Woodstock CT Café

If you look at the responses to Preston Schultz/CPS’s Freedom Of Information letters provided by Rep. Fleischman, co-Chair of the Education Committee of the CT. State Legislature that have been posted on the CPS Academy website, you will find there, in Joe Breen’s emails, clear evidence of the following facts:

1. Breen expected that there would be a public hearing on the legislation that he proposed to the Education Committee.

2. He suggested that the Woodstock Board of Education AND the Academy Trustees be involved in meeting with Rep. Fleischman to discuss his proposal.

So, all of the BS that Breen pulled an “end around” is just that … BS because he wanted a public hearing and he wanted the Academy included in it. Breen clearly was confident enough in his proposal that he did not need to seek an exclusive audience with the Education Committee. The Academy’s use of a lobbyist got them inside contact with all the legislators they needed (including Senate President Don Williams) to kill the Breen initiative and keep it from coming out of the Committee (although clearly a bill was drafted that came close to achieving Breen’s proposal).

The Academy’s response to the Breen initiative by using a paid Statehouse lobbyist, even while they would have been given full opportunity to address their concerns in bilateral discussions with the BOE before the Education Committee, answers Taxpayer’s question as to why the BOE has not been able to do anything but the 9th Grade proposal since the 1999 Final Report shown above. They have no means to get any attention to their issues when faced with the Academy’s public relations machine and its ability to keep the playing field heavily slanted toward their favor. Left with that reality, the BOE can really only consider draconian measures to address its concerns. Breen correctly identified that the problem between Woodstock Academy Board of Trustees and Woodstock Board of Education will never be solved locally. He was foiled by the Academy’s ability to submarine his effort which obviously was viewed by the Education Committee as having much merit.

A comment submitted by ‘Fantasy in Foyeland’ on June 17th 2007

We must recognize the following:

1. The BOE already went through all this over the past three years. These concerns are the same as the concerns raised and documented by the BOE ten years ago (see the article below. Admin).

2. The Academy is entirely public students and entirely public money, but for a handful of private small college scholarships. This is a regional public high school but for a 207 year old incorporation document. The FOI case established it as a public agency. It is essentially an independent state agency with state/local funding. It really is not a “private school”.

3. The Academy has estimated capital projects of $20+ Million on the table including the Bentley Fields (+/- $5M); the Science Center (+/- $13.5M); and the Sewer (+/- $2M). These projects will overwhelm the town’s ability to pay, especially the BOE.

4. Norwich Free Academy built its endowment over a century, not a decade, and with a deeper demographic. There is no way the Academy will raise these funds privately for these projects; this fundraising effort is token at best.

5. The Academy already hired a professional fundraiser to study the demographics and issued a report a year ago that represents a wild guestimate. There has been a full time fudraiser on staff at the Academy for over a year. I don’t think they have raised $50,000 or even $25,000

6. The contract was negotiated for two years. The Academy’s only proposal states they will dictate tuition each year for operating and capital costs with no negotiation and the BOE must pay. The BOE attempted a wide variety of creative approaches to negotiate some fairness, including better representation, and the Academy simply rejected all requests. The Academy would not give up their basic right that they have by law to charge what they wish. Read the rest of this entry »

This article was first published on June 15, 2007. Admin

“The charge of the Woodstock Academy Agreement Committee is to: 1) Examine the current agreement between the Woodstock Board of Education and the Woodstock Academy; 2) explore possible revisions to a renewed agreement with Woodstock Academy; 3) consider alternative means of educating the Town’s high school aged students; and 4) report back to the Board of Education verbally and in writing with the committee’s recommendations by April 15th, 1999 (extended to June 15, 1999).”

Introduction

“The Woodstock Academy Agreement Committee was formed in February 1999 and began meeting in March 1999 to fulfill the above charge and specifically to generate possible negotiating considerations as the Board approaches the expiration of the current agreement with Woodstock Academy (see attachment A). In the process of examining the agreement, two key issues have emerged: First the under-representation (based on enrollment) of the Woodstock Board of Education on the Academy Board of Trustees, the Executive Committee and the Finance Committee; and second, the lack of ongoing meaningful dialogue between the Academy and the Board of Education/Superintendent, which has contributed to a lack of performance accountability, reporting criteria and communications needed to jointly conduct the job of educating children.

In exploring alternative means of educating our students, diversity, special needs, and good management require that we continually examine the other school systems and remain open to alternative arrangements. The school profiles which we have examined as part of our charge indicate some areas where we may work with the Academy.”

Committee Members and Attendance (6 meetings with attendance in parentheses)

Daniel Atwood (6, Chairman of the BOE)
Ernest Wetzel (3, BOE)
Jay Livernois (3, BOE)
Edward Neumann (3, First Selectman)
Victoria Scheufler (5, Middle School Principal)
Linda Galton (6, Superintendent)
Gus Masiello (6, BOE, CPS member, publisher of ‘Comings and Goings’)
Barbara Rich (4, Town Treasurer)
Charles Snow (1, BOE, Chairman of the BOE after Dan Atwood and Romeo Blackmar)
Nancy Young (6, BOE) Read the rest of this entry »

The Problem Statement did what I believe it was intended to do, namely identify the problem. It also proposed a legislative solution. Since that solution was never realized, I think that indicates that it may be time to look for new solutions to the ‘problem’. There’s a discussion about the role of compromise going on in another thread that may come into play here as well.

As I understand it, the problem is that the Academy holds its private governance structure dearly and has no intention of relinquishing it. Yet it is an institution that accepts predominantly public students and public funding in order to exist. It’s this 1/2 private and 1/2 public issue that is the problem. I also understand that WA is steeped in the town’s history and that history needs to be respected, which is why I think many people are hesitant to tamper with it. Maybe this was never a problem until recent years, relatively speaking, throughout the hundred some-odd year history of the school. In the school’s early years, perhaps issues such as transportation costs and special education were non-entities. But today, these costs can’t be overlooked. There are now three schools serving the students of Woodstock and they are all quite costly to operate. There needs to be fiscal responsibility and scrutiny of such for all 3 schools to ensure that our students’ education isn’t compromised at any of them. There may or may not be enough money to go around so that all 3 can fund everything on their ‘wish list’. But this means that the pain needs to be evenly distributed. If we short-change the students in the lower grades, this will erode their academic performance by the time they reach the Academy.

Yet there is no way to force the Academy to agree to this sharing of the pain. So it may be time to look for a compromise. We haven’t seen a lot of it so far since both sides can’t agree on a contract negotiation, but it still needs to be pursued. Read the rest of this entry »

Let me outline a few simple concept that have kicked around for many years:

1. Village District - draw some simple boundaries around the five historic villages; shrink lot sizes, setbacks, sideyards; maintain appropriate scale and architecural vernacular; allow village-style commercial uses.

2. Scenic Route - Reduce density from 2.5 to 3.0 acres; increase setbacks; increase conservation setaside; decrease curb cuts; allow residents to vote their streets into scenic route zoning.

3. Commercial Zoning - Draw some boundaries around the existing obvious areas - Route 171 to South Woodstock Green; major intersections; existing commercial nodes; maintain appropriate scale and architectual vernacular near historic villages; etc.

My question is, if you put a simple, conceptual plan in front of the town, sans smear campaign, would most people support it or reject it?

Suffy

I, like you (speaking to Stew), am more of a follower than a leader. I have been to meetings, I have seen a professional, educated representative of the Wetlands Committee speak out. I have seen him jumped on by community bullies, his comments swept aside, and the bullies supported by the one sided monitor. I have witnessed the way the Woodstock clique stacks the deck when they want something passed. They, when needed, walk hand in hand into the meetings with a impressive cast of politicians and friends. They have the control and the power, we have fought wars in the name of freedom and democracy yet people like Alberts, Vary, Young, Porter, and CME rule with a clinched fist and get what ever they want, legal or not. I have watched the hiring practices of the Town Hall. Yes, I too am a complainer, the only power I have is my one vote to assist those who would contest openly only to be belittled and degraded as a result. I have stuck my neck out before, once but twice shy. I guess that’s why I was thankful to find this blog to see how many people feel just like me. We all know that from the Town Hall, to the elected appointed boards, to the Woodstock Fair, that corruption exists. We need strong leaders, I wish I was one! “We have to live somewhere.” Survival is a deaf ear and a blind eye and a open check book. The only victory we can enjoy is to openly expose those and let them know we are wise to them!

Avenger

The Cafe has posted a message and link to this article at the Reminder website. If you are bothered by this trash let the Reminder know with a comment here or at their website.The comment posted to the Reminder from the Cafe. “Please stop trashing our neighborhoods. See the article on the roadside trash that you deliver at www.woodstockctcafe.com . We are fed up!”….4500 pieces of trash delivered weekly or 234,000 pieces of trash delivered per year in Woodstock alone.

On a weekly basis, a delivery of the Reminder News and other ad rags is thrown haphazardly out of a delivery vehicle window by the thoughtless driver many times missing the intended property. On a weekly basis I have to pick up this trash from two or three residences and take it to the dump. Even discarding this trash at the dump is a hassle if you are environmentally conscientious. These rags are delivered in a plastic bag, inside another plastic bag, and the Reminder is encased in a third layer of plastic. Sorting all of this out to get the paper and the plastic into the right dumpster is a complete nuisance. Some residents are so digusted, or so don’t care, that they just let this trash sit on the side of the road until it’s blown away (into the woods) by the traffic.

There should be a law in Woodstock prohibiting this kind of delivery. Another approach could be to phone the Reminder (774-8877) to tell them how you feel, contact them at their website (www.remindernews.com) and tell them to stop trashing Woodstock, or write them a letter (112 Wescott Road, Danielson CT 06239). If this activity does not cease, the residents of Woodstock need to take municipal action against the Reminder News. At their website, if you click “Contact Us” you get a page that has “Speak Out” then click “Speak Out” and post a message from your respective town.

The Putnam Bank, formerly the Putnam Savings Bank, posted a $4 million dollar 3rd quarter loss. Yesterday afternoon I heard a glowing ad by Putnam Bank on WINY touting the successes and safety of the bank. The article is in the Worcester Telegram on Nov 15th yesterday. Thanks to the Cafe’er who provided us with this news. Admin

Well, the fine art of bullying isn’t one ONLY practiced by CPS or Academy supporters.

The initial posting that began this riff of chat between me and Snuffy was a submission of an e-mail from Eric Thomas of CT DEP. Along with that, I expressed hope that the waiver granted to Woodstock by the DEP would someday be reversed so that future development in town will be more responsibly planned for a sensitive environment.

I do not and could not speak for all Hill residents or even some of them. The group, like any other group, is a collection of individuals. We do work together well as a group and we do share a core value in that we’d like to see the district preserved.

I sit on the Woodstock Water Pollution Control Authority not the Historic District Commission. I do not speak for or represent the WPCA in my postings. There are two members of the Hill neighborhood on this commission out of five. I sit on the WPCA because I recognize that zoning in Woodstock is weak; therefore, maintaining a strong “sewer avoidance” policy has some ability to exert control over development.

I am not opposed to development nor do I strive to see the Hill neighborhood or any other area of town “frozen in time.” I am however, strongly supportive of good zoning and good planning – neither of which we have currently.

Four years ago, residents of the Woodstock Hill neighborhood requested that WPZC sponsor and host a public forum with speakers from all the various fields of expertise related to planning, preservation and zoning. At no charge, the speakers remain ready to go, but Woodstock’s WPZC refuses to hold the forum. The goal of the forum is simple – to give INFORMATION about what’s available, what works and what doesn’t and why. Read the rest of this entry »

From ‘Snuffy’ (vis a vis Woodstock) “The town has to do three things:
1. Support its public education system.
2. Support proper land use regulation.
3. Support proper fiscal reform.
Then go neighborhood by neighborhood and replicate the effort. And after you do that, and you develop true support, and have some people who will stick with it, attend meetings, serve on boards, and demand change, week after week, month after month, year after year, and not fade when things become controversial…”

Also see the situation described in “A Neighborly Act” - the 11th article down (next page).

If you consider protecting residential property values a “hobby” (suggested by one commentor ‘Disgusted Watcher’) then you don’t understand property rights. The right of a property owner under the adopted Zoning Regulations to contest the development of adjacent property in a way not permitted by the Zoning Regulations, that will significantly reduce property values, and diminish the residential quality of the neighborhood – then that’s my hobby and right.

The issue isn’t the logging operation; it is the “work yard” and “pad” that Bob Lussier established. When the complaint was filed, the logger was starting diesel equipment early in the morning, fueling (est. 1,000 gallons of fuel a week) from tanks on site that were not on impervious pads, he was cutting logs on a portable sawmill, he was chipping wood on one or two commercial size chippers (think noise), and trans-shipping logs (think very large logging trucks coming and going on rural Pomfret residential roads); and all this at the end of a narrow private driveway with 4 residential homes plus 2 houses at 34 Weatherbee Road at the end. Two of the properties were put up for sale and sold at prices substantially below assessed valuation.

Did the equipment and industrial activity on the pad reduce the property values?
“Life’s too short people, move on.”

Your solution is unacceptable (to find a hobby suggested by ‘Disgusted Watcher’). Why should an activity that is incompatible with an existing residential neighborhood and contrary to the Zoning Regulations that have gone to Public Hearing and been adopted by the Town’s Planning and Zoning Commission have to “move on” because a person wants to start a heavy industry in a residential neighborhood? Not the logging of a property, but an industrial operation. I suggest that you were not told all the facts when you had your talk with the logger.

This isn’t a case of a compatable home occupation just parking his equipment on his property, this isn’t a property logging operation that will be completed in a year or two and cease; this is Lussier trying to establish another Hull industrial operation (and there is no question Hull’s operation preceded zoning and is properly zoned) in a residential neighborhood and the neighbors have every right to protect their property values in face of this incompatible development.

The balloon is the location of 34 Wetherbee Road according to Google Maps. Admin

It was refreshing to read Jim Rivers’ article in the November Pomfret Times, thanks for posting it here. I appreciate Pomfret’s First Selectman’s plain-speaking expression of his feelings about municipal matters and dissent. And, I think he accurately characterizes the attacks on people in Pomfret, especially in the anonymous ‘Sound Offs’ in the Woodstock Villager.

“The common denominator of negativity for our two towns appears to be griping by small cadres who relentlessly attack volunteer Board and Commission members.” Unfortunately, because of the cow chip colored glasses some folks refuse to remove, they can see no good. They only see, hear, and speak evil. Before long, their wailing and moaning becomes repetitive, meaningless ‘white noise’ as their efforts to strike fear in the hearts of citizens fall on deaf ears and never come to fruition. The false accusations and claims of wrong doing have gone unproven and unrealized. Could we ever hope that those who made false statements might feel the need to recant their claims?

I think there is a higher standard of dissent that may be out of reach for Woodstock/Pomfret malcontents. I believe that the effect of the anonymous “Villager’ letters has brought out the dark side of citizens in northeastern Connecticut by allowing the expression of ideas without responsibility. If no one is watching, and there are to be no consequences for your actions, what would you do? What would you say? Apparently, our neighbors will behave badly, with malice and misinformation. And, to go a step further, even the signed personal public attacks in the ‘news’ paper in an effort to publicly intimidate and discredit people is not very sophisticated either. Isn’t there a better way?

Disgusted Watcher echoes my feelings and I am sure many others’ as well. Owl’s perspective is only one view of the Pomfret issue. He spins and distorts facts and events to fit his arguments. It did not all start when Jim Rivers got involved. It really started when neighbors wanted to use zoning to beat up one another. Instead of settling differences in an amicable manner, neighbors became hostile, and next thing you know, there was a mob mentality. Winning became the primary goal. A Republican blog started by Tom Emilio became the anonymous nasty clearing house for this issue. Read the rest of this entry »