Toms River BOE Approves 2012-13 Budget Amid Controversy

The Toms River Regional School District’s Board of Education approved its $204.362 million budget for the 2012-13 school year at a public hearing Wednesday night in the auditorium of — but not without open and vocal dissension from both board members and residents. It is also the first year the budget did not go to the voters at the polls, due to recently-passed statewide legislation.

Superintendent of Schools & Business Administrator Hold Presentation

The night began with a slideshow presentation, co-headed by Superintendent of Schools Frank Roselli and Business Administrator William Doering. In that presentation, both board members outlined the highlights of the budget.

These included:

• .
• Coming in $1 million under the 2-percent cap on the tax levy mandated by the state, and spending $34 million less than the district’s “adequacy” value — what the state Department of Education recommends Toms River pay for a district of its size.
• Not applying for any available waivers on raising the cap to cover healthcare or pension costs.
• Continuing to use cooperative bids for supply and material orders, plus a four-tier bus system in the interest of cost-cutting.
• Maintaining funding for existing staff and programs.
• Having a total per pupil cost of $10,571, just over $3,000 less than the state average of $13,587.
• Having an administrative per pupil cost of $1,037, again just over $3,000 less than the state average of $1,394.

Doering explained that the process of crafting a school budget “continues to be a challenge” in tough economic times — the administrator characterized the budget as one of “maintenance” and said the district would continue to look for ways to reduce costs.

Doering added that the district was “very fortunate” to receive $1.9 million in state aid after the approval of last year’s budget. Even though there will be an increase in this year’s budget of $2.9 million worth of state aid, the district would still receive $4.6 million less than they were “just a few budget years ago,” according to Doering.

Roselli added that public opinions on the budget may differ, but that the BOE “understands where the residents are coming from” and respects those opinions.

“In a struggling economy, there’s no way we’re going to make everyone happy,” Roselli said.

Residents Respond to Board of Education

The board of education explained that those inquiring on the budget had to abide by a three-minute time limit for their questions before the public comment session began, as per board policy.

Resident Dennis Galante said that there was “no denying” the presentation which was made, but questioned the board on whether the information used in that presentation was made available online prior to the meeting.

Doering said that the advertised budget, user-friendly budget, budget highlights, tax impact, per pupil cost and list of the budget’s revenues and expenditures were made available on the district’s website on March 15.

Galante asked why the $1.9 million in state aid received last year didn’t go into unexpended funds, but Doering said again that allocation was received after the budget finalization last year, and the district knew they had “a revenue hole to fill.”

Galante also questioned the three-minute time limit on public comment — which would be echoed later by other residents — and characterized the budget hearing as “irrelevant”, since the budget now goes to the BOE and not the voters.

Les Kennett of Toms River claimed that an average administrator in the Toms River district makes $118,000, a figure 13 percent higher than the rest of Ocean County, but Board President Edward Gearity replied that Toms River is measured by the state alongside 105 districts of similar size to calculate that number — instead of with the other districts in Ocean County, who all vary in size.

Board member Gus Kakavas said that if the numbers were correct, Toms River has the fourth-lowest amount of administrative costs in its district-size category statewide. “That says to me that Toms River is doing more work with less administrators,” he said.

Resident Joe Torrone, husband of BOE member Loreen Torrone, asked how many of the board members viewed the budget’s detailed appropriations. Doering replied that the state Department of Education information was provided to the board in advance, in addition to the advertised budget and the total budget’s key components.

Torrone pointedly said that the board was “not fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities” and the complete board not viewing the budget in full was “an embarrassment.” Torrone added that the “lack of transparency” in the budget process was representative of “how the prior administration ran things”.

“How did that last scenario work out by giving the administration carte blanche? Not well!” Torrone stated, as applause was heard from some members of the audience.

Resident Carol Benson said with the lack of ability to vote on the school budget for the next four years, her taxes could go up well over $400 if current increase rates continue.

“If you think that’s acceptable, people will be moving out of the town,” Benson said.

Due to Benson’s vocalization on the three-minute public comment rule, a motion was made by board member Kakavas and seconded by board member Alex Pavliv that another public comment session, with a five-minute time limit, be opened after the budget vote was concluded.

Resident Chris Hollingsworth explained that the in Toms River, due to the high number of tax appeals, and asked how the board could pass a budget in that instance.

Doering said that the board had to approve a school budget in a county-mandated time window, based on the levy amount certified by the state and the tax rates reported from the four separate towns comprising the district; Toms River, South Toms River, Pine Beach and Beachwood.

The Board Votes, With Three Members Objecting

Board member Ben Giovine said that though he supported the process by which Doering and other administration members compiled the budget and the tax levy amount being called for, he was not planning to vote in favor of the budget, since he did not have the opportunity to review it line item-by-line item.

Board member Pavliv also expressed opposition to the budget, and said that he was in favor of “privatizing” certain district services like busing and food preparation to save money.

Another idea Pavliv raised was the moving of the Board of Education’s offices to the Pine Belt Arena and selling the property at 1144 Hooper Avenue.

“I think it’s a great idea. It could save a fortune for taxpayers,” he said.

Board member Torrone also mentioned that despite being on the district finance committee, she had not had the opportunity to review the complete budget in advance of the public hearing — merely the advertised budget.

BOE member Kakavas thanked the administration for their work on the budget, and in response to the comments made by board members Giovine, Pavliv and Torrone, he said that it “annoys” him that they chose to make their objections to the budget process known first on the dais, instead of during a committee work session.

Board member Jack Reuther provided his opinion that the budget was “a sincere effort” to provide high-quality education at the lowest cost to taxpayers.

As to the board’s actual vote, “yes” votes were received from board members Gearity, Reuther, Kakavas, Jedziniak, and Baxter, while “no” votes came from board members Giovine, Pavliv and Torrone. Board member Jamie Ann Jubert was absent.

Public’s Voice Heard Again

Per the earlier motion, a second public comment session was opened — with a five-minute time limit per participant.

Resident Kathy Eagan asked the dissenting board members why they didn’t raise an objection to not seeing the full budget prior to the public hearing.

Giovine said that he and Doering exchanged e-mails, where he sought a line item-by-line item breakdown of the budget. The board member explained that he didn’t think he would have to bring it up in an earlier committee meeting, fully expecting that every board member would be able to review the complete budget in detail prior to the hearing vote.

“I would like to see a more open process next year, where we all go through the budget line by line,” said Giovine.

Board member Torrone claimed that she asked for the complete budget breakdown and was denied, in addition to asking for the public hearing to be postponed several days, so that all members could have a chance to review the complete budget.

“Let us have time to prepare,” Torrone said.

Joseph Torrone said at the microphone that the district had much to be proud of, but that the new board members were “stonewalled” when they asked pertinent questions.

“It’s because of the culture here, which hasn’t been willing to change. That’s why people don’t trust this board today,” he explained, not understanding why only a three-minute limit on public comment was originally permitted.

Torrone also said that the auditorium at High School North was not “conducive” to a public hearing, and that there is more interaction between citizens and board members in other town’s districts. “Here, people see no warmth, no love. Instead, they get told that their time is up.”

Kakavas said that he would love to know what “stonewalling” Torrone referred to, and emphasized that the new board members of Giovine, Pavliv and Torrone were welcomed to the group and not mistreated — commenting that Torrone could not say that the board didn’t provide oversight.

“As far as I knew, no one here abdicated our responsibility. I would have seen to it that they got the information,” said Kakavas.

Also in the public comment, former board member Linda Garvey said that she had received mysterious phone calls about “transparency” on the board, and wanted to know who was behind them — to the point of placing a trace on the call she received. Board member Torrone added that she had received a similar phone call.

Seaside Park resident Mitch Seim remarked that he had never seen any type of board vote on a budget when not all of the members were privy to its complete details, an action he called “placing blind faith in the administration.”

Roselli pressed Seim on whether his occupation is the running of political campaigns, which Simon admitted was the case, but also stated that he was a taxpayer and a homeowner.

Toms River Residents Kathy Lazaro and Les Kennett both raised a point of televising council meetings, for the benefit of people who could not attend in person.

“We would have more openness. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors,” said Lazaro. “But, people will remember in November.”