Regional school seeking refund of election costs By JACK FICHTER ERMA- Lower Cape May Regional School District is appealing a Superior Court judge’s decision ordering the school to pay the $42,000 cost of a Dec. 9 special election that asked voters in three municipalities if Cape May should be permitted to withdraw from the school district. Lower Cape May Regional Superintendent Christopher Kobik told the Star and Wave the district was appealing the cost of the special election because it felt “rather than spend money on providing an opportunity for one of our constituents to get out of the district, we felt that spending that money on educating students is what the taxpayers intended when they provided that money to us.” The regional school district paid $42,000 to the county Board of Elections, so a favorable appeal would provide the school district with a refund, he said. “My focus is and will remain on the education of students and similarly try to secure all resources necessary for that main goal,” said Kobik. A joint letter brief on behalf of Lower Township and the Borough of West Cape May states, “It is significant that the special school election of December 9, 2014 was approved by the Board of Review and called by the County Superintendent, not by the Lower Cape May Regional Board of Education.” It notes respondents Lower Township and the Borough of West Cape May agree with the appellant that the applicable statutes contemplate that where a board of education of a school district calls the date on which a special school election is conducted, that fact makes the school board responsible to pay for the expense of conducting such a special school election. “The December 9, 2014 special election was not called by the Lower Cape May Regional School Board. The proposal for Cape May Citys withdrawal from the Lower Cape May Regional School District was defeated by a landslide of opposition to the proposition where 91.5% of the voters rejected Cape May Citys attempt to withdraw from the regional district,” states the letter brief. Point two in the letter brief states, “At the incipient stage of this political controversy, the Township of Lower, the Borough of West Cape May and the Lower Cape May Regional School District, decided that they should support the referendum process as anticipated by the Legislatures comprehensive scheme for resolving disputes about how regional school districts are funded and comprised.” The letter brief notes “it appeared to the elected officials of the Township of Lower, the Borough of West Cape May and the Lower Cape May Regional School District, that the City of Cape May was prepared to spend whatever money it took to exhaust administrative remedies available, in its goal to pursue its contemplated escape from the Lower Cape May Regional School District, not for any educational reasons, but solely as a stratagem to lessen its responsibility for the tax share assessed to Cape May City for the support of the Lower Cape May Regional School District.” The conclusion of the letter brief states: “Respondents Township of Lower and the Borough of West Cape May respectfully submit that for the reasons recited hereinabove and as argued in the brief filed on behalf of the appellant, only the taxpayers of the City of Cape May could benefit from passage of the question posed to the voters in the referendum contested on December 9, 2014. These facts and arguments support a decision by the Appellate Division to reverse the order issued by the Law Division below, and that the assessment of the costs for the conduct of the special school election held on December 9, 2014 should be made to the City of Cape May. In the appellate division brief, the school district notes when the state, county or municipality as a public entity, incurs costs for an election held on its behalf, it is responsible for the costs. “Interestingly, the New Jersey Legislature has also specifically mandated when an election is held solely for the benefit of a municipality is responsible for all election costs,” stated the brief. It notes the special election was the result of a petition filed by Cape May which was the only entity which could benefit from the special election and consequently, Cape May should bear the costs.
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:03:18 +0000