Fact Checking the Community Discussion on Courtesy Busing

Apr 30, 20241 Comment

-John Migueis, Shauna William & Laura Kapuscinski

Assertion 1: The District is responsible for defining hazardous roads.

The Township, not the District, holds the responsibility for defining hazardous roads.

For the past two years, as per the 2023 BHPSNJ Finance Committee Meeting Minutes, the Township and BHPD indicated that no roads were hazardous.

None.

In fact, the assertion that no roads were hazardous was one of the key arguments behind why the reconfiguration should happen.

The District looked to the Township as the Authority on this issue and the Township affirmed this role by providing their opinion (if the minutes are to be believed). This makes sense because the Township is the authority.

Starting today, the township can put sidewalks on many roads the community has expressed concerns about. This would solve the problem long term. Would homeowners be okay with this?

Last years BOE moved away from relying on who, by law, are the real experts to hired consultants unwilling to share their data.

This is a big deal as many families do not feel they were represented in the prior program or most recent policy that was voted down. Aren’t their children just as important?

Assertion 2: They just sprung this on everyone.

Ms. Stanley advocated last year that Courtesy bussing be phased out. Ms. Khanna advocated for a survey of families (not just last year but also this year). The District promised to conduct the survey but never did. Ms. Penna, Ms. Stanley, Mr. Cianculli, and Ms. Bradford all voted for a consultancy firm that promised to add clarity to the issue but ended up refusing to provide the scoring behind their recommendations. We’ve been writing about it ALL Year. It is almost comical that this assertion is being made with a straight face.

It’s important to note that the community’s concerns and feedback were pivotal in shaping this decision. The community has also been asking for clarity on how the courtesy bussing program worked. We have published multiple letters from different residents expressing these concerns.

Ms. Stanley headed a policy committee that was charged with providing this clarity; however, how the roads were identified, and the actual scoring needed to be present. For example, initially, Plainfield Avenue was on the list, and then suddenly, it wasn’t. Who removed it? On what basis?

Without the scoring, this swapping of roads on a list with no clear data makes the selection process appear arbitrary and politically motivated.

Prior to the meeting that the vote occurred – Ms. Joly reported on the options she felt were available to the District were based on the failure of the policy committee to produce a clear policy. Transportation was then added as an agenda item for the meeting the vote occurred in the following meeting- under new business.

There were multiple opportunities for public comment; there were several emails from BOE members on this issue published throughout the year, and even a petition circulating throughout the community with a door-to-door effort.

The process surrounding this decision was year-long and transparent.

Assertion 3: The District is going to lose money by getting rid of Courtesy Busing

We have looked far and wide for any evidence of this and could not find a single shred. There is pending legislation that has been held up forever that would allow for this, but nothing current. If and when that passes, the District could certainly re-evaluate the current decision.

In fact, if you look at the 2023 minutes above, the state and the finance committee at the time felt that getting rid of courtesy busing was a cost saving measure.

What they might be referring to is a formula that applies to ALL students being bused. While this formula is inclusive of students receiving courtesy busing it is not specific to courtesy busing. The best the consultants or BOE members who supported the policy could argue is that the District MIGHT obtain state aid in the future. Given that this formula has been in place and considering the State’s feedback from 2023, whatever amount we receive if any, does not cancel out the cost.

Assertion 4: Families will be charged 1k per year per child.

The BOE indicated that they would cap the pricing for families who have multiple children in need of subscription bussing. They also indicated that they would revisit the 1,000 figure and seek to lower it as the District has a good deal of money banked, and more people may be paying into the service.

So, while it is true that no changes to the pricing have been made for next year, they indicated that they will discuss the issue and make a decision in time for the next school year.

Assertion 5: The Board of Education Contradicted the Recommendations from a Team of Experts

BOE Members never received any data from the “experts”.

And there are questions as to whether these consultants honored their contract:

By charging every family, the District may be able to reduce rates, which will increase confidence in the program’s fairness. They can then take the time to have a real and authentic discussion with stakeholders including the Township on how to tackle this issue. This may lead the Township to begin putting sidewalks, intersections, etc., on many of the roads defined as hazardous.

Next year the District may end up with a more equitable, more affordable and more sustainable transportation policy. That will be up to what the four BOE Members do next.