Is there a method for residents to challenge this decision?

This resolution is a serious call to vote. This should be taxpayers-approved-referendum. Consolidation is when the voting rights for budget no longer take on public consensus in consideration. Totally risky.

This decision will change the function of the school board significantly. This will effect the by law of the board and the entire community and residents regarding the voting right on tax money.

The legislation to give communities a vote on new charters is about local control of how tax dollars are spent on public schools. A vote on the school tax levy is about local control of how tax dollars are spent on public schools. Can someone explain which is the apple and which is the orange? Seems to me they're about the same thing.

There were 2 truly frightening things that occurred at the meeting. The first was BOE president, Michael Birnberg dismissed public comments which he acknowledged ran 7 or 8 to 1 against the resolution, because he said they were not representative of the community. He stated that because these comments were made by people that regularly attended BOE meetings they would not be considered in the BOard's decision. Apparently, the logic is that your opinion as a resident only counts if you rarely or never attend BOE meetings except when a specific issue is at stake. But if you regularly attend to see how the BOE and Administration are running the district on an on-going basis, your perspective is irrelevant.

The second equally frightening thing is that Mark Zucker freely acknowledged that his support of the resolution which ran contrary to the public option expressed was because he needs more time to the finish the contract negotiations with the teachers union which is now a year overdue. Not because of the merits of the resolution or the impact on the community. So because he personally and the BOE by proxy has been unsuccessful in coming to terms with the teachers for 1 1/2 years, he is voting to extend his term by nearly 9 months (Nov 2012 elections, new Board members seated Jan 2013). When several members of the public suggested he had admitted a conflict of interest and he rescue himself, he said that Sam Levy should do the same to which the audience responded YES!.

On the one hand, yes, we do want voter say on the budget. But as long as it stays within the 2% cap, what am I as a resident really going to say about it? I don't know the ins and outs of what dollars are appropriate to spend on individual line items; I leave that to the Superintendent and the BOE to figure out. Second, for all people are yelling about how important voter say is, very few actually come out and vote. Perhaps moving the decisions to November will actually increase voter say by encouraging more people to vote. Still interested in what others think about this, though.

I really hadn't formed an opinion on this question or Mark Zucker's performance as a board member when I showed up at the meeting, but I was astonished when I heard Mark Zucker's comments. (Laura, how could you leave them out of your story?) He said that he was voting for this measure because he needed to make sure he had these 8 additional months as board member because he had been involved in the teachers union negotiations. He believes he is so essential because of his deep immersion in the negotiations; what would happen if he wasn't re-elected? To which I have these responses:
1. Make your case to the public. See if they agree that you are essential and vote for your re-election.
2. Remember Mayor Guiliani? After 9-11, when the city was reeling, he thought his term should be extended for several months, too. Somehow the city made do with Mayor Bloomberg.
3. Perhaps no one is indispensable. Every four or eight years, the US government has a new Secretary of State along with top diplomatic staff, most of whom have been involved in sensitive, ongoing negotiations with despots and presidents around the world. Somehow the world survives.
My guess is somehow we'd survive without Mark Zucker. I guess we'll find out in November (or January) if that is the case. I sure hope so.

The BOE moved to enact a Strategic Planning Committee that invites all members of the community to become involved in the school process. Yet, they vote to take away the only measurement of control (budget vote) to ensure the enactment of any proposed programs/enhancements. For example, if the Committee presents a viable and nationally competitve Foreign Language program for our Elementary schools (which currently does not exist) but it's not included in the budget, what recourse do we as voters and residents have? Wag the dog?????

What ever saves money is good to me. Having extraneous elections is wasteful. Now the municipal election should be consolidated into November as well. And political parties should be required to 100% pay for their primary elections.

Can anyone tell me the last time a budget was voted down because it was TOO LOW! This vote was a win for tax payers. It is a great incentive for future administrations to stay fiscally responsible, unlike in the prior decades of runaway spending, with tax rate increases of close to 10% per year. What other Government budgets are voted on------ NONE!
Most of the people that are crying foul represent special interest voting groups that will be diluted down by increased voter turnout in a normal November election. Why else would anyone want to decrease voter turnout?

Millerman: several people in the audience asked if this issue could be put to the voters to decide. That was rejected by six board members, one of whom clearly stated his reason was that he wanted his term to be extended by 8 months.
I believe governments should procede extremely cautiously and judiciously when taking away citizens' rights. Unfortunately, that was not in evidence last night.

I was not at the meeting but am surprised by this vote given that during the most recent election, just 9/10 months ago, the 2 BOE candidates whose platforms advocated letting the budget increase the full 2% allowed to a BOE without invoking a second budget question were soundly defeated. This will make life much easier for the administration for budgeting but it would have been smarter to put the issue to a public referendum. Also I see charter issue and this issue as 2 apples, not apples and oranges.

Keep in mind that even if the BOE had voted down the move, the Township Committee could have compelled it anyway.

How much does it cost for the BOE to have a separate election to vote on the budget?

 Given all the consideration of on-going proceeding teacher union negotiations,  moving elections dates, the board did not explore enough for the impact of bypass vote on budget. The board can manage and discuss on putting perspectives and separate the proposal on different agendas.
The voting right resolution is taxpayers-approved-referendum. It can't be voted within the board because it is impact effects the entire community and residents. 

The public consensus during the discussion process to agree or not agree with the raised cap.  2% tax cap
is a mandate without knowing what the future will be offered. 2% may sounds favorable at the time, but the bypass voting right is very risky and hurtful.

As a community member to step up for strategic
planning, I feel unacceptable to lose the public voting right on budget.  

There should be a great hope to take effect of NJ waivers of No Child Left Behind law and district strategic planning to maximize the resources within our system.  Without the public discourse on the budget voting.  No voice will be heard.  
It will be only a show to put up.

Move the election dates, but remain voting right for budget.

Evidently, it has become increasingly important for MSH residents to vote prudently for BOE officials.

Let's not miss the point here - the issue is that the Board unilaterally took away the right of the voters to determine what is best for the community. Agree or disagree with the move and eliminating the right to vote on the budget. the issue is who decides! 9 BOE members not elected to make this electoral decision but only to set school district policy and oversee the budget. They were granted these special rights AFTER they were elected. Isn't the prudent coarse of action to leave it up to the voters in November? This is what the majority of those who spoke last night advocated as a bottom line. I have not heard one compelling argument for the BOE making this decision unilaterally when a referendum was a reasonable and non cumbersome option.

Birnberg, Levy and Zuck seem to have a bit of a power grab thing going on here. Zuck and Levy monopolizing the teachers contract negotations and not even telling the other BOE members about what is going on is a bit over the top. why only two members negotiating. we should be giving the teachers a salary cut - maybe 2-3%/year for the next 3 years to a. make up for the egregiously generous salary bumps they got for the past 4 years and to b. reflect the general econonomic malaise our government has left us with. there are tens of thousands of qualified people in NJ who would work for less salary given the iron clad job security, extraordinarily generous perks and bennies and the short work schedule - summers off, 4 weeks vacation during the school year, on the job training year round (paid). if they give them any raise whatsoever, this negotation should be dead on arrival...oh yeah, we the people can't vote on it.

This resolution is a self-dissolving act to the destiny of the BOE. The function of the BOE is not existed. The BOE can't even come up with strategy to save 13K and to communicate 2% tax cap to community, rather taking prudent vote action to eliminate the constitutional voting right and mandate 2% four years Tax increase.

http://eastbrunswick.patch.com/articles/letter-keep-the-state-out-of-school-boards
The State Assembly has just passed A 4394
Keep the State Out of School Boards

ASSEMBLY, No. 4394
INTRODUCED DECEMBER 1, 2011
Deadline for School Board February 17, 2012

So in other words, there wasn't time to put the question to a public referendum as there is a State-mandated deadline to decide by Feb. 17, 2012. Given that, the Board properly exercised its authority to make the decision - at a savings of $13,000. Fiscally prudent.

318 out of 520 disticts in NJ have voted to move the elections, so far. The deadline for the decision is on friday. Many more are expected to move to the November option.

Bylaws - "The Board is responsible for providing adequate and direct means for keeping the local community informed about the school and for keeping itself and the school staff informed about the wishes of the public.  All planning, both that which is and that which is not related to the budget, 
needs to be interpreted to the public if citizens are to support the school program." The board has to further informed about the wishes of the public on Bill A4394.

The State gave an option even the deadline was imposed on the School Board. It is not about the deadline, it is about the wish of the public. The authority and power are imposed by the board to misrepresent public interest.

"only 2 members were appointed to this Negotiations Committee. Sorry but that is not a "power grab" by Levy and Zucker (or Birnberg). And I am certain the full BOE is being updated by the Negotiations Committee on a regular basis" This is truly OFF BASE!!! AGREE

Levy and Zucker should call to end the term in April. Their votes on Bill A4394 is claimed to be recalled due to the conflict of interest : eliminating voters rights on budgets and contract negotiation involved with budget consensus. Their time of voting decision on Bill A4394 is unreliable due to twice voting on issues when they violate the ethnic rules on conflict of interest on taxpayers voting right and contract negotiations.

Its not as if a no vote on the budget really means all that much - all that happens is that it goes to the municipal authority and state for review. Any cuts from the original budget are usually quite small, especially if the tax rate increase is 2% or under. And there is no re-vote after that.

So really this is much about not much at all.

It is the time to visit the town hall to reassess the property tax. That will start to make sense. The arrogant of the board needs to change.

4 years 'lock up' is still risky. We should be able to vote 'YES'.

And I will be very impressed if anyone can find a community which managed "A petition signed by at least 15 percent of the number of voters who voted in the district in the last presidential election to place such a public question on the November ballot. "
before their local BOE usurped community their community's voting perogative.....

I will visit BOE and find that person to place a petition to such a public question on the November ballot.

This is a must read, thank you Caroline for taking the time to highlight these issues.
http://millburn.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-tsk-tsk-children

Not to give in something important so easily for little money. Voting on budget is a priviledge even the Governor opt in the insight. There were people paid blood for not having that chance.

If you don't have time to visit your parents, it doesn't that you should not.
If you don't have time to clean your house, it doesn't mean that you don't have a home. In fact, I owe a house, I don't own, and I have responsibility to take care and pay off the property.

Eliminate the voting right is voters decision and this can't make compulsory. The Governor gave us options.

JURY duty is mandatory; why not voting? The idea seems vaguely un-American. Maybe so, but it’s neither unusual nor undemocratic. And it would ease the intense partisan polarization that weakens our capacity for self-government and public trust in our governing institutions.

Thirty-one countries have some form of mandatory voting, according to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. The list includes nine members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and two-thirds of the Latin American nations. More than half back up the legal requirement with an enforcement mechanism, while the rest are content to rely on the moral force of the law.

What happen was one day your housekeepers told you that you were no longer have the right to keep the key of the property.

15% of 9430 voters who voted in Millburn district in 2010 November Geneal Election is 1,415 signature. I have notified the BOE about this petition to be filed. No format is restricted by collecting sigbature. The law instructed to file the petitiom 60 days before the NOV election. We can extend the time to place the question on Nov election ballot. By doing this, does this remain April election?

Does the petition save the April Election? This could be a good practice started with this new law.

340 out of 520 districts in NJ have voted to move the elections, so far. The deadline for the decision is on Friday. Many more are expected to move to the November option.

New language learned: democracy = civility = mandatory = care less anyway.

Catching up on this, I don't have a comment directly on the election change, but wanted to say this:
Noreen, I just want to say how much I appreciate your comments on this and other threads -- you always bring important facts to the table as well as your perspective as a board "ex.''