Judge decides not to toss 2004 referendum results
Petitioner still believes school district will have to hold another vote
BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer

ALLENTOWN- The state has dismissed a petition challenging the Upper Freehold Regional School District's 2004 referendum.

Administrative Law Judge Joseph F. Martone, of the state of New Jersey's Office of Administrative Law in Trenton, on Jan. 16 granted a motion by the Upper Freehold Regional School District to dismiss the petition.

The petition, filed on Sept. 13 by several local residents, asked that the state commissioner of education set aside the results of the December 2004 referendum. The petitioners were Allentown residents Micah Rasmussen, Diane Sterner and Daniel Zorovich, who also serves on the Allentown Borough Council, and Upper Freehold residents Gerald Nathanson and Marc Covitz.

In December 2004, the voters of Upper Freehold and Allentown approved a $38.9 million referendum authorizing the Upper Freehold Regional School District to acquire land and construct a new middle school on Ellisdale Road in Upper Freehold Township. The petitioners alleged that during a public meeting on June 28, school district officials acknowledged that prior to the election, the district was aware of but failed to disclose to voters the presence of dieldrin contamination on the proposed school site.

Earlier this year, Covitz asked that his name be removed from the document. When asked why he decided to withdraw his name from the petition, Covitz said, "I feel the petition is becoming counterproductive to reaching our ultimate goal, which is to get the middle school built as soon as we are able."

He continued, "I believe we all need to rally behind the Board of Education to move this project in the right direction."

On Oct. 3, Board of Education Attorney Viola Lordi filed a notice with the commissioner of education to dismiss the petition in lieu of an answer. The brief on behalf of the board cited NJSA 18A:24-65, which requires all challenges to the election results of a bond referendum proposal to be heard within 20 days of the election.

"Having waited more than 20 months after that date to file their petition," the notice states, "petitioners cannot now obtain an order setting aside the results of the referendum."

The brief further stated that the petitioners in this matter made a series of claims without any basis in fact or law, and that they have failed to advance a cause of action.

According to Rasmussen, the decision was based entirely on procedural grounds, and specifically avoided reaching any judgment on the facts and concerns the petitioners raised. He said he wanted "to thank Jerry, Dan and Diane for standing up for this important cause" from start to finish.

"It never ends up being easy or popular defending a basic fundamental right, but I don't think any of us could have known the intensity of opposition it would generate," Rasmussen said. "I admire their tenacity, and will always be grateful to them for seeing these concerns successfully through to a new referendum."

When asked about the more than $20,000 the district had to spend to fight the petition, especially given the atmosphere of severe budget constraints cited by the Board of Education, Rasmussen replied, "It is impossible for me to believe our school board members agreed to spend that kind of school money - and all they have to show for it is about 20 sheets of legal paper that cost us a thousand dollars each, a single conference call, and the fully informed referendum we asked for in the first place."

Rasmussen believes the district will hold another referendum, which would change the location of the middle school to a site on Breza Road. Although it's pondering the idea, the board had not made a decision about holding another referendum prior to press time.

The board was informed at its Jan. 17 meeting that the middle school project is already $10.7 million over budget without a shovel having been put in the ground.

"Now that all the crucial information is out there, warts and all, everyone will finally be able to make a fully informed decision," Rasmussen said.

When asked to respond to Rasmussen's statement, interim Superintendent of Schools Robert Smith said that it is revealing that the person who initiated the legal action that has resulted in the expense to the community wants to make people believe that the board is at fault.

Smith noted that the administrative law judge wrote in his ruling that he finds "that the language of the referendum proposal in question for 'construction' of a new grades 5-8 middle school on a site 'to be purchased' is sufficient to encompass site cleanup and remediation incidental to such construction as an improvement of the site."

Smith said that Rasmussen would like community residents to believe that the board did something wrong. He said the ruling vindicates the board's actions as legal and reasonable in meeting its responsibility to carry out the results of the referendum.