What “taste of it’s own medicine” are you referring to here ? School boards aren’t required to provide the education of the parent’s choice- they are required to provide an appropriate education for each child, and if the child’s educational needs can be met in a public school the school board is not obliged to pay for a private school, religious or not.
Guess who would then complain ( correctly ) that their rights were being infringed upon ?
What was the taste of their own medicine? What did the local community do to deserve what it got?
Taking over the school board was part of the larger plan for the community to take over the schools themselves at friendly prices. A group should not be able to elect themselves to be in charge of something as important as a school district when it has a vested interest in ruining that school district. This was part of the entire crime, which doesn’t work if they don’t run the school district.
Provocative title with enough ambiguity to make this thread more about the title than the OP. Your suggestion would have been a better lead in.
This is has been a process that started years ago, and the current situation was predicted. Except for Jews being involved it’s happened in many ways. It’s not at all uncommon to have school board members without children in the public schools because they have an agenda outside of providing the best education. It may be taxes or ideology, or just political animals gathering and exerting their influence.
In New York local school boards wield great power in decision making with little oversight from the state. I had the misfortune of living in the wrong side of a town in New York. That portion of the town was in school district spread across multiple towns in two different counties. The result was very high taxes while the people with property in the other half of the town paid considerably less while providing comparable schools. Another town not far away went through the school tax revolt stage when newly built condos and townhouses swelled the originally sparse population with older residents who had no children in school. They were probably the same ones who demanded more spending on schools somewhere else 20 years earlier. I don’t recall much happening in that case, I don’t think they were able to pack the school board.
It’s an unfortunate situation because it is a tax issue that is enmeshed with religion and tradition. At the same time the lower taxes will make the town more attractive to all portions of the population and I think the pendulum will eventually swing the other way.
If the state law didn’t exist, the local compromise would still be in place.
It may well be that the state law is a good idea because it avoids even worse problems in other districts; I don’t know. But ISTM in this case, the law ended up making a locally-created compromise unworkable.
I think there are three distinct issues, but they are interrelated. I think you can certainly complain about the results of an election, that’s what a free society is all about. Another cornerstone of said society is certain things are protected from the democratic process. I can’t run a town and hold a referendum which says “No blacks or Jews in city limits on penalty of being shot.” That shit isn’t allowed because we’ve made a decision that certain things simply are impermissible and that higher levels of government will make sure lower levels of government follow these rules.
The TAL episode mentions the non-Jews in East Ramapo have lobbied the State for changes, and I’d argue that providing some level of basic, State-standards meeting education should be mandated by the State and laws should be structured such that local school boards can be taken over by the State if they fail to uphold such standards (this is regular practice in other States.) So I come down on this showing a weakness in New York State law which gives too much power and discretion to local school boards.
In general there are compromises to be made in that regard, the Amish do not pay for the social security system, and as a trade off they cannot claim benefits from said system. I’d actually argue this group of Orthodox Jews is not truly engaged in a trade off because they are illegally diverting funds for special education (and I think those funds are ultimately Federal in origin, although it is State law that prohibits this from happening) to their private schools. In effect they are destroying the public schools while trying to get benefits that IIRC are like $25k/year per student for special education in private Yeshivas.
I would agree except it’s not as big a deal as you are making it. These deals were all subject to further review and the school district was forced to revisit some that were deemed to be too far below market rate, and the Yeshivas were required to pay higher prices. I think the issues with the sale price of the public school properties has largely already been litigated.
The local compromise was extortion. It was we won’t take over your school district and ruin it if you agree not to investigate that we don’t teach our children certain state mandated subjects.
I don’t believe that is true the compromise was about not auditing the Yeshivas (and by and large the board held up its end–local school boards in New York are apparently responsible for auditing private schools, but have broad discretion in what form these audits take which is how the compromise could exist legally) the Orthodox then wanted the school board to send special education students to Yeshivas when they were not allowed to do so (thus changing the initial deal), when the compromise first came about the Orthodox community was a minority but a rapidly growing one. When the compromise ended they had become a majority of voters (while still a minority overall), at this point they are actually an outright majority of citizens living in the district. The Orthodox said openly they don’t believe they should have to pay taxes for things they do not use, and were tired of doing so. I think the compromise was on its last legs at any point, the Orthodox Jewish leaders were not stupid, and probably would not have continued paying high taxes when they could just take over the school board.
I would actually suspect that the State law is probably to comply with Federal funding requirements, as I suspect the special education program is probably one of those Federal education programs where there is a bucket of Federal dollars available usually based on certain behaviors of the States and maybe some co-funding from the States as well.
I stand corrected, then; it was the state law that created a fiscal time bomb which the demographic, and subsequent political, changes accelerated and intensified. My point is, it wasn’t like things were fine until the Hasidim took over.
Further, it’s not really true that State law ruined their deal. That’s only a part of it, the Orthodox Jews have been very open about the fact that while they were upset about the special education thing the fact that their community had grown to be a majority in the district meant it was essentially time to take over anyway. They actually tried to negotiate again on this matter and the Orthodox leaders basically said “why would we negotiate, we have all the cards and you have nothing to gives us in return.”
I disagree. The places where you see these kinds of conflicts playing out are not wealthy white neighborhoods (which large numbers of hispanics wouldn’t be able to move into), but blue-collar white neighborhoods and especially small towns.
And it’s not merely majority status and political control that matter. I’ve only read a couple of articles on it, but I get a general sense of sympathy for the locals unnerved by the sudden appearance of all these kosher stores and by the roads suddenly being empty on Saturdays. ISTM the tone is a bit different than it would be if it was small-town Oklahomans who were uncomfortable with all the mercados and Spanish-language signage.
JMO.
The OP indicates the Hasidim increased the school spending. They did not raise it enough to keep pace with the costs imposed by the teacher-pension obligations. That seems different from “running them into the ground.”
From the TAL transcript:
"Ben Calhoun
This argument-- that cuts were inevitable in East Ramapo, that they were making the same tough choices as other districts-- it’s not supported by the facts. I’ve analyzed the budgets of all the school districts in the county for the last 10 years. All the other regular school districts in the area, districts that faced the same economy and made it through without the same kinds of massive cuts, the main thing they were doing was raising property taxes. During the five years that East Ramapo was making its biggest cuts, all of the normal neighboring school districts raised their property taxes by an average of more than 25% just to get by. During the same five years in East Ramapo, the Hasidic-controlled board raised taxes by just 9%.
Some more numbers. During the last 10 years, every comparable school district in the county grew its budget by an average of 50%. East Ramapo’s budget grew by 33%. Which, to a layperson, you might say, well, oh, the budget grew. How bad could that be? I actually kind of thought that, at first.
But I talked to school administrators and experts who said that the costs the Hasidim and other conservatives say are out of control actually are rising alarmingly fast-- pensions, health care, union contracts, cost of living. Those things grow by so much that a 30-some percent budget increase, that isn’t growth. That’s devastation."
That’s one wayof framing the facts. Here’s another:
"The pensions and other obligations were so unsustainable that other school districts in the area were forced to jack up property taxes by an average of more than 25% just to get by. The pensions and union contracts were so bad that every comparable school district in the county was forced to grow its budget by an average of 50% just to feel like they were treading water!
The Hasidim, understandably, were less than enthusiastic to be stuck with the bill for a bunch of spending that took place before they were around and funded schools they didn’t even use. They were willing to raise their own taxes by 9% and raise the budget by 33%, but they drew the line there and said that the town that had made its bed was going to have to start lying in it."
That might be a credible argument if it weren’t for a few things:
East Ramapo was a complete outlier compared to neighboring school districts with regard to what they did fiscally. You could argue that they are an outlier who did the right thing, but these other school districts are currently in much better shape. So, in the best light, the school board was just incompetent. Which I might accept if it weren’t for all the other evidence such as:
This is the same school board that got two appraisals to sell one of their shuttered schools. One high and one low. A school district with it’s students’ best interest at heart, who was concerned about the finances of the district, probably would have taken an offer nearer to the high estimate. But, this one took a low offer (which happened to be from a Yeshiva) and tried to quickly get that through. Turns out the appraiser was bribed and convicted, by the way. But, if finances were their major concern, why the sweetheart deals on selling school property?
As previously mentioned, the “compromise” was really extortion and it was doomed as soon as the Hasidim were in the majority. But the “compromise” didn’t involve special education funding and even in the absence of the state law , even if the school board agreed to violate the state law, the result would have been the same. Maybe a little bit later- but it would have come.
I’m sure the tone is a little different, but not because people are unnerved by kosher stores and empty roads. There’s a background
in the NYC area that probably doesn’t exist with the small town Oklahomans and Hispanics where politicians and elected officials are perceived to be so afraid of losing the bloc vote that the Hasidic groups are given preferential treatment and also a sense that the expectation of special treatment encourages behavior that wouldn’t happen in the absence of special treatment. It’s not really a religious thing either - I’m sure it wouldn’t be any different if a another group had this sort of disproportionate political influence.
A New York City Bus Gives Women the Back Seat | TIME.com (public bus route run by a franchisor requires women to sit in the back)
CORRECTION CHIEF QUITS OVER ‘KOSHER KINGS’ FLAP (jail allowed catered parties for inmate’s children)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/nyregion/for-ultra-orthodox-in-child-sex-abuse-cases-prosecutor-has-different-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (Brooklyn DA treats Hasidic defendants differently from non-Hasids)
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/06/nyregion/housing-fight-in-brooklyn-is-settled.html ( settlement of lawsuit alleging Hasidic applicants for public housing are given preference)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/nyregion/06protest.html?pagewanted=print ( describes police incidents - and BTW if any other group had been involved in the first incident, there would have been a lot more than three arrests)
Those are just the ones I remember. They’re not the only ones- and of course, there’s this from the TAL transcript
Actually, it is not immaterial.
To be accurate, you could have posted “A Jewish group takes over…” or “Jewish citizens of E. Ramapo take over…” or something similar. By using the unmodified term “Jews take over” you have, indeed, created the appearance that their action was driven by Judaism rather than by the concerns or desires of a local group.
That you posted your rant in GD instead of the BBQ Pit is also a problem, but that one I can fix by moving this to the appropriate forum.
[ /Moderating ]
Us Jews take over whenever and where ever we can do so, we’ve been doing it for centuries. Everybody knows this!
So if someone says “The Germans bail out the Greeks to prevent a default on Greek bonds” they are in the wrong? It’s not like all Germans did that, only the German central bank. You wanna live in a world where over-specificity is compulsory even when everyone knows what is being discussed?
That depends on your definition of “better shape.”
I didn’t see that in the article, but taking all that as a given, obviously the appraisal is not kosher behavior (hah!).
That aside I don’t think taking a lower bid is *necessarily *always a bad thing (and I don’t think finances are their major, and certainly not only concern). I can think of lots of other factors that a school board could, and IMHO should, take into consideration.
Those of us who advocate balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism don’t do so because we like seeing zeros on the bottom of the page or have some kind of hostility to spending money for its own sake. We do it because government debt amounts to passing on our burdens to subsequent generations. It’s often unjustifiable, but just as importantly its unwise, because you don’t know who those generations are going to be and what their needs and priorities are going to be, and the less flexibility you give them, the greater chance they will do something you dislike.
I’d be quite unhappy if, during the budget crisis of 2035, the federal government decided that in order to avoid reducing the size of the military they were going to instead put Yellowstone up for sale. That would not be my preference. But I’d have to acknowledge that if that generation of voters and leaders, whoever the hell they are, hadn’t been handed a zillion-dollar deficit, they might have been more willing or able to do the things I would prefer. Debt forces hard choices.
Personally, I’m not a huge fan of what the Hasidim are doing; I’m opposed to interest-group politics on principle. (Of course, as a white guy, I would be). But they’re working within the society they find themselves in, and they certainly aren’t squeezing the city as hard as they possibly could. I mean, I don’t see them eliminating all extracurricular activities or laying off every employee they possibly can. I don’t anything in there about requiring school board contractors to reflect the town’s diversity by being x% Jewish-owned, or have x% Jewish-owned staff. There are any number of other things other minority groups have done that they haven’t.
I don’t think they’re acting out of neighborly goodhearted concern for the community as whole. They are largely self-interested … but then so are most people, most of the time, and I don’t see anything they’re doing that’s so different in kind from the kind of things other groups have done for the last 200 years or so.
I should have been clearer. It’s hard to argue the former school board cared about ALL the children in the city given they were quite content to allow Jews to receive inferior educations so long as they kept paying taxes, didn’t cause trouble, and didn’t want any representation. Now, they are upset because their kids are getting short shrift when they had no problem with a status quo that did the same to others. I don’t think many people in this story have clean hands.
They are interrelated insomuch as they are all happening there, but I don’t see any reason as to why they shouldn’t be addressed separately.
Yes, but there is little basis for a complaint that amounts to, “this process is bullshit because the other guy fairly received more votes than me”. The complaints seem to be against people exercising their constitutional rights as a voting bloc. I don’t think that opinion holds much weight. Just listen to the TAL episode. There are several exasperated people complaining about how hard they worked to get out the vote only to be bested the Hasids who always seemed to get more.
Sure, but I don’t think any of those elected have done something analogous to that.
I haven’t looked too deeply into the issue, but I would agree with you assuming your synopsis is correct.
Yes, and I think that is a separate issue with it’s own pros and cons. Ultimately though, I think forcing an insular community to participate in certain ways is often not worth the trouble as long as a minimum standard of respect for human rights is followed.
Legally, what they are doing seems wrong. However, I don’t think it’s particularly wrong morally speaking. I would rather that happen than a special needs kid go without a proper education because his parents are religious nutjobs. Assuming the money is actually going to help the kid, the letter of the law is not my primary concern.
Well, your argument basically boils down to it not being a bid deal because they got caught prior to completing the act. The board was willing and ready to commit fraud. That is the biggest issue here, and the largest indictment of their leadership. Failing to increase spending enough will always come down to ideology on some level. No one should be okay with bald corruption.
“The Germans” implies collective action at a large scale – like the German government. So for a bail out, this would be fine. “Jews take over” has a collective implication – like worldwide or nationwide Jewry.
Please.
If you really believe that crap you’re even dumber than I thought.
The above is a rather obvious reference to the government of Germany.
People make references all the time to “the Russians”, “the Iranians”, “the Americans”, or even “the Israelis” and it’s always clearly a reference to a government.
Outside of the Middle East, the same isn’t true when people refer to “the Jews”.