School Board Sends Scaled-Back Fields Plan for DOE Review

Member Gary Martin passionately urged colleagues to submit all options—and added that a new high school should be built.

The collection of an estimated $11.5 million in athletic improvements for Parsippany's high schools is off the table.

Rather than risk the ire of taxpayers and voters, the Board of Education unanimously decided to submit a reduced-option package of items to the state Department of Education for its review. If approved, the board will be able to move forward with plans to draft a referendum and, in January, the board hopes, put the idea before voters.

The package, as proposed by school board member Anthony Mancuso, contains the following options for both Parsippany and Parsippany Hills high schools:

  • artificial turf fields
  • storm water management systems (mandated by the state)
  • new 6-lane track ovals
  • new fencing
  • modernized lighting.

Member Deborah Orme made a motion to also include restrooms, which also won unanimous passage.

It was clear from the start of the meeting that board members—President Frank Calabria, Vice President Frank Neglia and member Deborah Orme are running for re-election in November—were very aware of strong public opposition to what some characterized as an excessive and expensive plan.

Superintendent of Schools LeRoy Seitz reminded the board that it was voting only for what improvement options, if any, would be submitted to the DOE and that any final decisions would not need to be made until Nov. 23.

After discussion and questions, Mancuso made his motion for the board to submit a reduced list of options to the BOE, offering up a plan that would run an estimated $6.8 million and bore some resemblance to the controversial $4.5 million township turf field proposal the BOE rejected earlier this year.

There are some dissimilarities, however. The price for the Mayor James Barberio-backed plan did not include legally mandated costs for storm water management, Seitz acknowledged, which would bring the two estimates much closer together.

Board member Gary Martin spoke against Mancuso's restraint.

"I agree with having six lanes rather than eight, but bathrooms, water cannon, grandstands… I want all this in there," he said. "Let the people vote. If the people want it, we'll do it. If they don't, we won't.

"The bleachers are garbage; we need new," Martin continued. "We're not doing anything that other schools are doing. The piecemeal approach and not giving
 the kids a place to go to the bathroom? Let's do it right. Let's not do things half-assed."

Member Michael Strumolo agreed with Martin.

"My fear is if this doesn't pass, we go back to square one and the kids go back to playing in conditions that none of us on the board want," he said.

"I don't feel comfortable sending an $11.5 million plan to Trenton," Orme said, explaining that it would create a perception in town that the board was throwing its support behind all the items.

She also added that the public should get to weigh in on the issue of adding new restrooms via a second question on the referendum. (In a referendum, architect Greg Somjen of Parette Somjen explained, multiple questions may be offered, however, if any question is rejected, any questions that follow it are rejected.)

Martin practically exploded in response.

"Now we're going to piecemeal this and leave the problem for the future?" he insisted. "We've gotta start here, this is bare bones!"

"We've had several meetings and we have listened to our public and our own hearts and mind," said member Fran Orthwein. "It comes down to what we want and what we can afford. Even cutting back, it's still a lot of money."

Orthwein added that it was wise for the board to put forward a plan that had a chance of being "embraced and supported by the community."

Martin argued that dealing with improvements one by one over a long period of time and patching repairs would grow increasingly expensive in the future. He then elicited some gasps with a suggestion that a new high school building should be constructed.

"What do you want, I'm a big old liberal," he said.

Resident Bob Venezia responded from the audience.

"You didn't say that when you were running for the board," he said. "You promised to keep the taxpayer in mind!"

Member Susy Golderer said that even the scaled-back plan was tough for her to accept.

My personal [limit] was at most $6 million," she said.

"What about existing repairs to bleachers," asked member Sharif Shamsudin. "They're wood and a lot of it is rotten. People might say it's safe, but if you're stepping onto wood rather than metal…"

Seitz sought to reassure Shamsudin that the bleachers may be worn, but that they are safe.

"However, the supervisor of Buildings and Grounds is working on replacing those bleachers at both schools," the superintendent said, adding that $100,000 was budgeted specifically for bleacher repair

Martin officially moved to submit all 11 improvements to the DOE.

"If we put all 11 in, we have a few months to hear how the people feel," he urged."If we pass all 11, we don't have to worry about going back to the state."

Somjen, whose firm handled the research, agreed with Martin.

"I recommend submitting the maximum," he said. "Then, it's easier to get it reviewed from the state in the event of a change that forces you to have to resubmit. It's easier to take things out than to put then in."

Unlike Mancuso, Martin demanded that the board vote on his motion prior to public comment.

President Calabria balked, saying that it would start a bad precedent.

Orme agreed.

"We've been inviting the public to comment throughout the process," she said. "It would be a disadvantage to this board to move forward on a motion without giving the public an opportunity to weigh in."

Resident Beth Bluj thanked Mancuso for his small-package approach.

"Sending all 11 will only fuel the fire [of public anger]," she said, adding that components such as Americans With Disabilities Act-compliant bleachers should come out of the boards regular operating budget. "I think the people have spoken on what they want: lights, fences, tracks and fields.

"And we want no more delays."

"A lot of towns already have a lot of these bells and whistles," said Venezia to the board. "If these towns did all those things it's because they elected to do it out of their budgets. If we don't, it's because you elected not to do it. You decided that other things were more important than fixing fences and tracks."

Resident Hank Heller put the blame for longtime poor field conditions on Seitz and angrily urged him to "pack his saddlebags and leave."

President Calabria called Heller's comment out of order and asked him to leave the microphone.

The board voted in Mancuso's plan, 9-0. Martin's all-or-nothing idea went down, 6-3.  And Orme's plan to add restrooms as a referendum second question was approved, 8 to 1.

In each instance, Golderer voted yes with a caveat that when November comes, she will not support any plan that exceeds a $6 million total cost.

Hank Heller August 26, 2012 at 04:52 PM
#3 If we followed BOE member Gary Martin's view that we should build a new high school, would we also just ask Parette Somjen Architects, LLC to design it for us and let it go at that? Probably, based upon Dr. Seitz’s frankly unacceptable answer to my question. For the record, I am not against building fields that could have multiple uses for the school children, if it is built well and at fair cost. I am against "hoping" that things work out well, as opposed to a disciplined and professional approach to managing our way toward success. That is not what we are doing in this case, and via Dr. Seitz approach and many members of this BOE's willingness to follow Seitz like puppies, I suspect that if the taxpayers vote to do this reduced project, we will still spend much more than we needed to. I think the "water cannon" discussion is a great example of my points here.
VietNam Vet August 27, 2012 at 04:20 AM
Hank, I am against these fields being built at all. In this bad economy we have no idea where the next dollar will be coming from, if they want to do this so bad save up for it like everyone else has to do, and wait until this economy turns around...if ever. Seitz wants to use this Parette Somjen is probably giving seitz a nice kick back to make up for any losses he's had from the salary cut,...if it was even cut, which I still don't believe otherwise I don't think this greedy crook would be hanging around here.
Hank Heller August 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM
I understand Mr. Brown's position above, and I am not sure what the most correct answer is. What I do feel, however, very strongly, is that we have never gotten a clear and understandable explanation of what happened to the $5+ MM in excess funds that Mrs. Wendolowski reported on her last meeting at the Parsippany BOE. Yes, Dr. Seitz told us that the moneys reported by Mrs. Wendolowski were not $5+ MM but something much less. And those left-over funds were, by law, allocated to other budgetary lines in the 2012 budget, per Dr. Seitz. I never understood Seitz' logic or explanation, nor frankly, do I believe it. If we could get an unallied (with anyone) forensic CPA with real experience in NJ school accounting, to examine all of the Parsippany BOE books, I personally feel sure that we would/could find the money needed to build proper turf fields using funds already collected and in the hands of the BOE without a tax increase or the need for new bonding. If that were the case, the high schools could have what they need and the people of Parsippany would have done the right thing without being abusively taxed and we would not have to have a referendum at all. I also believe that the majority of this BOE (Dr. Calabria, Mr. Mancuso, Mr. Neglia, Mrs. Orme and Mrs. Orthwein) and Dr. Seitz would never allow an unallied expert, who they could not control, to look at the districts finances. Back to square one.
Adam Gragnani August 28, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Hank, I agree with you. Left over funds, by law? Does anyone remember the nursing home priviliges that were given out by the school board to certain administrators and their families? Once it blew up in their face by the state, they back tracked on it. Am I wrong here? If I am, I will apoligize.
VietNam Vet August 29, 2012 at 01:01 AM
Hank, I may not have made myself to clear through my anger at certain members on this board, but you are saying basically what I should've made a little more clearly, if this board wants to do things, they should use that $ 5 million { that many are telling never came about} and the seitz says there will be a surplus of another million dollars, thats 6 million in surpluses and then this guy wants to raise taxes somemore and put this burden on the backs of the seniors who cannot afford it anymore. This admin and the BoE doesn't want to hear about that. They already have now $ 6 million in surplus dollars, thats a good start to get most of this stuff done, but seitz wants more... just like a greedy jerk.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »