Advance purchase may be made online at the Orpheus Club Men’s Chorus website www.ridgewoodorpheusclub.org and at any of the following local businesses: Daily Treat Restaurant, Wine Seller and Town and Country Apothecary in Ridgewood; Lewis Drug in Westwood; Perry’s Florist and Rock Ridge Pharmacy in Glen Rock; Wine and Spirit World in Ho-Ho-Kus; and Benny’s Luncheonette in Fair Lawn. Seniors and students under 17 years of age may purchase tickets at the door for $18.
The Orpheus Club Men’s Chorus has been a keystone of the cultural life of the tri-state region for 110 years. Founded in 1905, it is the oldest cultural institution in all of Bergen County. Now over 50 voices strong, it is directed by John Palatucci and accompanied by pianist Ron Levy.
From our attorneys regarding the referendum petition to repeal Ordinance #3521:
“We are confident that the bond counsel is wrong. Bond ordinances are NOT controlled by the Faulkner Act or Walsh Act
or any other general act that gives NJ residents the right of referendum. The right to repeal a bond is a right shared by ALL
New Jersey residents under the Local Home Rule Act, not just Faulkner Act towns.”
New Jersey Statutes Annotated. N.J.S.A. 40A:49-10 reads as follows:“Any proposition submitted to the voters of any municipality under the provisions of section 40:49-9 or of section 40:49-27 of this title shall be voted upon at the next general election held in
the municipality at least thirty days after the filing of the protest or protests herein provided for, unless the governing body thereof
shall call a special election therefor.”
If a special election is called, and $40-45,000.00 of municipal funds are used, that will be a choice that the Council alone makes, and for which
the Council alone will be held accountable.
Ridgewood NJ, Reader say it is a well know fact in Village Hall circles that Ms Green and the Library Board has been looking at the Elks property for some years. If you recall a post here that the L:library Board have been talking about plans for a Performing Arts center in our around the Library. Im sure you could go to the Library Board past minutes and fine that .
Its just to much of a coincidence that this comes up with everything going on in town.I don’t trust these three. Also check current and past board member you will see that 2 Council people were on the board and our mayor was the representive from the Council to the Library. Then there in one of the developers that also was a former member of the board along with one or two of the finical board members. Check it out you will surprised who is involved
Ridgewood Elks assessed value was cut in half in 2014.Their assessed value went from $1,169,300 in 2014 to $584,600 in 2015.
As someone near retirement and looking to cut fixed costs I would like to have that deal. What other taxpayers had their property taxes cut in half? What brought this change about?
Just when you thought you’d heard it all the fly has learned that . . .In Uncategorized on March 1, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Library Board members have proposed buying the Ridgewood Elks Lodge building at 111 North Maple Avenue for library expansion purposes (additional parking and building expansion). Just what we need; another property taken off the tax rolls.
A Graydon Pool Improvements Committee has been formed. Reportedly, one plan under consideration by committee members is converting the existing facility into a year round “mini country club” and imposing significant fees for membership. Can you say “exclusively elite” 10 times fast? Hold onto your wallets tightly ladies & gentlemen!
North Jersey .com July 2015 : A couple of library board trustees said they want to move ahead with the original plan, which called only for the renovation of the library, and add in the construction of a performing arts center next to the library and village hall. This would turn the library and its surrounding area into the cultural hub the members are seeking.
From the Mayors web site : Approximately 40 Ridgewood residents, members of the business community and arts enthusiasts met with Aronsohn and Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli two Saturdays ago to gauge interest in establishing a new performing arts center and the feasibility of turning the idea into a reality. The former bank site was mentioned several times during that meeting.
From the Ridgewood Blog : Also the wife of Glenn F.Jorgensen, founding president of the library board has been appoint chairwoman of the new tiger team ( Financial Advisory Committee ) Looks like the library is set for awhile.
And don’t forget PETITION SIGNING LOCATIONS ELKS CLUB
(111 Maple Ave-next to library-across from Kings)
SATURDAY FEBRUARY 20TH
11:00AM-4:00PM
Board of Trustees 2016 ( round up the usual suspects )
Associate Directors
· Glenn Jorgensen, Founding President
· Harlan Coben
· Daniel Cumming
· Tony Damiano *
· Elia Desruisseau
· Thomas Dougherty
· Paul Goldberg
· Joshua Grunat
· Jacques Harlow
· Gwenn Hauck *
· Phyllis Heilborn
· Teresa Hutchins
· Jeffrey Karpf
· Michelle Lenhard
· William Meakem
· Barbara Moreira
· Joan Popkin
· Deborah Primiano
· Albert Pucciarelli *
· Ellen Quinn
· Catherine Redlich
· Fred Strype
The Members of the 2012 Financial Advisory Committee (alphabetically)
Rich Barclay
Bayard DeI\/Iallie
Ed Feldsott
Nancy Johansen *
Charlie Kime
John Maxwell
Jim McCarthy
David Sabath
Jim Schimmei
Fran Shovlìn
Roberta Sonenfeld *
Bob Zeller
When Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Donald Trump square off in Pennsylvania’s April 26 Republican presidential primary, they will find themselves competing for votes from a rapidly changing base.
At least 128,000 voters statewide have changed their registration since Jan. 1 to join the party. Nearly 85,000 of them had been Democrats; 42,000 were independents or third-party voters. The GOP has also racked up 55,468 more first-time registrants.
The changes reflect what experts are calling an unprecedented number of party switches before a primary election.
That raises questions: Are Democrats and other voters flocking to the GOP in support of one of its three candidates? Or could they be plotting to stuff the ballot boxes for a Republican they think their nominee can beat in November?
Ridgewood NJ, Officials from the Valley Hospital and Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) cut the ribbon on a five station electric vehicle (EV) charging system and announced the completion of more than $2.5 million in energy efficiency upgrades at the Ridgewood, NJ hospital.
The Valley Hospital EV charging system is part of a PSE&G pilot program designed to help spur the adoption of electric vehicles in the utility’s electric service territory and the energy efficiency measures were funded in part by the PSE&G Hospital Efficiency Program, which helps pay for the installation of energy efficiency measures at hospitals in the utility’s service territory.
“The Valley Hospital is committed to the environment and the installation of these electric charging stations are just one of the ways that Valley can bring sustainable initiatives directly to our employees and physicians, promoting the reduction in the carbon footprint of our operations on the well-being of the planet,” said Maria Mediago, Vice President of Facilities Management at Valley.
As part of the PSE&G EV charging station pilot program, The Valley Hospital committed to immediately utilizing the five charging stations for staff members who own and drive electric vehicles to the hospital. In return, PSE&G provided the EV charging equipment free-of-charge and the hospital paid for the installation of the units and will pay for ongoing maintenance and electricity costs.
“There are a lot of reasons to like EVs in New Jersey but the lack of charging stations is clearly an impediment to their continued growth,” said Courtney McCormick, vice president – renewables and energy solution, PSE&G. “By partnering with organizations like The Valley Hospital to offer workplace charging, we are hoping to increase the convenience of current EV owners, demonstrate to potential owners that EVs are a viable option and also gather information that we can use down the line as EVs become more popular.”
In addition to providing a convenient charging option for EV drivers, the PSE&G pilot program also allows the utility to collect real-world data about how the chargers are used. This will allow PSE&G to better understand the impact that large-scale EV charging could have on the electric grid, identify areas of potential high-EV charger density and plan for infrastructure upgrades and modifications that may be needed.
The PSE&G EV charging pilot program currently has 50 EV charging stations in service at nine customer locations around the state, including The Valley Hospital. There are 20 additional charging stations under construction at four other customer sites. The utility is also in talks with several other customers with the goal of installing a total of 125 individual charging stations at 25 customer locations by the end of 2016.
In addition to the EV charging system, the $2.5 million in energy efficiency upgrades through the PSE&G Hospital Efficiency Program helped pay for a new air conditioning chiller plant and new variable frequency drives on garage exhaust fans at the hospital. These energy efficiency improvements are expected to save more than 1.8 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually, which is enough to power about 250 average-size New Jersey homes for a year.
PSE&G’s Hospital Efficiency Program helps fund the installation of energy efficiency measures at hospitals in the utility’s service territory. Through the program, PSE&G provides an investment grade energy audit at no cost to hospitals, recommends energy efficiency improvements and provides up-front funding for the total cost of the energy efficiency measures. Hospitals typically repay between 35-40 percent of the project costs on their PSE&G bill over a period of 36 months at zero percent interest.
“Hospitals are vital resources in New Jersey,” added McCormick. “Our program allows them to make energy efficiency improvements and save money on energy costs, which frees up resources that they can better use for their core healthcare mission.”
The Valley Hospital will save more than $200,000 a year in energy costs and repay about 40 percent of the project total interest-free over the next three years.
“In 2011, Valley was the first hospital in New Jersey to sign on to the Healthier Hospitals Initiative, a coalition of U.S. health systems committed to, among other things, reducing the use of natural resources and promoting sustainability principles throughout the organization. In addition, Valley is a member of Practice GreenHealth,” Mediago said. “Partnering with PSE&G on this initiative is a cooperative community benefit to reduce the effects of carbon emissions in our community, and these stations serve as a constant reminder that there is a role for everyone in sustainability.”
Reader says it is a well know fact in Village Hall circles that Ms Green and the Library Board has been looking at the Elks property for some years. If you recall a post here that the L:library Board have been talking about plans for a Performing Arts center in our around the Library. Im sure you could go to the Library Board past minutes and fine that .
Its just to much of a coincidence that this comes up with everything going on in town.I don’t trust these three. Also check current and past board member you will see that 2 Council people were on the board and our mayor was the representive from the Council to the Library. Then there in one of the developers that also was a former member of the board along with one or two of the finical board members. Check it out you will surprised who is involved.
North Jersey .com July 2015
A couple of library board trustees said they want to move ahead with the original plan, which called only for the renovation of the library, and add in the construction of a performing arts center next to the library and village hall. This would turn the library and its surrounding area into the cultural hub the members are seeking.
Just when you thought you’d heard it all the fly has learned that . . .
In Uncategorized on March 1, 2007 at 2:59 pm Library Board members have proposed buying the Ridgewood Elks Lodge building at 111 North Maple Avenue for library expansion purposes (additional parking and building expansion). Just what we need; another property taken off the tax rolls. A Graydon Pool Improvements Committee has been formed. Reportedly, one plan under consideration by committee members is converting the existing facility into a year round “mini country club” and imposing significant fees for membership. Can you say “exclusively elite” 10 times fast? Hold onto your wallets tightly ladies & gentlemen!
Ridgewood Public Library…….
John M. Johansen. *
President
Christine Driscoll
Vice President
Gail Campbell
Treasurer
Arlene Sarappo
Secretary
Jean Cleary
Member
Janis Fuhrman
Member
John Saraceno *
Member
Paul Aronsohn *
Mayor of Ridgewood
Albert Pucciarelli
Mayor’s Delegate
Dr. Daniel Fishbein
Superintendent
Linda Diorio
Superintendent’s Delegate
Ex Officio
Paul McCarthy
Friends
Ridgewood NJ , Council Candidate Jeff Voigt give the Ridgewood blog his take on the March 23rd meeting .
Jeff started off , ” last night – no surprises. Yes we need parking (I actually voted for parking on Hudson St). However, I did not vote for the options presented by the council to the public. My mistake was actually believing that the council majority would be reasonable in coming up with a garage that would fit on the Hudson St/S. Broad area. As it happened, the Village residents were presented with 4 bad options and the council asked for input/feedback from the community. This was called compromise by the council majority. Compromise in my mind is when two parties, who are on opposite ends of the spectrum, meet somewhere in the middle. If this has occurred, a much smaller parking deck would likely have been the result. What occurred, however, was nothing but a multiple choice test amongst 4 bad choices.”
Jeff mentioned a new petition , “There is a petition going around (which I support) for repealing Ordinance 3521 (Ridgewood bonding the garage) – for the very reason that the garage does not fit in this space as it is currently configured. The website https://www.its2big.com has more information; email:[email protected]. As you can tell by this website, the garage is way too big (5 levels; 4 stories; with 60+ foot high towers [note: that zoning in this area is for 45 feet]) and; does not fit with the aesthetics of the surrounding area. The committed Village citizens leading this petition initiative include: Jacqui, Anne Loving, Gail McCarthy, Ellen McNamara and Saurabh Dani . As well please reach out to Lorraine Reynolds (phone: 201-264-8151). Thank you to all of these people for heading this up.”
Regarding high density housing and the Ordinances 3489-3492 that were passed, Jeff said he left the meeting with the following impressions and thoughts:
“· Affordable housing is driving the Master Plan and appears to hold precedence (from a legal standpoint) over the Village employing spot zoning to address it (note: the NJ Supreme Court has ruled that spot zoning is illegal; Riya Finnegan LLC v Township S. Brunswick; 2008). It also appears the current council majority is holding good land use planning (via our Master Plan) hostage to affordable housing. While I am not against affordable housing and agree that Ridgewood should do its best to meet its obligation, we still do not know what this obligation is and; we have no plan for it. This makes no sense to me. As well, it would be nice to understand from some good lawyers, which of the following holds precedence if the 2 are intertwined – the use of spot zoning (to address an issue – is this legal or not) or affordable housing.
· What would be optimal regarding Ridgewood’s affordable housing obligation is for the Village to wait and see what this obligation is from the state and then plan for it. It is hard understanding why we are chasing an elusive target and zoning in a willy-nilly fashion (e.g. new AH-3 zone on Rt. 17 North across from the park and ride). This new zone, AH-3, was presented on at the 3/15/16 planning board meeting – where the Valley Hospital resolution was also presented. Note: Since the agenda for this meeting was published on the Ridgewood website only 3 hours prior to this meeting, only about 10 people attended. The open public meetings act requires that agendas be published 48 hours before a public meeting. Therefore, no surprises as to why so few people attended and why so few people know about it. ”
The country’s most valuable and visible tech companies are making their presence felt in the 2016 presidential election.
Their efforts — some public, others less obvious to voters — are an aggressive play to make their brands an even biggerpart of the political process and cement their position in American life.
It’s a marked shift from 2008, the last election with nomination contests on both sides. That year technology was decisive in President Obama’s win but the companies weren’t nearly as dominant as they are today.
“To the extent that platforms like Facebook and Twitter position themselves, or [are] capitalizing or raising their profile, as sort of being central to democratic processes, I think they gain a legitimacy as being core information providers and information conduits in democracy,” said Daniel Kreiss, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Media and Journalism.
Tech companies are now regularly co-sponsors of primary debates, their logos visible behind candidatesduring broadcasts that are breaking ratings records.
More than half of the sanctioned primary debates this cycle have been co-sponsored by tech companies. That’s more than in 2012 and in 2008, when the only tech-network partnership, between CNN and YouTube, was treated as a novelty.
The companies are also influencing what gets onscreen. Google has has YouTube stars ask candidates questions and Facebook’s data is regularly referenced by debate moderators as a barometer of the public mood.
Sometimes, what’s happening on social networks affects, in real time, the questions asked on stage.
Social media exploded when Hillary Clinton defended raking in millions in Wall Street donations by saying she represented New York state on 9/11 during a November CBS debate co-sponsored by Twitter.
CBS producers with the help of an embedded Twitter team used new social tools to find a critical tweet. Moderators referenced it in a follow-up question.
“Fifty years of televised presidential debates and [it was] the first time that people yelling at the screen had their voice heard on the stage,” said Adam Sharp, the head of news, government and elections at Twitter.
Dana H. Glazer speech from the Wednesday Night Council Meeting
I am here to express my strong belief that the real agenda here is to make Ridgewood into another “Transit Village” like
Hackensack, in which a giant garage is built to primarily serve commuters from out of town; in which the master plan is radically amended to allow for high density housing which will create a large influx of new families into the CBD – thus straining our resources and permanently altering the face of our town.
I believe this is still the case, because on February 23rd the Executive of the County said in his State of the County address “I’m sure you’ve all read our partnership with Ridgewood. They’re looking to partner with the BCIA to fund their parking garage and partner with them.” He went on to describe this proposed garage as “a commuter garage to be used by commuters all day long..”
Now, on February 21st, two days before the State of the County, Mayor Aronsohn wrote to residents an email saying “in the spirit of getting this project done –once and for all – and in the spirit of doing it together as a community, I am willing to re-introduce the January bond ordinance at our March 2 Council meeting. “
If there’s no intention of making Ridgewood into a Transit Village, why was the County Executive announcing this Ridgewood partnership in his big speech two days later? Shouldn’t someone have told him not to include it? It makes no sense.
The only way it makes sense is if making Ridgewood into a Transit Village is still the only plan. Why else wouldn’t our Village Council immediately repeal the County Bond before funding the garage through the town? 1500 residents petitioned loudly against this, in an initiative Ridgewood has not seen in years – if ever, right? Our Council Majority would never let this happen because it would jeopardize the real plan– Ridgewood as a Transit Village.
That is why the “Plan E” garage proposal that Lorraine Reynolds and Gail McCarthy have so passionately worked behind the scenes to put together, having spoken with hundreds of residents, shopkeepers and Mt. Carmel – what is being called the “People’s Garage” – I believe is going to be sabotaged – or ignored completely.
I believe this “People’s Garage” will never see the light of day because the shenanigans will continue, whether they relate to the site plan, the financials, the traffic studies or anything else deemed necessary to do this right; and then on March 23rd, if Councilwoman Knudsen and Councilman Sedon stand up and say “No” the Council Majority or even just table the issue, the Council Majority will turn this against them, loudly proclaiming, “See, they are anti-garage. Now, let’s vote for people who are pro-garage and let’s vote to go to the County because there’s no other way to do this in Ridgewood.”
But here’s the thing: this upcoming election will not be about a garage. It will be about who votes in favor of the upcoming High Density Housing vote later this month. It will ultimately be about who trashed our town and made it into a Transit Village like Hackensack. That’s what’s at stake here.
So, Councilman Sedon and Councilwoman Knudsen, I am encouraging you to listen to the 1500 people who petitioned loudly that WE DON’T WANT A COUNTY GARAGE. I trust you will do anything and everything to keep this from happening.
Ringwood NJ, Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) today called upon U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck to share groundwater test results and future testing plans for the Ringwood Superfund Site after recent groundwater tests raised additional concerns about the presence of toxic substances at the site.
These reports found 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen that may result in liver, kidney, and upper respiratory damage, at levels close to 100 times the state maximum standard. Alarmingly, the EPA first had knowledge of a positive identification of this substance in November 2015, but failed to notify the public.
“As you know, the EPA’s management of the site is a decades old and ongoing concern for New Jersey residents,” wrote Garrett in the letter. “I believe that public health issues need to be dealt with in a transparent manner so that residents are well-informed about the safety of their communities and surrounding areas.”
Congressman Garrett’s Specific Requests:
Information and Reports from the EPA about the Ringwood Superfund Site
All groundwater test reports currently in the EPA’s possession; and
A list of known toxic substances and the levels of such substances found at the site.
The EPA’s Future Plans for Groundwater Testing at the Ringwood Superfund Site
The EPA’s plans for additional groundwater tests of known toxic substances present at the site;
A list of toxic substances that may be present at the site, but that the EPA has not tested for; and
The EPA’s plans for additional groundwater tests of toxic substances that may be present at the site and have not been tested for in past groundwater tests.
