Board of Ed. candidates support budget, split on bond Candidates Night shows differences, similarities BY CHRIS GAETANO Staff Writer Seven of Edison's eight candidates for Board of Education appeared at the second Candidates Night to allow voters to get a better feel for their views on how to best govern the township's growing school district. During the Tuesday night session, held at Woodrow Wilson Middle School, candidates focused mostly on the $52 million bond referendum, as well as the need for improved technology. Speaking at the informational meeting, sponsored by the Edison Township Parent Teacher Association Committee (ETPTAC), were board incumbents Ray Koperwhats and William "Buddy" Van Pelt. Also present were challengers Veena Iyer, Gene Maeroff and Aimee Szilagyi, who are running together as a slate. Joining them were candidates Michael Winters, who is running on a slate with Van Pelt and Koperwhats, and Ralph Errico, running independently. All are competing for three seats on the school board. Parent Darlene Delli Paoli, president of the ETPTAC, moderated the forum. Board candidate Samip Joshi, a young J.P. Stevens High School graduate and current student at Kean University, was absent. He had also failed to show up at the first Candidates Night, held last week at Martin Luther King Elementary School. After candidates were asked to give their opening remarks, in which they talked about their qualifications and motives for running, they were asked whether they supported the $195,030,235 budget and the $52 million bond referendum that would go toward building a new school and constructing additions on others. Every candidate supported the budget, though some differed in their level of enthusiasm. Van Pelt, Koperwhats and Winters said the budget was fiscally sound and fair to the taxpayers, urging voters to approve it on April 15, with Van Pelt pointing out that rejecting the budget hasn't gotten taxes any lower. "The last two years, our budget was defeated. Your taxes still went up $312. Edison suffered. … This budget is very fiscally responsible and cost-effective," said Van Pelt. Iyer, Maeroff and Szilagyi also supported the budget, but felt that it could have been better. Still, they said they believe that passing it would be better than the alternative. Szilagyi, currently pursuing her doctorate in educational technology, was particularly pleased that this year's spending plan emphasized technology upgrades. "I am very happy to see technology [spending] in the budget. … It's a start," said Szilagyi. There was a little bit more disagreement on the bond, with Szilagyi, Maeroff and Iyer stating that they were not in favor of the proposition. While they all agreed on the reason why the bond was proposed - overcrowding at schools - they felt that the plan needed to be part of a more comprehensive, phased operation. The trio expressed feelings that the bond was, instead, a one-off deal that would only address the overcrowding problem in the short term. "We need a bond that is part of a longterm, phased program. … That hasn't happened.We can't spend close to $52 million without input from all the stakeholders," said Iyer, referring to a previous criticism leveled against the board in that the process in which the bond was crafted and introduced did not sufficiently involve the residents. Maeroff echoed these concerns, saying the plan's financial solvency requires that children from Edison who are being educated in other towns must return to the district, but that such a thing happening is not certain. While Errico agreed that the process in which the bond was put together was problematic, he said he believes that the need for a new school outweighs any concerns he has about methodology. "Do I think the communication could have been better? Yeah. But I will not vote down the bond because I disagree with a board member. … We are in dire need of another school," said Errico, who also supported the budget, noting that costs going up is a fact of life. Van Pelt, Koperwhats and Winters all supported the bond as well, with Van Pelt disagreeing that there was insufficient public input. "Back in January, we had a budget hearing and the people spoke … I recommended a long-term faculty and budget committee. … This referendum doesn't cost the taxpayer anything," said Koperwhats, referencing that the new school is expected to be paid for through tuition savings by bringing special-education students back into the district. After this, the candidates were asked different questions, three at a time. During this phase of the forum, it was revealed that Van Pelt,Winters andMaeroff think the teachers are doing a great job and represent one of the main strengths of the district. All the candidates agreed that technology upgrades were very important, with some expressing great enthusiasm for concepts such as bringing lectures and speakers into classrooms through the Internet and online classrooms. Iyer also said that she would like to see the district's data warehousing improved. In addition, when asked about the possibility of the district hiring a grant writer, the candidates generally seemed to be in favor of the prospect, though Van Pelt said the district could look into sharing the cost of one with the township. Iyer agreed, and also said that the schools could look to the business community for support as well. Also, candidates Iyer, Koperwhats and Errico were in agreement that getting input from the parents and students was important to shaping good school policy. Errico also added teachers to this list, and said he will attend every PTA/PTO meeting that he can. It was generally agreed that the biggest challenge facing the district today is accommodating all the new students coming in, with comments about overcrowded classrooms and lack of space being accompanied by knowing nods by the other candidates. "If you don't move and get more classrooms, too many kids will be in the room, and then the kids don't learn," said Winters. The mood became a little tenser during the forum's closing statements. Koperwhats began by saying that Iyer, Maeroff and Szilagyi were "clearly chosen by Mayor [Jun] Choi" and then proceeded to accuse them of taking a $5,000 donation from someone with a vested interest in getting a favorable planning board decision. Winters chimed in with his statement, saying that the motives of the incumbents and himself were genuine. "You're seeing who's voting for political reasons and who is voting for the children," said Winters. Maeroff stated that his slate would have no conflicts of interest in the district, referencing board members who have family working in the schools, and thus would be able to make sound, objective decisions. He also stated that he, Iyer and Szilagyi have all vowed to never have someone placed in the district, and thus avoid any conflict of interest. "We have no conflicts of interest.…We have no relatives working in the school system and we will not hire any relatives to work in the school system. … We are running against powerful, entrenched forces. … This could be the last, best chance for the Board of Education to break free from the status quo," said Maeroff. Szilagyi said that she and her running mates are in the race because they feel they are the most qualified, not because of politics. She said they declined the ETEA endorsement because of the conflicts of interest this might generate, and then mentioned the incident in which former Superintendent Carol Toth was placed on paid administrative leave until the expiration of her contract in 2010 at a salary of $183,000 a year. This move was highly criticized by residents due to the lack of forewarning before it happened and the lack of an explanation afterward. Errico noted that he was the only one at that table who was not affiliated with any slate, running solely by himself, and also said that no one has endorsed him. To Errico, this lack of affiliation is a strength. "I don't have to consult two other running mates to decide how to vote," said Errico, and also added that taxes are a very important issue to him as well. Iyer stressed the importance of a board that was open and accountable to the public and said that she and her running mates bring the right mix of skills to the board. She also tried to allay concerns that they would be a bloc. "We are not clones and we don't plan to be a voting bloc of three. … You're voting for a change. … If you're happy with the status quo, don't vote for us," said Iyer. Finally, Van Pelt said the board has a history of good leadership and said that the acting superintendent who replaced Toth, John Dimuzio, gives the district proper leadership. He said that electing the mayor's candidates will give Choi control over the school board, which he does not believe is needed. He also defended the dismissal of the former superintendent. "Yes, we gave Carol Toth $183,000 [a year] to stay home…But in doing so, we have saved $750,000," said Van Pelt. Election night is April 15. Residents will be choosing Board of Education members as well as voting on the budget and the school bond.