Get out your pencils and explain this, if you can.
The Jersey City school district, which has been wresting itself free of state control for a number of years, is currently dealing with several unfinished schools and (according to the local elected Board of Education) shoddy construction work – so the elected board announced Tuesday that it will sue the state’s Schools Construction Corporation for the problems.
But while the SCC is responsible for construction, the district as a whole is overseen by another state agency, the Department of Education, which took the district over in 1989 in an effort to save it. And just two weeks ago, the results of state-commissioned audits of four state-run New Jersey school districts – Jersey City, Newark, Paterson, and Camden – found overspending and lack of oversight with finances in general.
So who is most accountable for the troubles in the district – the state-appointed superintendent of schools (who’s also an assemblyman), the state Department of Education, or the state’s Schools Construction Corporation, which was created in 2001 as an arm of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority and charged with spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money to improve school infrastructure? And can the elected Board of Education, made up of local citizens, improve the situation by suing one of the government bodies involved in the district?
“Jersey City is beholden to the state and the SCC, which is basically like a monopoly,” observed parent Naadu Blankson-Seck last week – who, interestingly, serves as the president of a PTA of a middle school that hasn’t actually opened yet (see sidebar). “It’s like [the school board] is spitting into the wind.”Who’s responsible?
“Broken promises are what we’re talking about here,” said Board of Education Chairman William DeRosa on Tuesday, at a press conference held by the school board to announce the lawsuit against the SCC. “Broken promises to our children in these schools. They were promised these buildings; they were promised they were going to be built on time and in good condition and no major flaws, and we don’t have that.”
If the problems of Jersey City’s public school district aren’t solvable by the state or millions of taxpayer dollars, the school board believes that it needs to take extreme measures to hold one state agency accountable.
School board members gathered for their press conference at the Jersey City Public Schools headquarters on Claremont Avenue Tuesday.
The schools they are concerned about are the yet-to-be opened Heights Middle School No. 7 on Collard Avenue, as well as other schools that have opened but which (the board claims) still need work: Public School No. 3 and Middle School No. 4 on Bright Street, Early Childhood Center No. 9, on Ocean Avenue, and the Charles T. Epps Freshman Academy at Lincoln High School on Crescent Street.
Among the problems listed in the lawsuit, which was released to the press the same day it was filed, are allegedly faulty locks and alarm systems at Schools 3 and 4, as well as an auditorium at School 3 that the board says is unusable due to uncompleted handicap accessible ramp to the stage.
An even more damning indictment is the much delayed construction of School No. 7, which has left students and parents alike in limbo as to when it will actually open. The kids are spread out among other schools for now.
Last week, SCC Chief Executive Officer Scott Weiner issued a statement in response to the legal action.
“We share the Jersey City district’s frustration,” the statement read. “The ‘punchlist’ items have taken far too long to finish. We have been working with the district to solve problems while we identify responsible parties.”
Weiner added, “I do think it is unfortunate that the time and money that we will allocate to the district’s lawsuit cannot be devoted to solving the problems at hand.” Tried to negotiate first
DeRosa said last week that the lawsuit was filed because the district has been continually assuming the costs of repairs not made by the SCC’s contactors.
DeRosa also said during the press conference there had been discussion about the lawsuit for some time before a decision was made. He said that the decision came only after months of discussion with officials in the Department of Education and the SCC about the various repairs that needed to be addressed.
“We thought about it many times, but finally we decided to draw a line in the sand,” said DeRosa.
When asked about the monetary value of the repairs stated in the lawsuit, DeRosa said he did not have an exact amount. However, DeRosa provided a letter sent to the SCC in January 2006 that gave some background.
The letter said Public School No. 3 had delayed its intended September 2005 opening by four months as the result of “constant delays due to the poor performance of the Schools Construction Corporation and the contractors they hired.” The letter states that the district had spent $338,197 of its own funds to open the school.
Current school board member Sue Mack said last week that when she joined the board in 1995, she outlined a school construction plan in Jersey City that called for building schools 3 and 4 as well as Middle School 7. The construction was to be carried out by the local district. But then, the SCC was formed by the state in 2001 to deal with the construction.
Last week, Mack complained about what the SCC has done, particularly with regard to Middle School 7, which was supposed to have its grand opening on Feb. 5.
“We were supposed to be standing at the opening of MS 7 [this year]….with 900 children from four schools moving in,” said Mack. Will a lawsuit get results?
When asked if the lawsuit will get all the desired repairs done in the near future or would just delay them further, DeRosa said there was no reason to believe it would not have an effect.
“A lawsuit will pin them down,” said DeRosa. “Let them go and testify and explain why.”
Richard Shapiro, special counsel to the Jersey City School District, said there will be a hearing in the next few weeks in State Superior Court in Mercer County to hear the board’s complaint.
“We anticipate filing for injunctive relief so that the court will rule in another month or two,” said Shapiro. SIDEBAR Parents waiting…and waiting
Naadu Blankson-Seck is a Hopkins Avenue resident and the mother of three children in Jersey City public schools. Her oldest son, 11-year old Mouhamadou, was supposed to have sixth grade classes in Middle School 7 in Jersey City Heights this year.
A PTA was formed for the unopened middle school in November, and Seck is the president.
Middle School 7 is a 165,810-square-foot facility that will house about 1,000 students in grades 6 through 8. The school will consist of 36 classrooms and includes a basement, an auditorium wing, gymnasium wing and an education/administrative wing. Additional design features include on-grade parking, athletic field and basketball courts, and an entrance plaza.
Seck said last week she and fellow parents have been told time and time again that there will soon be an opening. She is not optimistic about the lawsuit.
“I don’t have very high expectations,” said Seck.
Seck said parents have not been given any reason why the school has had its opening delayed by Schools Superintendent Charles Epps. But she has heard various stories as to why it is still closed, such as problems with the sprinkler system and water seepage that ruined a gym floor.
Seck is skeptical that Middle School 7 will even open by this September.
“The handling of this situation has been woeful,” she said, “and there seems to be a very low priority set for the children.” – Ricardo Kaulessar Ricardo Kaulessar can be reached at rkaulessar@hudsonreporter.com