Henry Pruitt - Anti-Semite or Senile Old Man?

These words come straight from Henry Pruitt, as quoted in The Bergen Record:

Pruitt said voters should be wary of the challengers’ agenda.

"When you run for the board, the motivation you should have is that you’re concerned about improving instruction and making Teaneck a better school district for all of the kids," he said. "If the school district isn’t serving your kids, what’s your motivation?

"It seems ominous to me that someone would be willing to put in 50 hours a year in terms of meetings to look after someone else’s kids."

So let's get it straight: According to this jerk, the taxpayers who fund the schools who do not have children enrolled in the schools (that means the Jews), are entitled to neither representation on the board, nor a say in how their tax dollars are spent.

Pruitt, by the way, does not have any children in the Teaneck Public Schools; they have all graduated. If Pruitt would practice what he preaches, he would not be running for reelection. I guess the above statement by Pruitt only refers to Jews. He can run despite having no children in the Teaneck public schools... but the Jews can't. So, Pruitt is either an Anti-Semite who wants to keep the Jews out or a senile old man who has forgotten that he has no children in the public schools.

Pruitt has served two terms. Things have only gotten worse. Why on earth should this old man be reelected? Pruitt has made this into a Black vs Jew issue. Shame on him.

It's A Racial Problem

Finally, an incumbent on Teaneck's Board of Education has made it clear as to why our budget must increase. According to a post on the Teaneck Progress blog by David Duiguid: We as a district made a commitment 5 years ago to raise student achievement levels to those of surrounding districts in Bergen County, and in the process to attempt to eliminate the achievement gap between whites and minorities.

There it is. In a nutshell, Dr. Duiguid admits that our budget is increasing because he feels the need to close a so-called "achievement gap" between whites and "minorities."

So Dr. Duiguid admits he is a racist. His concern is not for all the students, but specifically for a single group of students, specifically Blacks and Hispanics.

While comments on other blogs indicate the upcoming elections are an orthodox versus everybody else issue, the true facts are that this is a "minority" versus everybody else issue.

It seems that the good doctor is convinced that throwing money at a perceived problem will solve it. This despite most studies on the "achievement gap" place the blame squarely on the parents (America's Next Achievement Test: Closing the Black-White Test Score Gap Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips) and on peer pressure to do poorly so as not to be viewed as being "too white." (Black Students' School Success: Coping with the "Burden of 'Acting White'" Signithia Fordham and John U. Ogbu).

How can an illegal alien, non-English speaking Central American parent help his anchor child with English homework? (Immigration, Family Life, and Achievement Motivation Among Latino Adolescents Carola Suarez-Orozco and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco)

How can a black father help his kid with schoolwork when 65% of black children live in a home without a father? (national figure from the Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p70-114.pdf)

Imagine if one of the orthodox candidates said that the entire town would be responsible for spending money on schools because some orthodox children were not scoring as well on tests as were others in the school system. The outcry from the "rest" of the town would be deafening.

So now, we are all asked to share the burden because many black fathers abandon their families and illegal aliens and anchor babies, who are given a free ride in our schools, have no schoolwork help at home.

Sorry, but while providing an acceptable education to public school children may be my civic duty, whether or not I like it, I feel no need to make up for the shortcomings of others.

Parade Or Disruption?

In its wisdom, the township has decided to disenfranchise a large part of the community by insisting on holding the Independence Day Parade on the morning of July 4th, when a substantial number of residents will be attending synagogue services.
What's worse is that the parade route will pass three synagogues on its route. The synagogues, in an effort not to seem unpatriotic, have acquiesced to the parade passing their buildings during services. Had the synagogues complained, they would have been lambasted by those from "the other half" of the community. So they did the only thing they could possibly do and agreed under duress.
At a council meeting back on March 17th, Mayor Feit and Barbara Toffler suggested moving the parade to Friday whenever the 4th falls out on Saturday and to Monday whenever the 4th falls out on Sunday. This idea was shot down.
Seems that the last time July 4th was on Saturday, there was only one shul on the route (two have since been built) and the parade detoured to Palisade Avenue to bypass the shul. Another time, the route was reversed.
Now, the organizers want to enforce a "quiet zone" around the synagogues. Good luck with that. Even the mayor feels that is an impossible endeavor.
So what can be done?
Suggestion 1: Change the parade's date (It's not unpatriotic; Englewood moved their fireworks and music show to Thursday night).
OR Suggestion 2: Hold the parade in the afternoon when the synagogue services have concluded.
OR Suggestion 3: Change the route so it doesn't pass (and disturb) three synagogues that will be in middle of services at the time of the parade.
By the way, does anybody else see the irony in holding a United States Independence Day parade on a street named for a lady who was Queen of England in the 1700s, when the colonies were still ruled by the British?

Here Comes The Sun, There Goes Our Money

Here's Teaneck's latest dumb idea. The township will install solar panels atop the Rodda Center and Fire Station 3 this fall in an effort to save energy costs and promote conservation.

The town will spend $615,000 to save $9,200 a year. In just 69 years, they'll recoup the investment. What a great idea!

Teaneck can get back its investment faster by selling Solar Renewable Energy Certificates to state public utilities. The town estimates about $30,000 a year in income, but based on the state's data the price of these certificates varies greatly and fluctuates monthly. Last month, some went for as low as $170, which would reduce Teaneck's annual income to less than $13,000 a year.

Even if we use Teaneck's figure of $39,200 in annual income and savings, it would still take about 16 years to get back the initial investment. And that's not counting any annual maintenance or replacement costs.

I've tried to determine the life span of these solar panels, but the best I could find was a very general 15 to 25 years.

Some may argue that about half the money will come from a state grant or federal stimulus funds. So what? That's still taxpayer money and it's still a waste!