Part One in a Series on the Township’s Coercion Campaign on the CMS Lease Agreement

On the Agenda for this week the Township Council has, as an agenda item the execution of a Lease Agreement on the CMS Field.

This is likely to be another theatre on the part of the mayor and council as we are aware that there has been a strong email campaign on this issue.

But here’s the thing.

As of the 02/27/2025 BOE Meeting it was clear that the Board of Education has not even received a revised agreement to review.

The public has not had a single opportunity to review this CURRENT agreement.

In reviewing the Ordinance, there is not a single mention of revenue sharing to support our students.

Before digging into this I have a few questions for everyone.

Why are we automatically assuming that a turf field is the best use of this land?

Has anyone asked you what should be done with the property?

If it were up to me, I would advocate for something with broader educational value—perhaps an environmental science center or an outdoor theater for students. Aren’t young people interested in those areas just as important- shouldn’t there be options that include them?

Why are the Mayor and Recreation Department driving towards this singular conclusion?

Who granted them legitimacy to make such a unilateral decision without any real input from the community (not just athletic organizations)?

Why weren’t multiple options for the field’s use presented to voters?

Would a turf field still be the top choice if families had been given real alternatives?

Why didn’t the conversation start with “what does the community think?” versus “This is what we think now do it”.

Why is the BOE muzzled with confidentiality due to a process framed by the Mayor, Township Administrator and the Recreation Department while these same three entities are able to launch campaigns that involve local organizations?

Have the residents who will be most impacted by traffic and potential water issues in that area been informed about this project specifically and invited by our Township Government directly to provide feedback?

The opinions of the Mayor, Council, Recreation Commission, PAL and Families with children in sports are absolutely important, but so is mine and so is yours.

This process resembles the re-configuration process: one predetermined solution, little detail with a lot of words and a hard campaign to “get this done”

It’s not fair.

It’s not right.

It’s not how open, transparent and inclusive governing works.

Other people matter.

Our schools matter.

After nearly a month of trying to obtain communication between the District and Township on the lease agreement, the township provided a shocking and disturbing communication from the Mayor and Town Administrator to the Superintendent.

There are two key issues that stand out in what appears to be an effort to pressure the Superintendent into influencing the Board of Education (BOE) regarding school property.

1. Township Services Are Not “Gifts”

The Mayor and Township Administrator have framed the services provided to the school district as favors, when in reality, these services are funded by residents and taxpayers. Residents, including those with students in the district, contribute to these costs. The District has the option—and perhaps should seriously consider—whether these arrangements continue to be in its best interest.

At the end of the day we are talking about $37,000 in services the township provides that the District can easily afford in a budget full of unnecessary costs that could be cut and repurposed.

2. The Tennis Courts and Student Access

The Mayor and Township Administrator have now linked the use of tennis courts to this larger issue, suggesting that if the BOE and Superintendent do not comply with their requests, district students may lose access to them. This raises concerns about whether students’ access to facilities should be tied to unrelated political or administrative decisions.

If the Township is willing to throw students in the middle by cutting off tennis courts what does that say about their assurances that our schools will have priority use of the new fields?

Will that only hold until the next issue the Mayor and Administrator need something to threaten the schools with?

From the Mayor:

What if the BOE wrote back and said “As of 02/01/2025 all of the children in all the new developments will no longer be able to attend BHPS School until the rich developers (many of them political campaign contributors) the town entered these agreements with start paying taxes to the school like everyone else?”

It will be interesting to see the Districts response to the Mayor’s letter as there are factual inaccuracies almost right from the start.

This ongoing dispute over school property has been a topic of discussion for years, but the township’s approach in this instance appears to be shifting. One possible factor is the recent change in BOE composition, which has moved from being largely controlled by longstanding political influences to a more balanced decision-making body.

Adding to concerns, the Mayor has not yet provided residents with a copy of the CURRENT lease agreement she is asking the District to sign. Instead, she references a past referendum that did provide not voters full context about the details of the agreement.

While we can all agree a best use of the property would be in the community’s interest it needs to be fair. The Districts athletics budget is already the highest on our dashboard ($450 per pupil) and this property the township is asking to give away will be to further that investment.

And while investments in athletics are important, our students in co-curricular are receiving less than 1/3 of what Athletics receives while investments in textbooks ($1.50 per pupil) are microscopic.

There are other important questions: Who will be awarded the contracts for this project? What are their political ties and contributions? And why the sudden urgency?

If this project is so essential, why weren’t these tactics used in previous years when machine-backed representatives held majorities?

Examine the tactics at play.

Recognize that not every child in the District is an athlete—yet all deserve equitable support.

This field belongs to the entire community, not just the Mayor, Council or Recreation Department.

I fully support making better use of the field, but any agreement must be fair, transparent, and beneficial to all children in the community.

A true commitment to fairness starts with halting negotiations, having a genuine conversation with stakeholders (not a marketing campaign with biased ballots) and providing residents with a full copy of the agreement before proceeding further.

No community should tolerate the kind of intimidation tactics being used by the Township. Negotiations should be driven by transparency not coercion. The land belongs to OUR students -not Mayor Devanney.

This is not the US vs. Them campaign the township is trying to turn this into. It is a serious negotiation that the District is entitled to evaluate for the benefit of all its students.

So you have a choice.

You can Cheer-lead the Mayor’s initiative without knowing any details of the lease agreement and without concern as to how other people may want to use this field or their thoughts on it’s impact. You can join the Mayor’s full court press.

Or.

You can ask that she step back and treat residents and our District with respect by initiating a more open and inclusive discussion.

Link to Mayor and Recreation Commissions Letter to Dr. Feltre

Read More on Berkeley Heights Town Council

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free