any clues as to the "real" reason he is stepping down? Did the charter school application get approved? Is he tired of fighting against it?

The high school has not met “Adequate Yearly Progress” 4 years in a row now. One more year and NCLB requires complete restructuring of a failing school.

Well, I definitely know the charter application hasn't been approved.

Must be the salary cap for superintendents that takes effect today.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/11/0202/2324/

I'm sure it was the salary cap. He would be in for a severe salary cut!

Thanks for pointing that out.. am going to add info about salary caps to story.

I suspect it's the more fiscally conscious atmosphere in which he now had to operate. And with the coming Council election, many of the issues that have been kept hidden to date, will again come home to roost.

One of those political issues is the new, overpriced and mundane new school building. In terms of student population, it was not needed. This current BOE was ready to close two schools in 2011. Where the Superintendent, prior BOE, and Councils at the time did wrong was in deceiving everyone over the costs of this new school.

They first announced residents would only pay 10% of the total and further, that we’d get a new pool and gym in the process. When that cover story fell apart — even if the community still decided to proceed – the BOE did not even attempt to incorporate and renovate the now owned Y there so that Montclair at least gained a community center for teens and seniors.

At some point in the near future the Township will likely pay double for such a center which we could have had earlier with a bit of smart planning and municipal coordination from the 2000-2008 era BOE’s.

Con't

Given the reawakened “political” accounting coming back to the table during the election, a newly discovered $11 million budget discrepancy (grounds for immediate termination in the private sector from all involved)... all the multiple previous field and capital construction overages and problems for everything built – it would appear that a more fiscally conscious management was going to be in order eventually.

Watch for Dana Sullivan — head of the business office there — to eventually follow.

"and the strength of Montclair High School’s athletic program"

Silly me read 'academic program' on first pass. Clearly a case of wishful thinking...

I don't think it was the cap. As I understand this, it only comes into effect when a new contract is written. Dr. Alvarez thus had two additional years to go before the cap would be relevant.

...Andrew

The new salary cap would not have affected Alvarez until the expiration of his current contract. He would not have had to take a pay cut until 2014.

Alvarez has 32 years in the system in NJ. I'm betting he can retire in June with a nice pension, plus lucrative contracts as an interim super or consultant for other districts. While avoiding the unpleasantness of dealing with the new budget realities in Montclair and the 5 year AYP failure at the High School.

Good points Mary Beth..

Anyone know whether his wife, a longtime teacher at Watchung, will retire as well? Because, like Stu's Wife, I see this as a retirement rather than a resignation and I'd wager that's what it will turn into. It's a sweet deal--one of the previous district principals retired after 20+ years in the district, got all the NJ pension/benefits, and then took a principal job just over the border in NY, which kept her earning six figures while also collecting retirement. Perfectly legal.

I must say I was often frustrated with Alvarez and his apparent inability to make changes at the upper administration level, but there is a principals' union, and you can't just get rid of someone even if that's what needs to happen. I think there has been positive change in that area over the past 9 years, especially more recently. I wish him (them) well.

mtc parent - What about Kathy Lindsay who "retired" as Principal at Northeast, but it now the new interim Principal at Bullock - collecting both a pension and a salary for essentially the same job with the same employer?

How can anyone live on a paltry $125,000 a year.

To add a bit to Mary Beth Rosenthal's comments about the new school...

The frequent comparison of "closing two schools" to "building a new school" is a poor one. One of the two schools under consideration was a middle school, and is therefore independent of the new school (almost; I'll revisit that below). The other school under consideration was at the same grade level as the new school, but is far smaller. That is significant. It may be perfectly rational to *replace* a smaller school with a larger school if the appropriate demand for space exists.

Now, if the demand was predicted and didn't appear, that's a separate issue. Ironically, it reminds me of the predictions that led to the sale of the school on Grove. Had the first prediction not been off, perhaps we'd not have had to deal with the second prediction.

It's also worth considering the position of having a middle school in rented space [with a history of toxins]. The new building let this situation be improved. On the other hand, that was one of the schools at risk of closure. That would have been embarrassing.

...Andrew

Montclair Schools Superintendent says it's time to move on

'As for his own future, Alvarez is less certain.

"I don't have any plans currently," he said. "I plan to remain active and I will pursue other opportunities.

"I'm not finished with work. There will always be more challenges ahead."'

http://www.northjersey.com/topstories/montclair/138874939_Alvarez__it_s_time_to_move_on_.html?page=all

I think the salary cap is $175,000.

Wouldn't you retire if you had to deal with this Board of Ed?

Frank is a free spender who has had some real bad hires: The High School principal, Athletic Director and football coach. Hey how about hiring someone from Montclair. Mountie forever.... has become Mounties never!!!!

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.....

That's why I have to directly disagree with you Mary Beth. Yes, it was the prior Superintendent who authorized and pushed for the new school. However, it was also directly under the current BOE leadership, the prior school board and prior Council, who directly announced that the new school would be 80-90% paid for by other sources. They substantiated the basis to continue the new build. The change in funding after nothing to do with the eventual collapse and bankrupting of the state funding school funding agency. Instead, it was clear from the start, as I was told by the architecture firm who handled our project directly, that we wrongly asserted a 80-90% level of state reimbursement (and I believe the announced pool/rec reimbursement too). A 90% level of state funding support was NEVER a possibility. Our incomes were too high. Newark got that kind of reimbursement. And our current top school staff were clearly told this I was advised.

So what that taxpayer "deception" or "bureaucratic discontinuity" (if you want to be kind) really means in hard dollars is that a project which should have cost Montclair around $5 million, and could have been paid off quickly in short term notes, will now likely cost our taxpayers almost $70 million in interest and principal over time -- about double the 70% of $35-40 million given long term notes required.

(Con't)

Con't from above

What seemed like a smart buy for only a few million early on, was not. And that's why exposing this "cover story" is important. Some on the CCM even believe that not all of the new school debt is on the municipal books as yet.

Consequently, the problem I have with your position (above), and others who also don't want to look back, is that it allows residents not to see who really made and supported decisions like this which almost brought us to insolvency. That's especially important when some of those same individuals are now running for office. When some are calling those their "brain trust" whose decisions nearly bankrupted us, or when individuals continue to speak out as advocates today with impunity, as if there were no $ repercussions from any of their own decisions in the past.

"is that it allows residents not to see who really made and supported decisions like this which almost brought us to insolvency"

You make a good case as to the significance of this information today. However, I don't agree with your characterization of these as "cover stories". They seem more like mistakes to me, at least for the most part. Useful still, but not quite so dramatic as the picture you paint.

On the other hand, having watched the attempt to push through the purchase of the building that would have become the senior center, only to see the building sell for far less than some of our council members wanted to pay, does give me pause.

But was it the "current BOE leadership" or even "the previous council" that announced funding for the new school? How is that possible if that event predates Dr. Alvarez taking the superintendent position in 2003?

...Andrew

Andrew, I can't be any clearer. According to an executive at the Architecture firm who worked on this project, they advised Supt. Alverez that we were NEVER going to get an 80 or 90 percent reimbursement and to stop making that claim. This, coupled with the assertion that class size was becoming too large became the "logic" which maintained the project's support. And that was over the objections of many, including the Township Manager, who described the cost for each classroom then as building a small house.

Yes, Osnato initially drove the train and hired his friends, the $5 million dollar architects. However, the economic model and support logic clearly fell apart under Alverez, the prior school board and Remsen Council. All refused to pull the plug. It was the current school Board who then realistically were prepared to close schools to accommodate needed budget cuts, when it became clear that class size was not a factor.

So I stand by my use of the term "cover story". As the economic logic and facts continued to show we should not proceed, the shifting story of need and benefits gained kept driving the train. "Mistakes" is not a word to use because it describes reasonableness and judgement errors that anyone can make. Instead, "lack of leadership, dismissing hard $facts, seduced by bureaucratic and group behavior" are more in keeping. They also help illustrate for today - which leaders residents should listen to and whose views they should ignore.

Mary Beth, thank you for the balanced and thoughtful comments. Walter

The Remsen Council. The gift that keeps on giving.

Want a good laugh? Look at Montclair's census numbers. They never change significantly enough to require a new school. Maybe the rental of a portable classroom (yes what 99% of the rest of America does when there are temporary increases in class size) would have been much more appropriate? It's not like Montclair has old farms or woods (besides the Wildwood Tract) to be converted to condos. It's really a simple case of LET'S SPEND THE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

"It's really a simple case of LET'S SPEND THE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY."

I certainly won't say that this doesn't happen, but I am a bit skeptical of this assertion in this case. I recall, a few years ago when we first did the "school tours" of the elementary schools, hearing of/seeing crowding issues at some of the schools.

More, looking at the latest school enrollment report's pgs 4 and 5, there does seem to be a steady upward trend. It was pretty steep up to 2005, and then drops to a much slower rate of increase. Were I looking at this in 2005, I'd be a bit worried about capacity.

Pg 6 puts this into an interesting context, though, with most of the growth appearing in the HS. How can that happen?

I admit that there's one statistic that's quite damning: the projected number of K-5 students in 2012 is only 75 students above that of 1999. After 2012, it drops. That does argue for the lack of a need for a school.

But the 6-8 numbers show continued and significant growth to 2015 (though not as much as 9-12). And we did have a middle school in rented space. Perhaps that played a role?

Looking back at the 2005 report, it does appear that the almost-plateau starting that year was anticipated. I'm afraid I haven't anything earlier than this report for review.

...Andrew

Louis Fontana and Stuart Weissman get the political copywriter of the month awards:

Louis: "The Remsen Council. The gift that keeps on giving."

Stuart: "Pray for Montclair."

Thanks Martin.