Ms. Bradford introduced a motion to reverse the decision from the last meeting in which the Board approved only Mandated and Subscription bussing. Ms. Akiri called her out as she had not provided 48-hour notice of this motion before the meeting, per Board policy.
The Board attorney allowed the vote to happen. The motion failed with a 4-2 vote. (Mr. Hyman did not participate since he was not at the last meeting.)
“The Four” Board members were repeatedly disparaged throughout the evening for how they voted.
Ms. Bradford deviated from the usual Board rules and allowed residents to come up more than once to speak.
The options that were provide for a Board vote, in addition to notifying families who had long been getting courtesy bussing, could have and should have been communicated better.
The three public comment sessions were all contentious, filled with anger, frustration, and some emotionally fueled tones from residents. Some key players took the microphone several times, expressing displeasure in the Board vote.
We learned the Board never received a scorecard or ranking of streets in town. The hazardous streets were merely a list provided by the consultants that had received a score over 100.
Regardless of which side of the transportation debate you are on, there is no doubt from anyone that there are some seriously unsafe streets for children to get to and from school. But making a determination in who gets a free ride because they are unsafe versus who should have to pay $500 is still up for discussion and debate.
Universal bussing should have been discussed and not a single person has offered this option – it is truly the only equitable and fair solution.
Public Comments related to bussing:
One argument advanced the idea that schools neglected to budget for the added liability of hundreds of students potentially taking unsafe routes home because they would no longer get bussed. Schools bear the responsibility of ensuring students get home safely. While schools have a legally binding duty of care, when students are on school property during normal school hours – schools are NOT generally liable for incidents that occur off-campus. As a side note, there are some exemptions to this rule, but the district’s liability doesn’t pertain to a student’s/family’s decision in how they get to school.
A resident commented that courtesy bussing, as it was – undefined and haphazardly given to some but not others with no rhyme or reason, was not really fair. The resident favored the universal cost approved by the Board.
There was the argument that by removing the courtesy bussing our township would somehow be less desirable and that this decision would drive up taxes as more crossing guards and proper signage would be needed. (Of note, New Providence only offers mandated bussing and they are in similar tax bracket and a more than desirable town to reside in. Additionally their cost per pupil is lower than BH!).
Ms. Bradford invited “the four” to “defend” their votes on transportation. Ms. Joly elaborated that she never intended to present a financial hardship or to upset and anger. Her decision was rooted in the fact that she (still) does not have data to support the designated hazardous streets. Dr. Foregger questioned the rate of accuracy in how the district measures those who qualify for mandated bussing – a point that a resident also brought up. Ms. Akiri echoed Ms. Joly’s comments and is still asking for data because there needs to be a plan in place for this year and for years to come. Ms. Khanna did not comment. Mr. Nixon reiterated that he favored the proposed Transportation policy, 8600, and that he wanted the Board and Administration to continue working on the plan and the policy.
