So does this mean that Sterling can vote on 5/20?

Thank you Mr. Waterman. It does appear you wanted to vote last night. Could you give us any further information about what happened and why exactly the vote was tabled?

What suprises, and distresses, me most Mia, is that you claim to be a respected journalist. Respected journalists fact check their information. You, however, are quoting information, facts & figures, that have been reported by Gerry McCann...and not any other legitimate source. Has anyone, besides McCann, mentioned that 373 number? In reality, that does not take into account retirements, which in some years have been close to 200. Has anyone besides McCann mentioned the 4% raise...because in reality, that's across the board. Not every teacher was getting a 4% raise every year. Has anyone besides McCann said teachers are not taking a pay freeze? Because in reality,we've been in a pay freeze since September and will continue to be so indefinitely since WE HAVE NO CONTRACT.

You claim that Waterman & Lester are suspect simply because they earn the support of teachers, or of the JCEA. I see no "endorsement" on the JCEA website..they don't seem to be endorsing anyone officially. Also, you're as bad as the rest if you're willing to eliminate a candidate simply because they share a view opposite of yours. Do you work in education? Do you have an educational administrative license? Because you claim cutting JC's administration won't be enough to close the budget cap, yet Carol Lester (who headed a charter school), Gerald Lyons and June Mulqueen (who work in a school), Angel Valentin (who is an incumbent and has looked at board figures for 3 years not) all say that it will. I guess you know more than all of them.

Stop pretending you are a respected journalist..you are a political activist fighting for the candidates and platforms you believe in. There's nothing wrong with that, but call it like it is. Journalists don't follow a party line...they report FACTS, not opinions.

RE: Mr. Valentin voting to "lay off teachers" because he voted for raises.

Please understand that the layoffs are actually what most of the public wants.

No mandated position will be laid off. For example, the federal IDEA law requires that there be no more than 8 students in an inclusion classroom. If there are 9 children, there will still be 2 inclusion teachers next year. That is a mandated position. The positions that will be cut are those "extra" positions that most people decry at public forums and on websites like this, those "fluffy" positions that do not directly service children, (like many of those at Central Office). Those teachers, because of seniority, will return to schools and go back to being classroom teachers. Yes, some of the new classroom teachers will be "bumped" out and laid off. If teachers received no raises, there would be 2 options: a) lay no one off and leave everyone in the positions they are in, including those fluff ones or 2) cut those fluff positions and have a whole bunch of extra people running around with nothing do to. Couldn't even send them all back to "new" classrooms, because where would you physically house those classrooms, and where would the money for the desks, bookshelves, curriculuar supplies, etc; come from?

Mr. Valentin did not vote to cut 373 teachers. Mr. Valentin is cutting extraneous positions and trying to keep JC's budget in check by making sure that the teachers we are paying are actually teaching kids, not hanging out at Central Office.

First, two links I referenced in trying to understand this all:

Jersey City's 2010-2011 budget:
http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/files/boe20102011budget.pdf

A letter from the DOE to mayors detailing what will happen if towns reject the school budgets (explains the adequacy budget and tax levies):
http://www.njslom.org/letters/ml040910-school-budgets.html

Ok, so if you look at the budget, you'll see that overall JC cut over $35 million from their budget. Some areas were cut drastically, one or two went up, and some were cut, but barely (I'm looking at you General Administration!). At this point, the district says ?we?ve cut all we can, and still feel we need to spend $618,836,174 to provide a ?through and efficient education? for the kids of JC. The state says, we?ll give you $457,008,980 (reference budget categories ?REVENUE FROM STATE SOURCES?). We?re still $161,827,194 short of our goal. We get $31,620,926 from the federal government (reference budget categories ?REVENUE FROM FEDERAL SOURCES?). We?re still $130,206,268 short of our goal. We get $27,893,014 from other sources (reference budget categories and line items: BUDGETED FUND BALANCE-OPERATING BUDGET, TUITION, UNRESTRICTED MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES). We?re still short $102,313,254 to pay for our budget. We can?t find anywhere else to get more money from. We have to raise that amount in taxes, then. That amount is WAY over the 4% cap, so we ask the state to either give us more state aid, or increase the amount we?re allowed to increase the tax levy because we need that money to fulfill NCLB requirements and/or NJQSAC (a state monitoring program that audits districts and tells them what they need to fix). The state reviews our budget to see if we can cut more. (Remember, some things can?t be cut?namely negotiated salaries and benefits that are in the middle of a contract, and programs/staff/services mandated by state or federal law). In JC?s case, the state said, no, you really can?t cut much more, and per our adequacy formula, JC SHOULD be paying $208,930,150 as its ?fair share? of schooling, so you we are not giving you more aid. Instead, raise taxes to cover the $102, 313, 254 because it is still less than we think you should be contributing.?

JC cut over $35 million dollars from its budget from last year to this year. If the budget is defeated, it will go before the city council who can either say ?No, this budget is fine? and adopt it anyway, or say ?you need to cut XXX dollars from this budget?. If they choose to suggest cuts, they can recommend places to cut (ie, administration), but the district does not have to take their recommendations. Quite honestly, do you think the administrators making the decisions to cut will cut their own? No, they will cut other places. As I said before, some things simply cannot be cut. The cost of benefits and salaries can be negotiated at the end of each contract, but if a contract is in place (and only the teachers are working without a contract, not clerical, school, administration, custodial, etc;) it really cannot be cut. Other mandates (such as class sizes, paraprofessionals for certain special education kids, certain curriculum components) cannot be cut either because of NCLB, NJQSAC or NJDOE requirements. So, the cuts happen in ?extra?, non mandated areas like extra curricular activities, summer school, etc;. Look at the numbers in the budget document. They really can?t cut much more there?your taxes are not going down if you vote no for the budget because there are not many more places to make cuts. Additionally, because JC is not paying its ?fair share?, the state can reduce our state aid at any time and require us to make up the difference through property taxes. We actually are one of the lucky districts in that we didn?t lose too high of a percentage when Christie cut state aid.

So to sum up, the state sets the requirements for a ?thorough and efficient? education that we must provide. The state decides how much we should be paying in taxes to provide that education. Since we are paying less than the state says we should be paying, the state says ?increase the tax levy to make up the difference?you?re not paying enough anyway.? If you don?t want to increase taxes, then cut more, but don?t cut any required programs.

Hope this helps. I am a little biased, but I?m also jaded. I believe there is waste in the system, but voting no on the budget is not the way to fix it. All that will happen is more programs that students want/enjoy/need to supplement their education will be cut. A better way to stop the waste is to elect people to the BOE who are looking for all ways, big (cut administration) and small (go green) to save money. Also, start showing up for BOE meetings and asking questions about agenda items. Ask for clarification if you don't understand. Voting no, or voting for BOE candidates that claim that the teacher contract is the reason the budget is so high will NOT lower your taxes.

Your banner ad at the top of this website, along with others say you voted for "no tax increase". NJ.com is reporting the following in reference to your statements at the BOE candidate debate last night:
"Dehere reminded attendees that the board had no control over the tax levy increase, which was set by the state. Jersey City?s school budget is largely subsidized by the state." (source: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _school_candidates_1.html)

So which one is it...the board has no control over the tax levy, or you voted for no new taxes?

Oops, forgot (again) to answer the original question.

You are voting to approve the entire $600 some odd million dollar budget, which will result in a XX% tax increase (don't have those exact numbers in front of me). If the budget is voted down, the budget goes to the City Council who will make some more cuts to bring the total dollar amount of the budget down, but Jersey City will STILL be responsible for it's fair share of the adequacy cost.

To simplify it....pretend the state said it costs $500 to educate all students in Jersey City, and taxes must cover $200 of that. Current tax rates cover $100. The total school budget is $700. If the budget is voted down, the City Council will cut it down. Pretend that they cut it to $600. We are still responsible for that $200 the state said we have to pay, and since our current rates only cover $100, taxes are going even though the budget was cut. Quite honestly, voting no to the budget will not reduce your taxes, but will reduce the total monies available to the school district, which may result in cutting more staff and/or programs.

Forgot to add that that the $486,315,450 amount is for the EDUCATION of the students only...not security, clerical, facilities, transportation, etc. It only covers those things that directly result in educating children (curriculum supplies, teaching staff, general supplies, etc)

Basically, the state determines

a) how much it takes to educate all the children in JC (at risk, sp. ed. and ESL "cost" more to educate.) For 2009-2010, it was estimated, by the state, that it would cost $486,315,450 to educate all the children in the district.

b) the dollar amount of that cost that JC taxes must cover. For 2009-2010, the state determined that JC should pay $208,930,150.

If the current tax levy does not cover that $208,930,150, the taxes MUST be raised until that amount is covered through taxes, no matter what the total district budget is. The balance of $486,315,450 minus $208,930,150. is USUALLY the state aid we receive to help us cover the cost of educating the children. Even if the budget was exactly $486,315,450, JC would still have to pay the $208,930,150. This dollar amount is determined through a complicated, weighted formula you can see here:

http://www.state.nj.us/education/sff/profiles/0910/leg/31.PDF

Jersey City's info is on page 5 & 6

So the end result is, if the money collected by Jersey City does not meet the state determined "fair share" (and I have no idea what that is for 2010-2011), Jersey City MUST raise taxes until they meet that amount.

One thing that has not been made clear is that the increased tax levy is not a Jersey City decision, but a MANDATED New Jersey decision. There is a new school funding formula, called the adequacy formula, in place. The adequacy formula assigns a dollar amount to educating children in YOUR district. It is a complex formula that weights special education, "at risk" (which includes poor children) and English Language Learners higher than "general" students. Once the state determines how much it costs to educate a student in YOUR district, it also determines what percentage of that cost YOUR town is responsible for....called your "Fair Share". If your taxes do not cover the "fair share", the formula mandates that your town raise taxes to meet the fair share level. Believe it or not, Jersey City was not paying it's "fair share" of educating Jersey City's students, so even though the overall budget was cut, the percecent of tax money that JC must contribute has to go up (according to the state). If you want more information on the adequacy formula, this site gives a pretty good explanation:
http://www.njsba.org/sb_notes/20080124/faq.html