Simple Arithmetic
Submitted by a local taxpayer interested in the annual School Budget vote.
It wasn’t surprising to read of the Court tossing out the defamation lawsuit of former RIH Superintendent Saxton (December 2011 Suburban News) against a Board of Education trustee.
Most public servants are interested in doing just what their name suggests, serving the public. They know they are part of a team that works together for everyone’s good. But some certain individuals believe they are above that and forget about everyone else. They forget that residents would enjoy having a complete library with offerings similar to neighboring towns, rather than have half the library be a crumbling shell of a building with half the books in storage.
They ignore that residents would like admirable public buildings to remind residents of Oakland’s unique and remarkable past, rather than more crumbling embarrassments. When voters are asked about ways to reduce everyone’s heavy property tax load, why aren’t educated residents given a simple arithmetic question such as: Should the Superintendent of RIH be paid 4 times what the average Oakland teacher is paid and should crumbling public buildings be left to fall apart, preventing the public from using of them, or should the Superintendent be asked to accept a salary more in line with what the Governor of NJ suggests, and let the extra $100K PER YEAR be spent on buildings that can be used by everyone in town?
The arithmetic based on the News article about Superintendent Saxton would go like this: Saxton was reported to be receiving $265K per year plus benefits. Governor Christie suggests that public officials needn’t cost the taxpayers more than the Governor himself earns, which is $175K per year. So if Mr. Saxton had been a true public servant, he could have agree to work for $165K per year and give $100K of taxpayer money back to the public to spend on public property benefiting all residents, and still earn twice what the average local teacher earns.
Ten years times $100K equals 1 million dollars to spend on the library, the Heritage Hills open-space and the buildings on the Van Allen House Site. An arithmetic problem like this as a referendum question at the next school election might provide some interesting answers.
Does the public feel that one superintendent, or assistant superintendent, whoever they may be, is 4 times more important than most of the wonderful teachers we have in town? Do the teachers feel that way? Is one man more important than any opinion of a trustee of the Board of Education that hired him in the first place?
Apparently the Court that tossed out the lawsuit against the trustee, Mr. Belsky, who dared to question Mr. Saxton, didn’t feel the Superintendent was more important than Mr. Belsky. Does the public believe that all the money spent on security systems in the High Schools was a necessary expense, considering that our competent administrators were on duty at all times? Will we ever know how people really want their money spent, or where they might like to offer their services instead?
I believe that use of the Stream House by Scout groups and museum and craft groups is more important than Mr. Saxton’s personal property that we support with our tax money, but we’re not asked to answer that question publicly. I would be interested to know which property other Oakland voters would vote in favor of and why.
I have heard someone say that Edward D. Page, who had the Stream House built for his successful produce business, and was mayor of Oakland in 1910 –11, was an over-bearing, self-important egotist of a man. I wonder what is going to become of Mr. Saxton’s house one day?