Proposed budget disputed
Candidates, resident say officials misleading public

Asbury Park Press - April 1, 2008

TOMS RIVER -- Board of Education candidates Mary K. Gethard and Charles J. Henry Jr., as well as resident Robert K. Haelig, have come out against the school district's $190.6 million budget for 2008-09, issuing a three-page analysis completed by them as well as a news release accusing district officials of misleading the public on its true impact.

"They are obviously hoping to euchre the proposed budget through on April 15 through a variety of misrepresentations, and then try to shove the capital projects (and the additional tax increase) down the taxpayers' throats when the senior citizens are in Florida next December," Haelig, 71, writes in a budget analysis that he compiled with Gethard, 43, and Henry, 49.

Haelig, Gethard's father, is a frequent critic of the municipality and the school district. In March 2007, Haelig sued the schools, claiming the district wanted to overcharge him on documents he requested. Later that year, in September, Haelig was part of a lawsuit against the Toms River Republican Municipal Committee, its new nominee, Thomas F. Kelaher, and Carl W. Block, county clerk, contending Kelaher was unqualified to run for mayor because he was still prosecutor during the primary election.

In Haelig's latest challenge of township officials, he, Gethard and Henry contend the school district budget was misrepresented at a public hearing last week.

Yet officials at the state Department of Education contend some of the issues presented, as well as a review of the school district's budget presentation from the hearing, reveal misconceptions on the part of Gethard, Henry and Haelig.

"It is a serious concern that Bob Haelig, Charles Henry and Mary Gethard are deliberately trying to use false and/or misleading accounting and fabricating quotations that they attribute to officials in the Department of Education in an attempt to dupe the residents in the Toms River Regional district," said Tammi Millar, district spokeswoman.

The areas of the budget presentation in question were:

Per-pupil cost: It is claimed by the three that "the actual correct genuine real number can be constructed by dividing the total proposed budget expense ($203,713,992) by the number of students in the system (17,532) and using your calculator to get $11,619.55 as the actual cost per student."

They say the $11,619.55 is significantly more than the $8,878 per-pupil cost cited by Michael J. Ritacco, superintendent of schools. But that is the cost per pupil for the 2006-07 school year, identified as such by Ritacco, which is also calculated and provided by the state education department.

The total cost budgeted for 2007-08 is $9,335 per pupil, making it the second-lowest cost in that category for similar districts, Richard Vespucci, state Department of Education spokesman, wrote in an e-mail.

Tax increase: "Why does Mr. Ritacco and the school board claim a zero tax increase when the budget says taxes are up more than $3.9 million from last year?" the threesome wrote in the analysis.

The stable tax rate, as noted by district officials, applies only to Toms River, one of four municipalities in the regional school district. Of the other three towns, Pine Beach's tax rate is decreasing by a penny, Beachwood's is increasing by 1.4 cents, and South Toms River faces an increase of 2.5 cents.

Wording of the public question: The three write, "There is no clarification if this number (the $111,634,746 to be raised for general funds for the ensuing school year, 2008-09) represents the entire budget appropriation; what is meant by general funds, or what is the actual amount to be raised by taxation, and no explanation or statement of the tax amount relative to the total budget."

"The wording for the public question for all N.J. school districts is identical (except for the dollar amount) of course, and is spelled out in budget guidelines that are sent to the school districts," Vespucci said.

He added, "It is well understood that the dollar amount voted on is for the local tax levy to be used in the coming year and not for the total budget."

Vespucci also said the Department of Education is not aware of any confusion on how the ballot question should be worded.

Gethard, Haelig and Henry state: "The Toms River District is the only suburban district in New Jersey to have FIVE (count 'em) assistant superintendents. The waste of taxpayers money is endemic, and the state DOE has explicitly said so."

But Vespucci said the department has no concerns.

"In determining whether school districts are spending appropriately on administrative costs in proportion to their total budget, we don't calculate the number of employees who may have a certain job title," Vespucci said.

Instead, the state Department of Education looks at the total expenditures for administrative costs, he said.

"The (Comparative Spending Guide) reports that Toms River had $948 per pupil for total administrative costs budgeted for 2007-08, making it the sixth-lowest in its 104 (-school) district group and well below the state average of $1,365 per pupil.

"Spending in this category by Toms River is not raising any red flags for us," Vespucci said.

Millar added: "To combat these destructive tactics and improve the overall communication with our community, we have started an electronic communications initiative. We encourage residents to sign up for e-mail information (through the school district's Web site) at www.trschools.com."

-- Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo

Copyright 2007 Toms River Regional Schools. All rights reserved. Not responsible for external content.