PHILLY.COM's TOP FIVE PICKS
On the face of it, the legislation signed into law this month by Gov. Christie makes an enticing offer.
It allows school districts to move board elections from April to November, and eliminate the popular vote on budgets if they require towns to collect no more than 2 percent in additional tax with each new budget.
The move takes away uncertainty over the fate of school budgets, which are sometimes rejected by voters even when they offer decreases in spending.
It also would attract more voters, since board elections would be held along with state and national contests.
But many school officials, meeting this week to discuss the change, have questions:
Would the move to November inject politics into school board elections?
Would candidates have to spend more to get out their message amid the high-stakes state and national races?
And would the law's required four-year commitment to the new schedule prove burdensome if the change didn't work out?
Nearly 60 of the state's 538 school boards and municipal governments, including South Jersey communities from Collingswood to Upper Pittsgrove, have passed resolutions to accept the new schedule.
More are expected to follow and are waiting for the state Department of Education to announce the 2012 cutoff date for making the decision, said the New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA), which supported the legislation.
"We have received many calls from school board presidents, superintendents, and school district attorneys," said Frank Belluscio, spokesman for the group. "Interest is very high."
If districts don't make the change this year, they can adopt it later. But they will have to decide soon since the process for the spring elections, including candidates' filing to run, usually begins by February.
In Moorestown, board members discussed the law's impact Tuesday and have sought public comment, board president Don Mishler said. They are expected to make a decision on Feb. 3.
About 3,200 people voted in the 2011 Moorestown school election out of about 14,000 registered voters.
"We haven't staked out a position as a board," Mishler said. "We have questions. Would the message of board candidates get lost in a general election?
"Will the candidate pool shrink because the election process may become too expensive to get the message out? Will the election become more partisan?"
Moorestown officials also wonder about the multiyear commitment. "Once you lock in, you can't get out," he said.
The district wants the public to be informed about school spending, Mishler said.
"People couldn't vote for our budget" if it came in under the cap on tax-levy increases, he said. "We take pride in educating the public about the budget. Sixty-five percent of tax dollars in Moorestown go to schools; we're not shying away from explaining to voters what we're doing."
Officials recognize the potential savings. "We spend about $20,000 to rent machines, print ballots, and pay elections personnel by the hour at seven polling sites," Mishler said.
The consolidation of school elections with local, state, and federal races could save taxpayers up to $12 million, if all the state's districts adopted the measure, the legislation's sponsors have said.
Christie had wanted the move to fall to be mandatory and has called on districts "to act as quickly as possible" to adopt that schedule.
The change could be implemented this November if a school board or municipal government passed a resolution in favor of it, or in November 2013 if the issue were approved by voters through a ballot question.
In Washington Township, school officials met Tuesday but did not take action on the change.
"Anything that draws school business closer to partisan politics is inherently dangerous," said Superintendent Bob Goldschmidt. "The only ones with money during partisan elections in November are political parties. You're inviting further entanglement in the process."
