Still, school advocates had been hesitant to move the votes to November for a number of reasons. A main one was the concern that it would further politicize the process, putting school board candidates and budgets on the same ballot as those running for president and governor.On the other hand, here’s Assemblyman Lou Greenwald, sponsor of the bill, on the impact of moving elections:
Politicians and pundits have talked about doing this for years, but special interests and inertia have prevented progress on this important issue--until today.So, which is it? Do April or November elections taint the purity of school board member elections?
But a four-month investigation by The Star-Ledger, drawing on interviews, lawsuits and internal documents, shows [the Elizabeth Public Schools] can also be a relentless political machine fueled by nepotism, patronage, money and favors, using its nearly 4,000 employees as a ready-made fundraising base.Nonetheless, it seems unlikely to me that many school boards will opt to move elections to November. The bill demands a four-year commitment (it wouldn’t work to have new board members sworn in after a November election and then others come in the following April) and board members tend to be cautious. The 2% cap allays community fears about profligacy, so budgets have a higher chance of passing anyway. The money saved by avoiding a special April elections is peanuts in proportion to the magnitude of school finances.
Labels: school boards