Teaneck's Seismic Tax Shift
For the last 8 month, Mayor Katz and company have been pushing their agenda of more revenue, ratables and saving taxpayer's dollars. The Record article on the impact of the revaluation town wide has given the town a dose of reality and credence to the Mayor's fears. He failed to identify that our Northeast section of town will take the hardest hit. In my opinion, the TCCP continues to promote a division and hindrance to progress. There are allegations by many that Councilwomen Kates and Honis have also been obstacles towards the Council majority's agenda. How will Honis & Kates explain their behavior and lack of action over the last few months as Teaneck residents are taxed out of our community. Our elected officials are accountable to the residents. I'd like to suggest silencing the Council majority to hear what ideas or suggestions Kates and Honis have. Maybe they haven't been given an opportunity to suggest solutions. Maybe the Teaneck Coalition against Change and Progress have alternatives as well.
As many residents face the reality of the tax impact from the revaluation, I believe that there will be more emphasis on what actions our Council and residents have taken to help relieve the tax burden and less attention on the underlying personal and political agendas that capture and dominate the blogs, the Suburbanite and the Council meetings.
41 comments:
I've been to those council meetings and don't take my word for it go and watch for yourself- as classy as Jackie tries to be she constantly attacks, attempts to embarress or tries to block any progress inititaves that are presented. Just the look of her facial expressions speak louder than words.
How about televising the workshop and other meetings? Why shouldn't the citizens get to see their reps in action? The majority has nothing to hide and maybe the obstructionists will change their tune if the real Teaneck people get to see more of who stands for what.
I don't know what happened to Jackie Kates. She was always such a class act. Someone I was proud to vote for, someone I thought wanted the only the BEST for her (and my)beloved community. Now she just seems to be an obstacle for whats best for Teaneck.
BRENNAN FOR MAYOR, MANAGER, and/or TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY
JUST NOT HERE.....
The regular meetings are televised on cable TV's channel 77.
I believe tapes of the meetings are also available at the local library.
How about tonight's budget meeting being on tv?
Teanecktalk said ...
There are allegations by many that Councilwomen Kates and Honis have also been obstacles towards the Council majority's agenda.
As Councilmembers Kates and Honis have only two votes of seven and the "majority" has 4, they are unable to block anything the council majority chooses to do or for that matter be obstacles to the majority's agenda.
Budget meetings are not taped.
Tom , Nice Try To Defend Them!!!
But Lets Face It, If You Are Not Part Of The Solution-You Are Part Of The Problem.
I Hope They Choose Not To Run For Re-Election Next Year.
WE CAN HAVE A BIG PARTY FOR HONIS KATES MAYBE THE TNB AND PBA CAN SPONSOR IT
what is the basis for all this hating on those two council members?
I may not care for one of them, but I'm not spouting bile at the mere thought of them.
Did they do something specific?
something to you?
Please elaborate
What hating? A council seat should not be a popularity contest.It is a position someone takes to further the public good. When one for what-ever reason fails to or stops doing this,
they should resign or get back on course.
They are both great people, but that is not what it is all about. Honis/kates should get back with the program or get out of the way
just asking said...
what is the basis for all this hating on those two council members?
Is not marching in lock step with the "program" specific enough fot you?
Honis/kates should get back with the program or get out of the way
what is the program? Do 100% of the township residents agree with 'the program'? Do their own consituents (the people who voted for them, and who they represent) agree 100% to the 'program'?
Also pointed out was that these two people only represent 2 votes and it takes a majority vote of 4.
Are they really 'in the way'?
So - again - what's all this hating about?
Personally, I've never wanted to be around a 'yes-man' but it seems like Councilwomen Kates and Honis waste alot of time with their negative antics.
HOnis has ALWAYS been negative, and in her years on the council has never put forth any new ideas or initiatives. She's a bandwagon kind of couincilperson. Kates, on the other hand, has contributed much leadership and had much knowledge of what is able to be done as well as why some ideas should be reexamined for legal purposes. In my opinion, her anger and frustration stems from decisions by the majority that are narrow-minded (like the Loft issue) or hasty. I haven't agreed with all her viewpoints, but when she was mayor, she never showed disrespect to any other member of the council. That is not the case now.
The Loft position she took was hypocritical, since she never cared for her in their past dealings. A lot of it is due to her frustration at not being mayor anymore.
Whoever initiated the nasty and counterproductive piece in the Times today does not want friendship to bloom in Teaneck.
What piece in the Times are you referring to?
Whoever initiated the nasty and counterproductive piece in the Times today does not want friendship to bloom in Teaneck.
From the quotes in the article, it looks like it may be a Grand-Toffler counterproduction with an assist from a sitting Township Councilmember during the Pannell fiasco.
But then again, with the New York Times, one never knows.
The New York Times article:
Proudly Diverse Teaneck Is Forced to Re-examine Its Assumptions
Monica is a typical angry B_____ woman. Her snide remarks are intollerable. She is a useless being who will hopefully lose her seat next year. Shave that moustache and shut your mouth!!!
Dear Mr. Applebome:
I read your article about the alleged divisiveness in the Teaneck community with great interest – as a Teaneck resident, as the Rabbi of the largest Orthodox synagogue here, and as the President of the Rabbinical Council of Bergen County – but also with a tremendous sense of disappointment. I was frankly dismayed that you chose to criticize the Orthodox community for its implicit sins and inadequacies without quoting even one Orthodox spokesman in this township. Mayor Katz is not the “mayor of the Orthodox”, but the mayor of all the people. In the most recent election he was the largest vote getter among all the candidates, and received overwhelming and wide-ranging support in every district in Teaneck.
Had you chosen to speak with an Orthodox Jew, instead of merely quoting our detractors, you might have learned that despite constituting only 15% of the population, Orthodox Jews make up more than 60% of the Teaneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps. and pay more than 60% of the property taxes; that we walk in the streets on the Sabbath because 90% of our roads do not have sidewalks; that we are decent, quiet, law-abiding middle class families that almost never attract the attention of the police; that we have looked the other way as the township has stocked the public schools with children from other districts, and when the Board of Education refuses to hire Orthodox Jews as teachers (and fired existing Orthodox teachers for their inability to attend the suddenly “mandatory and indispensable” Saturday morning faculty meetings); and that our stability as neighbors has increased property values across Teaneck to the advantage of all its residents.
Some Teaneckers may be nostalgic for the days of the first voluntary integration and the soul-searching after the Pannell shooting; neither event speaks to my historical memory at all, as I and most other Teaneck residents did not live here in those years. My own neighbors – on my street – have been blacks and whites, Orthodox Jews, non-Orthodox Jews and non-Jews. Who really cares ? I serve on the Teaneck Civilian Complaint Review with people who represent the same full range of diversity in Teaneck. Who cares ? Our “rising political fortunes” are attributable to what I thought was called “democracy”. We moved here, opened businesses here, and vote for the candidates of our choice – Orthodox, non-Orthodox and non-Jewish – and sometimes our candidates win, and sometimes our candidates lose. But whoever wins, we trust will govern for the betterment of our entire community.
Mayor Katz is correct when he says that the issues are political, not religious. Years of mismanagement has led to Teaneck having the least commercial development of any town in our area, and more parks that any town in New Jersey. It is the only town with no commercial development along Route 4, and therefore we suffer from the highest property taxes in the region. Our public schools have some of the lowest test scores in the State, and the second highest per-student cost in the county. We Orthodox pay through the nose, get almost nothing in return when it comes to services – and then have to suffer the complaints of others when we wish to have a voice in the governance of our town.
I need not go on. My point is you might have uncovered the true story (the guilt feelings engendered in some non-Orthodox Jews who live in close proximity to the Orthodox), as you would have learned about the vital contribution of the Orthodox community to every aspect of civic life in Teaneck – had only you chosen to actually speak with an Orthodox Jew. That you did not is, in my humble opinion, a breach of journalistic standards and particularly unworthy of the New York Times.
Rabbi Pruzansky don't forget that many of Senator Weinbergs friends have been vocally attacking and/or opposing the council over the last 7 months. Now she herself took a swipe at them " the current problems have to do with the style and manner of council members" I guess she is showing who she really supports
see TeaneckBlog.
Anonymous -- your comment is chilling (The school system is generally believed to be bloated by freeloaders from out of town.):
Since when do we accept "generally believe" as solid fact? How many times does the school system have to make clear their efforts to ensure this is not true, between the full-time truant officer checking on leads all year, putting central registration into place and requiring reregistration of students moving from one school to another at 5th and 9th grades? It is irresponsible of the author of this letter to spread rumor and innuendo. He should stick to solid facts.
And by the way, there have NEVER BEEN SATURDAY FACULTY MEETINGS. Honestly -- who is he kidding?
I hope that the NYT does not publish Rabbi Pruzansky's letter because liberties with the facts undercut an otherwise compelling arguments. 90% of the roads don't have sidewalks - must be a lot of Teaneck I have not seen. While Teaneck's test scores are nothing to write home about, they are far from the lowest in the State. I am also pretty sure (but not certain) that we do not have the highest property taxes in the region - despite the BoE's best efforts to get us there.
The core hypothesis of the NYT's article was sufficently flawed that it can be reputed by sticking to real facts.
"I haven't agreed with all her viewpoints, but when she was mayor, she never showed disrespect to any other member of the council."
Not true at all. When former Mayor Kates didn't like the person or their comments, be it a Councilperson or member of the audience, she would roll her eyes, grimace and/or interrupt at the very least. As Warner Wolf would say, "let's go to the videotape"!
I have to agree with all those who have been victims of Ms. Kates' famous eye rolls and face contortions as I am a victim myself. I have known her for years through the Jewish Center of Teaneck and have found her to be elitist and snobbish and indeed she is cursed with very mean and disrespectful expressions.
Plus she talks too much. She spoke way more than anybody else (and to less effect) than anybody else at the council meeting tonight. Compare her numerous speeches to those of an effective speaker like Gussen.
To the Teaneck Community,
We were shocked and saddened by a letter circulating on the Internet that is attributed to Rabbi Pruzansky. Was it written by Rabbi Pruzansky? We certainly hope not. Who knows what is true in the blogosphere? However, we must respond to the inaccuracies in the letter on behalf of the nearly 5,000 students and staff that comprise the Teaneck Public Schools. We’ll confine ourselves to that which refers to the schools. The quotes below are from the letter writer. What follows each quote is our response.
“…that we have looked the other way as the township has stocked the public schools with children from other districts…” This is nonsense. Our full-time attendance officer – a retired Teaneck Police Department detective who spent years in the Juvenile Bureau – vigorously investigates whenever there is even the slightest chance that a non-resident child is enrolled in the public schools. Over the past several years, he has uncovered nearly 80 such students each year. Those children are either removed from Teaneck schools, or they pay tuition to continue in our district. In addition, we are instituting a “re-registration” program for all first, fifth, and ninth-grade students to help ensure that only Teaneck residents attend Teaneck Public Schools. Some of our students do take public transportation at the end of the school day, either to return home, to go to after-school jobs, or to engage in other activities. That does not mean that they are returning to homes in other towns.
“...that we have looked the other way…when the Board of Education refuses to hire Orthodox Jews as teachers (and fired existing Orthodox teachers for their inability to attend the suddenly ‘mandatory and indispensable’ Saturday morning faculty meetings).” What the letter writer alleges is done in the Teaneck Public Schools is not only unethical but patently illegal. We do not ask teachers to declare their religion either during the hiring process or at any time thereafter. We do not hold faculty meetings on either weekend day – Saturday or Sunday. To suggest that we discriminate on the basis of religion is a disgrace.
“Our public schools have some of the lowest test scores in the State…” The letter writer once more is dissembling. Members of the public can go on the New Jersey Department of Education web site to see for themselves where our students rank throughout the state. Test scores have steadily risen over the last few years. The results for the High School Proficiency Test (Grade 11) have improved 29 percent in four years. Over the past several years, about 90 percent of Teaneck High School graduates each year pursue higher education at either four- or two-year colleges. Several of our graduates right now are attending such Ivy League institutions as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, and the prestigious Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business at the University of Pennsylvania. The fact is that many of our families cannot afford to send their children to four-year colleges right out of high school, so they elect to take advantage of such outstanding – and cost effective – two-year institutions as Bergen Community College, from which they can then transfer to four-year institutions for the final two years of their college education.
Are we satisfied with the performance of our students? No! Our pervasive and wide-ranging Achievement Challenge in Teaneck is designed to change the way in which students learn – and teachers teach – to help ensure that every child can achieve to his or her highest level. We will not rest until that occurs.
“Our public schools have…the second highest per-student cost in the county.” The majority of our teachers have master’s degrees and numerous credits beyond master’s degrees; they also have taught for several years in the district. That experience is valued in the classroom, but it comes with a price. In addition, our aging physical plant is less cost effective over each passing year. The Board of Education and this superintendent certainly are not proposing that the taxpayers authorize any new construction. We will make do with what we have, but that too comes at a price in terms of expense appropriations. As we prepare the budget for 2007-2008, we have already cut nearly $1.9 million in expenditures to help ensure that the budget is tightly focused and realistic in balancing the needs of the students and the taxpayers.
We embrace the type of continuing dialogue that we have had with so many residents of Teaneck. We have always maintained that Teaneck’s willingness to entertain differences of opinion is one of its strengths. We want our school community to be good neighbors with all of the residents of Teaneck. We also welcome constructive criticism, but we will not allow to go unchallenged the kind of invective that can only divide this wonderful community.
David Diuguid
Vice President, Teaneck Board of Education
John F. Czeterko
Superintendent of Schools
Superintendent Czeterko and Mr. Diuguid
Very much appreciate your taking the time to communicate with us through this medium. Agree with you that the posting on this Blog attributed to Rabbi Pruzansky suffers from many errors of fact.
However, based on the Comparative Spending Guide, Teaneck ranked 102 out of (I believe) 103 peer districts in spending per student on teacher salaries and benefits (based on the 05-06 budget). Despite this, you approved a teachers' contract with annual raises that significantly exceed the inflation rate over the last decade.
Further, based on the August minutes, it apppears that Teaneck has at least 8 physical education/drivers ed/health teachers who are earning over $96,000 this year. I will leave to another time the question of whether advanced degrees enhance teaching quality in other classroom settings - but to get to this salary level these gym teachers need to have 32 credits to a PhD. Do you really believe that this education significantly enahnces students' experience? With only a BA, salaries cap at roughly $64,000 - so these teacher's are getting a 50% bonus for their academic achievements.
Although the contract does not distinguish salaries based on teaching specialty (another serious flaw of the contract), the Superintendent still has the discretion not to award these academic based increments. Schedule D6 of the contract makes it clear that the grnating of these adjustment "shall not be deemed automatic." The Superintendent can recommend that it be withheld "for inefficiency or other good cause." Why has this discretion not been exercised?
With teachers' salaries and benefits constituting more than half of the budget and another significant raise locked in for next year, it is difficult to see how BoE spending can be reduced or at least have an decreased rate of increase without hurting students through cuts in programming.
With the teachers' contract expiring next year, what are the BoE's plans for bringing the cost of instruction more in line with other districts - many of whom boast academic achievements equal to or greater than Teaneck (even if they have less experienced or educated staffs) at a lower cost than Teaneck.
Mr. Futter, once again you pull partial "facts" out of agendas and use them to draw a conclusion that is unfair. If you are so interested, I assume you have attended all the budget workshops that have been held over the past two months so that you have a thorough acquaintance with the entire process, not just pulling "facts" off the internet.
Mr. Futter and others appear to believe that teachers' raises should be based on the "inflation" rate. This may sound good, but it is not necessarily practical. When a school district is negotiating with the unions, the primary comparison is generally not the inflation rate, but rather the rate that other districts in the area are using. Although I have not seen the actual figures, I have been told that the Teaneck contract was marginally below the prevailing rate at the time the contract was settled.
Even if one believes the inflation rate should be a critical factor, the contract rate has not been significantly above the inflation rate over the last three years. Using U.S. Department of Labor statistics for New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA, the annualized inflation rates for 2004, 2005 and 2006 are 3.54%, 3.86%, and 3.76%. (The average increase over the last 7 years is lower at about 3.2% per year. Over the last 9 years 2.9%.)
Again if one thinks the inflation rate is significant, one should remember that during the early 80’s the CPI measurement was adjusted. Many believed that this change was purely political and for the express purpose of understating the actual increases in inflation.
It appears to me that Mr. Futter and others think teachers are overpaid, but based on what. If teacher’s salaries are compared with other professionals with the same levels of training, teachers rarely come out on top. A teacher with a master’s degree gets a starting salary of around 43K in Teaneck. An undergraduate with a business degree can easily command 60K or more in New York’s financial district. It’s no wonder that so many teachers turn to other professions within the first five to ten years. I suspect some who feel that teachers’ salaries should be limited by inflation would not be quite as happy if their own income had the same limits.
Tom:
There is a market that sets salaries for each profession and geography. As the son of a teacher, I would be the first to question how we pay teachers in our society. Based on the good they do, I would also question how we pay clergy, social workers and employees of many not-for-profits.
That said, the role of the BoE should not be to resolve the question of whether society underpays teachers. To be responsible to the taxpayers and students of Teaneck, the BoE should ensure that we are paying market-based rate for teachers. When the salaries you are paying are in the top 10% any way you measure it, the Board is failing in that role. Don't take my word for it - the following used to be on the Board website "The Teaneck Public School District is proud to offer one of the best salary schedules, extra compensation and benefit packages for its employees in the State of New Jersey."
Dropping to the top 1/3 of that range would make a big difference in school spending and teachers would still be out-earning the vast majority of their peers in the State. Most of the school districts around Teaneck seem to be able to attract teachers with significantly lower salaries - so the cost of living in Bergen county is clearly not an excuse.
As to inflation, you have proven my point. The current contract provides for increases of 4.25%, 4.5% and 4.5% each year. In other words, the increase is more than a 1/3 more than the average rate of inflation over the last 7 years based on your numbers. Limiting salary increases to the rate of inflation is more than reasonable when you are employed by one of the best paying districts in the State (we won't even start talking about medical benfits that would be the envy of anyone I know).
Finally, the point of my posting was to ask the BoE representatives what are their plans for the next round of contract negotiations to bring down the cost of instruction. Something has to give here. You want to maintain the current salary structure, fine - then increase productivity per teacher (more class hours and/or administrative duties) or introduce a salary scale for new hires that will bring down costs over time. Otherwise, to restrain the growth in spending you will need to increase class size or cut student programming - when teachers salaries are more than 1/2 the budget, I don't see another path - although I'd be happy to hear suggestions from you or the representatives of the Board.
Futter:
The "market" that sets salaries in this case is the surrounding districts – not the inflation rate. The proper way to compare salaries is not through median, average salaries or even cost per student. The proper way is to compare the salary scales themselves to see if teachers with the similar level of experience and years of service are paid more or less. In such a comparison, I think you would find Teaneck is in line with other districts.
I believe your statement that, “districts around Teaneck seem to be able to attract teachers with significantly lower salaries,” is part of the same misconception as to how salaries should be compared. Can you give concrete examples of districts starting salaries showing these significantly lower starting salaries for teachers with the same qualifications?
A look at the state report cards shows one factor that has a significant effect on instructional costs. The median years of experience for Teaneck Faculty is 11 years. The statewide median is 9. Median only gives an indication that Teaneck faculty’s tenure is longer than in many other schools but it is part of the reason for the significantly above average cost of Teaneck’s faculty.
My discussion as to whether teachers are underpaid or overpaid has nothing to do with whether the Board should resolve such questions. It simply reflects my views.
I will reiterate my point of view that inflation rates are not a reasonable basis for contract negotiations. However, the actual contract was signed in June of 2006 a point where the actual inflation rate was particularly high. The year-to-year rate for June of 2006 was 5.64%. May of 2006 it had been 4.82%. The seven-year average may support your point of view, but the actual inflation rate at the time might have been seen as more significant.
As for the point of your posting, “to ask the BoE representatives what are their plans for the next round of contract negotiations,” I do not believe this is the appropriate forum, but keep in mind I do not speak for the Board or any of its representatives. I believe that even if a board member were inclined to discuss it in this forum or any forum outside of official board functions, the board’s legal advisors would advise them against it.
In response to:
"A teacher with a master’s degree gets a starting salary of around 43K in Teaneck. An undergraduate with a business degree can easily command 60K or more in New York’s financial district. It’s no wonder that so many teachers turn to other professions within the first five to ten years."
I disagree. 43k in teaching is more than fair to start. You can easily get to 60k with a good summer job, tutoring, or sponsoring a club or team.
Plus, teachers are vesting themselves into the pension system (call that a "bonus") and have terrific job security once given tenure.
Teachers work very long hours, but those in the financial district probably work even more on average.
What is the turnover out of industry for teaching? Is it really that much higher than other industries? Is it always just about money?
Some might be drawn to the potential big earnings in industry. But how many people actually make the huge bucks relative to the number that try?
How many people go from industry to teaching? How many are drawn to the stability, family life, benefits, and livable income.
This post isn't about whether Teaneck teachers are overpaid or underpaid. A few factors including the market and cost of living can answer that.
But I really don't buy into the idea that Teaneck does not take care of its teachers.
Tom:
Funny how median statistics are an appropriate means of comparison when it comes to teacher experience but not teacher salaries.
To its credit, the BoE posts its pay scale on its website - I could not find it on other towns' sites. Could you present some evidence that your assertion about the payscales in other towns is correct? Keep in mind, that in so doing you will also be challenging Teaneck's own claim that it has "one of the best schedules" in the state (direct quote as indicated in my last post).
More importantly - you don't want to touch salaries - great. Each year a large part of the spending cap imposed by the State will be filled by increases in teachers' salaries locked in at 4+%, what do you proposed cutting to stay within the cap?
I was not saying the median was any more definitive in this regard. I tried to say it was just an indication, but I guess my wording was not clear enough.
There was a time, that Teaneck did try to out pay neighboring districts in an attempt to improve educational levels. Though long past it likely still has an effect on keeping Teaneck's average compensation on the high side, but I don't have the information or the time to analyze it.
As for pay scale comparisons, I have not looked recently but also found few other districts with pay scales on their sites and even then could see comparisons would not be straight forward. I have relied instead on both anecdotal evidence as well as the opinions of those who make comparisons professionally. I gather you were unable to come up with information to support the view you hold so chose to answer my question with a question.
Beyond a personal belief that teachers should get paid well, I think the idea that teachers salaries can be cut unilaterally in one district is naive, but that is not really relevant to your question. I would find it difficult to cut anything to stay within the cap. I would probably look for all the loop holes that allow one to exceed the 4%. You may be pleased that the Board does not share my view and is currently looking at a proposed budget that is within the 4% cap totally ignoring the loopholes.
Based on my beliefs that pay scales are now in line with the surrounding districts and that much of the increased cost of instruction has to do with the longevity of he teaching staff, I believe that over time this will even out. As the older teachers retire at the top of the scale and younger teachers replace them at the bottom of the scale the total cost will go down till it reaches a stable point. This assumes a somewhat stable population.
Schools with an expanding population, need to hire more staff thus lowering the average longevity and average/median salaries. With a declining school population the reverse tends to be true.
Please note this is speculative, I have no hard data, but again using median salary date, this could be a partial explanation for the drop in median teacher salaries in Teaneck this year while salary scales are clearly rising. I expect a further decrease for the 2007-2008 school year but it will be some time before I know whether my logic is correct.
Having thrown one random theory into this discussion I will leave it there.
the ever prolific anonymous said ...
But I really don't buy into the idea that Teaneck does not take care of its teachers.
There is nothing I said that indicates that I believe Teaneck does not take care of its teachers.
Tom:
You said:
"There was a time, that Teaneck did try to out pay neighboring districts in an attempt to improve educational levels. Though long past it likely still has an effect on keeping Teaneck's average compensation on the high side, but I don't have the information or the time to analyze it."
The information I quoted from the website was posted as recently as two years ago and probably more recently. What evidence do you have that Teaneck abandoned its effort to outpay other districts "long ago." Was there a Board decision to this effect or is this another "belief"?
Post a Comment