Mayor Kelly Responds to Oceanport BOE
“Quit interfering with the will of the citizens of Sea Bright and stop wasting our tax revenue,” Sea Bright Mayor Brian P. Kelly responded to Oceanport Board of Education President Mark Patterson in a six page no nonsense letter that pointed out a stream of inaccuracies and errors the Oceanport board promoted in a letter to Sea Bright Mayor Kelly and Council last month.
Kelly was firm, emphatic, and obviously incensed by the Oceanport letter, which came unsigned but typed identifying the sender as the Oceanport School District Board of Education. The names of its president, Mark Patterson, Vice President Deirdre Bova and all seven other board members were also typed at the end of the letter that he sent. Kelly charged in his response, dated July 12, the Oceanport letter is filled with misinformation and attempts to make the decision for Sea Bright parents and governing body on what is best for Sea Bright students.
Graciously appreciative of the Board’s work, Kelly reminded the board, however, that Sea Bright citizens do not have a voice on the board that governs the education of their children so therefore has no control over any decisions.
However, Kelly pointed out “the only say our citizens have related to the education of our children is to determine the school district where they are sent.” Sea Bright residents have for several years now indicated and taken action to become part of a new regional school district with adjacent Highlands and Atlantic Highlands school districts.
“For reasons that remain unclear,” Mayor Kelly continued “your letter seeks to further disenfranchise Sea Bright’s citizen by removing the right to make that educational decision for their children.”
Pointing out “no one from Oceanport has reached out to discuss this, much less offer a solution,” Mayor Kelly urged Patterson to “reconsider your involvement and allow all Sea Bright’s families to freely determine what is in the best interest of our community’s children without interference from elected officials in a neighboring community.”
Kelly blames Oceanport for thinking of tax dollars before education, pointing out Sea Bright tax revenues go to the Oceanport school board where Sea Bright does not have a voice. H added he finds it troubling that Oceanport “has chosen to use Sea Bright’s tax revenue to employ its board attorney at the expense of both Sea Bright and Oceanport “to spread misinformation and deprive our community the right to vote on this important issue.”
That the matter will be on the ballot in an upcoming election seemed more likely in Atlantic Highlands at their Council meeting Thursday night. There Borough Administrator Robert Ferragina announced that Monmouth County Commissioner of Education has forwarded his recommendations on the regionalization question to the Commissioner of Education. With her approval, the matter would then be on the ballot in Highlands, Atlantic Highlands and Sea Bright in an upcoming election, giving the voters in those three boroughs the right to plan the educational programs for their children.
For the next several pages of his letter, Kelly pointed out to Patterson “your representations are entirely inaccurate.” He then proceeded where and how he determined the inaccuracies, citing sources, specific professionals and educators. He cited professionals with considerable credentials who conducted two separate and distinct studies on how regionalization with the neighboring towns will improve education and costs for all three towns in a new Henry Hudson District. Both studies, he pointed out, “reached the same conclusion, Sea Bright joining a new regional school district would result in substantial savings.”
Then Mayor Kelly systematically and thoroughly cited the Oceanport inaccuracies. Unlike Oceanport’s pinion, even considering a phase-out period in the transition, transportation costs “are in the budgeted tax levy’, and the resulting tax reductions are “consistent and included in the Study’s analysis.”
Concerning salaries, Kelly assailed Patterson’s correspondence that salary reconciliation “will certainly decrease the estimated savings.” That statement “ignores clear facets in the Study,” Kelly said, then launched into a seven-paragraph explanation with history, study facts, and state law that shows “a number of benefits in creating a new salary guide that history has shown does not mean an increase in costs to the district.”
On the question of Special Education for students in that placement, Kelly said, referring to Patterson’s allegations, “this is again inaccurate,” and explained that in the present situation Sea Bright’s tax levy payment provides for the cost of educating all children and will do the same in the new district.
“Your accusation once again, is inaccurate,” Kelly told Patterson when it comes to debt service. But he added that in this issue, if anyone is short changed, it would be Sea Bright taxpayers. Sea Bright citizens paid a large share of the cost of two buildings in Oceanport, but once Sea Bright leaves Oceanport schools, “Oceanport will continue to reap the benefit from these assets.”
Kelly also corrected Patterson’s representation, inaccurate as it is, that a borough, as opposed to a school board, cannot submit a question on a referendum on enlarging a school district. He pondered that “it remains unclear why Oceanport remains insistent on making all decisions related to Sea Bright’s children rather than allowing Sea Bright to take care of their own citizens themselves.”
“You are seeking to disenfranchise Sea Bright’s citizens from having any say in how their children are educated.”
In a tongue in cheek suggestion alluding to Patterson’s letter which said the board members expected the board’s letter to be read at the borough council meeting, “in full transparency,” Kelly said “I will leave it to you on whether you wish to read this at your next public meeting,” referring to his own six page letter.
Read Both Letters
Oceanport letter to Sea Bright
