Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anon-pp98
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Dec 18 2017, 5:57 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

Our property taxes are paying bonuses to the School employees? We do not get a bonus in my job. I cant believe the board of education is wasting our money on bonus
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Dec 18 2017, 6:06 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

Bonuses are in lieu of higher salary and are incentive compensation. In my work bonuses are 30% of compensation. If I do not meet targets I lose money. I would prefer even less salary and more bonus. Tie compensation to performance.
Back to top
anon-4os8
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Dec 18 2017, 7:52 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

anon-pp98 wrote:
Our property taxes are paying bonuses to the School employees? We do not get a bonus in my job. I cant believe the board of education is wasting our money on bonus


Bonuses are just a piece of compensation. Sounds like it's not part of the expected comp at your work so presumably you didn't account for it when you did the cost benefit analysis on your job. Other jobs do typically have bonuses and it's part of what you evaluate in assessing whether its the job you want. Just like benefits, pensions, etc. My job has bonuses but no pension. I need to take home a lot more pay to build-up a retirement fund to compensate for the lack of a pension. Just part of the equation. I'm sure the staff at Cranbury School wouldn't mind if we stopped giving them bonuses and just baked that additional money into their base pay instead.
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Dec 18 2017, 9:24 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

I wonder if the bonus is pensionable. If not then making the compensation part bonus saves the town a lot of money long term.
Back to top
anon-r8p8
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Dec 28 2017, 11:00 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

NM-p0o2 wrote:
anon-p847 wrote:


She does two jobs (principal and superintendent) for one salary. She seemingly works 70+ weeks to accomplish this. She should be making well over $200k/year.



In this teeny, tiny school district how could she NOT be both principal & superintendent??? Get real.




How could she not be both? Very easily. The board could decide that the demand of the roles reached a level where it needs to be two separate jobs for two people just like when they added the vice principle as has been mentioned in other posts. I suppose you could debate whether it "could" or "should" be one person doing both jobs or two people doing 1 job each. Nonetheless, my statement remains the same and it is factual.... She's one person doing both jobs. Those are the facts. We could very easily be paying two salaries of $120k as opposed to her one salary. With already growing enrollment and also the new developments both on route 130, OTR/Main St, and others, don't be surprised if her current contract is the last contract where it isn't two jobs.

The percentage of families with school children in the new development on South Main Street is already much higher than expected. It is not higher than common sense would have dictated. However, it is much higher than what our incompetent TC, zoning board, and township planner allowed to be presented as valid assumptions. Check the minutes. They allowed the assumption to be that the 60+ townhouses on South Main would only add 17 students. 17 students in 60+, 3000 square foot townhouses! That's a joke. If it wasn't so sad it'd be funny. It's my understand that 11 units have been sold and they are all to families. So they assumed 17 student in 60 homes and there's is already approximately 20 students in the first 11 homes. Which would equal about 110 students in the 60 homes. Even if it turns out to be only 85 students, they'll have been off by 400%. Quality work.

Our teeny tiny district isn't going to be so teeny tiny anymore. That'll mean more employees, additions to the school building, and increased overhead. Wait til this blog sees the school budget then... the server will explode.

Don't forget to thank the TC, zoning and planning 5 years from now when we're doing a multi-million dollar addition on the school. I'm sure the developer who will make millions building those condos will be around to help us with that.
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Dec 29 2017, 9:10 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

anon-r8p8 wrote:
NM-p0o2 wrote:
anon-p847 wrote:


She does two jobs (principal and superintendent) for one salary. She seemingly works 70+ weeks to accomplish this. She should be making well over $200k/year.



In this teeny, tiny school district how could she NOT be both principal & superintendent??? Get real.




How could she not be both? Very easily. The board could decide that the demand of the roles reached a level where it needs to be two separate jobs for two people just like when they added the vice principle as has been mentioned in other posts. I suppose you could debate whether it "could" or "should" be one person doing both jobs or two people doing 1 job each. Nonetheless, my statement remains the same and it is factual.... She's one person doing both jobs. Those are the facts. We could very easily be paying two salaries of $120k as opposed to her one salary. With already growing enrollment and also the new developments both on route 130, OTR/Main St, and others, don't be surprised if her current contract is the last contract where it isn't two jobs.

The percentage of families with school children in the new development on South Main Street is already much higher than expected. It is not higher than common sense would have dictated. However, it is much higher than what our incompetent TC, zoning board, and township planner allowed to be presented as valid assumptions. Check the minutes. They allowed the assumption to be that the 60+ townhouses on South Main would only add 17 students. 17 students in 60+, 3000 square foot townhouses! That's a joke. If it wasn't so sad it'd be funny. It's my understand that 11 units have been sold and they are all to families. So they assumed 17 student in 60 homes and there's is already approximately 20 students in the first 11 homes. Which would equal about 110 students in the 60 homes. Even if it turns out to be only 85 students, they'll have been off by 400%. Quality work.

Our teeny tiny district isn't going to be so teeny tiny anymore. That'll mean more employees, additions to the school building, and increased overhead. Wait til this blog sees the school budget then... the server will explode.

Don't forget to thank the TC, zoning and planning 5 years from now when we're doing a multi-million dollar addition on the school. I'm sure the developer who will make millions building those condos will be around to help us with that.


please show your proof on the townhomes. Even if that is true, the school is well below peak numbers. In fact talking to an old BOE member our current enrollment is around what it was in the 80's when Shadow Oaks was all new. At that time we had just one principal. Now state laws have changed and we need a VP. But to say the townhomes will add enough kids to make a superintendent dent role necessary is a far stretch.

The townhomes could add 100 kids and we'd still fall below peak numbers of just a few years ago. Since the school is not cutting staff today with lower numbers we are fine with both faculty and not needing additions.

Please don't spread trolling and rumor.
Back to top
Cranbury B-4qr6
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Dec 29 2017, 11:48 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

No need to speculate on school enrollment
https://www.schooldigger.com/go/NJ/schools/0354003282/school.aspx
The most recent figure is 2015 where the school was 100 students less than its peak - the school got 40 NEW students this past Summer ( which is more than double the usual) the townhomes and applewood will yield far more students than the “studies” showed and our inept planning board accepted. PLUS here it comes - the dreaded demographic shift. With the hagerty/ kushner property development - we are attracting the “education focused” families by providing NEW housing with no yards or ammenities to distract the children from academic enrichment. Did the TC even contemplate the enrollment impact it might have on the town and our relationship with PHS? They set an awful precedent letting those properties languish and decay - never holding their owners responsible for their upkeep and letting them cash in on a big payday at the end for a development which will have a great impact on our school. Shame on them
Back to top
anon-0874
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Dec 29 2017, 3:41 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

Why not go to the school site?

Under budget enrollment was 656 students in 2006 and steadily declined since to 480 students this year (453 last year) growth of 27 kids in k-8 not 40).

This decline is also representative of the aging student population.

In order to hit just our prior peak level we would need to add almost 200 students.

Further, in terms of PHS not only has their BOE been vocal about needing to maintain the relationship to keep our revenue, but the state DOE rules make it nearly impossible for PHS not to renew the contract. To do so would require Cranbury to have an equivalent sending district, to agree to cancel and for the state to approve--among other issues.

With aging students, turnover of less than 5% of existing homes on average each year we can certainly absorb Applewood and the Hagerty development even if they added 150 students.
Back to top
anon-r875
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Dec 29 2017, 10:13 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

Enrollment from 2006, 12 years ago, is not particularly relevant. Curriculum has changed. Protocols have changed. Class sizes are now expected to be smaller so they can't have as many students because each homeroom now needs to have less kids than in 2006. The same figures you are quoting were brought up in the approval process to show that we had "plenty of room in the school". The school board very quickly shot down that notion and explained why the school could never go back to that volume without major infrastructure changes at the school building. If your interested in their explanation as to why they could not accommodate any major increases, read the minutes. The reasoning was well thought out and factually based. Suffice it to say that end result was that they could not accommodate a large increase. They were promised that it wouldn't happen....

Anyway, whether they figure out a solution or not does not change the fact that town leadership allowed themselves to be made fools of by the developer. They bought the 17 student figure hook, line and sinker. They had the town rely on it. Whether they were wrong by 500% or 250% remains to be seen, but they will turn out to be wrong and it will be by some hundreds percent; not 20%. Where I come from if youre wrong by that much of a margin, you get fired or resign. Here I guess you just get a discount on your omelette at teddys and you get re-elected.
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Dec 31 2017, 9:12 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

anon-r875 wrote:
Enrollment from 2006, 12 years ago, is not particularly relevant. Curriculum has changed. Protocols have changed. Class sizes are now expected to be smaller so they can't have as many students because each homeroom now needs to have less kids than in 2006. The same figures you are quoting were brought up in the approval process to show that we had "plenty of room in the school". The school board very quickly shot down that notion and explained why the school could never go back to that volume without major infrastructure changes at the school building. If your interested in their explanation as to why they could not accommodate any major increases, read the minutes. The reasoning was well thought out and factually based. Suffice it to say that end result was that they could not accommodate a large increase. They were promised that it wouldn't happen....

Anyway, whether they figure out a solution or not does not change the fact that town leadership allowed themselves to be made fools of by the developer. They bought the 17 student figure hook, line and sinker. They had the town rely on it. Whether they were wrong by 500% or 250% remains to be seen, but they will turn out to be wrong and it will be by some hundreds percent; not 20%. Where I come from if youre wrong by that much of a margin, you get fired or resign. Here I guess you just get a discount on your omelette at teddys and you get re-elected.


The 17 number was based on studies from what I understand. I agree 17 is wrong. But I also believe keeping that land open would have likely ended in a worse result for the town. Look at the TC having to accept a huge age restricted development on non-sewered land on Dey red. Look at Princeton having to accept Avalon. Builders were out in force after the court abolished COAH. The town very well could have been forced to accept an Avalon right on Main St. There were a number of articles that Avalon, Toll, and others were friends of the court during our affordable housing fight.

The school even in the 70's and mid-80's when I attended was the same class size.

Students age out, the new students assume these spots. The school can certainly adjust to accommodate an increase.

Your numbers don't account for the fact that as kids graduate not all parents sell their home. Many stay in Cranbury when their kids go off to college as evidenced by the limited housing stock for sale each year.

You're trying to create a panic, but:

1) The final student numbers remain unknown.

2) The school population aside from a 27 student increase has continued to decline.

3) Princeton has stated numerous times Cranbury is not going anywhere else.

4) The school can accommodate the students.

I agree that the 17 number is off. But, I also feel that the alternative of a large apartment complex or larger housing development would be worse.

Unlike the fear you're trying to instill and rile people. You can see how the town tried to preserve the Protinick farm only to have the land be sold at the last minute to Toll and the court force all those homes on the town. So imagine what could be done on skewered land.
Back to top
anon;37bee-nnnp
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Dec 31 2017, 10:15 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

The town could have bought Protinik but they wanted to steal it from the family. The Protinik's have worked their entire lives as farmers. Their life savings was invested in their farm.I can't see any of the members of the Township Committee offering to give up their 401K or other pensions to help out poor old cranbury--fact is they wanted the Protinik's to donate their life savings!!!!Some how in the scheme of things that doesn't seem quite fair-------
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Jan 1, 12:08 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

The TC worked hard with the county when there was no interest at all from any developer and put forward a multi-million dollar offer. The family accpeted it and only backed out when Toll came with more money.

The town was acting in good faith and a developer filed with the court and actually sued the town with the family.

I don't begrduge the family for taking more money. But they were not treated poorly at all by the town. However, they did put a housing burden on the town and that same situation could have occurred on s Main.
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Jan 1, 7:58 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

Also, the town's multi-million dollar offer which was based on formal appraisals and again accepted by the family was just to preserve the land. The family would stay and farm it. So the town was not stealing anything. Many farmers have done the exact same to preserve Cranbury. In fact one preserved their land without accepting money only a federal tax break.

If the town came to me and said we want you to not subdivide, you keep your home,I've there, can sell it to another farmer and we'll give you money I'd take it.
Back to top
Guest 321-n6o0
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Jan 16, 2:00 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

I find the posts about the fear of the number of students being added due to the townhouses rather humorous. The current school population is approximately what it was back in the mid 1980's. Since then we experienced a growth spirt up to high 600's and now back to around 480. We can handle whatever the townhouses bring.
Back to top
Fact Checker-4984
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Jan 16, 5:06 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

In 1988 there were 249 students - where are you getting your numbers from?
Back to top
anon-88r5
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Jan 16, 5:50 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury School chief gets new five-year deal Reply with quote

Fact Checker-4984 wrote:
In 1988 there were 249 students - where are you getting your numbers from?


In the mid-80's the school was experiencing the Shadow Oaks boom and was in the 400's. As that development just like Cranbury Green started to age, the enrollment in the school decreased. There are enough old BOE members around you can ask.

I have an old school year book from 1983 or so where a number of around 360 kids is mentioned.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3