“What about Prop 46…(and)…kudos to the BOE!â€?
“Powers and Duties of the First Selectman and the Board of Selectmam: Responsible for supervising the affairs of the town and responsible for guiding town officers and town bodies toward accomplishing the objectives of the town’s long-range comprehensive plans. Responsible for presenting to the Board of Finance the amount, purpose and proposed method of financing projected capital expenditures, holding joint meetings at least two times a year with one or more members of all boards, commissions and agencies to coordinate the planning and action of such, reviewing the current and projected administrative and fiscal needs of the town and developing and maintaining a long-range comprehensive financial plan. Responsible for making appointments to applicable town offices. May propose to a town meeting duly called, ordinances consistent with the General Statutes and the Charter.â€? (Durham Connecticut)
Does limiting spending by Proposition 46 guarantee responsible spending? Obviously it does not. And Town’s people have been talking for years about 46 being abused and misinterpreted. Wetzel’s confusing and often-contradictory rants about 46 are an odd phenomenon given his current status in Town.
Prop 46 is the ‘smoke and mirrors’ magic trick that makes people think that the Town leadership is doing what it is supposed to. The real question that has been raised at this site many times before is, “Whose in charge?â€? If there is any truth to the statement of powers and duties above, the answer is, “Our First Selectwoman and the Board of Selectmen!â€? But what role is Margaret Wholean playing in all of this? – Apparently no role. The Villager repetitiously quotes Ms. Wholean each week, but nothing is said. Why doesn’t she express her positions of Prop 46 and other important matters in Town? Why doesn’t the Villager provide some real news and ask her for her opinion, or why doesn’t she just offer her opinions and state her position anyway? It appears that her election was by default simply because the electorate had a negative opinion about Delpha Very. That’s it – no agenda, no opinions, and no position on anything. In this leadership vacuum we are now forced to read the rants of Ernie Wetzel ad nauseum. No doubt, he smells this vacuum like a shark sensing blood.
Much confusion is being created by Wetzel’s statements and the Villager’s poor reporting. In ‘rather loud’ tirades both at this site and in the Villager, Wetzel says that the ‘powers that be’ with the help of Town’s paid lawyers are looking into a “reinterpretation of 46â€? that would allow bonding to raise money for their “pet projectsâ€?. Perhaps Wetzel should name some of these pet projects. Reinterpretation of 46 may be happening – but at least bonds must be approved by the Town citizenry.
The Villager further confuses the issue in a statement the Villager attributes to Wetzel that “(46) does not allow (bonding).â€? The Villager article and Wetzel further confuse us by stating that Town officials want to ‘fiddle’ with Prop 46 to “reinterpret” 46 so that they can “bond” – e.g. “They want to bond to bypass Proposition 46.” Yet Prop 46 did not prevent previous bonds approved by the Town citizenry that paid for the building of the Town Hall ($10 million, yuk!), and renovations of the elementary school and the middle school ($10 million plus combined). Last year Prop 46 did not prevent the referendum on a bond issue for school buses, trucks, and re-paving the middle school parking lot, etc. This bond issue was voted down by the citizenry.
So the bonding process is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not 46 should be repealed. The true issue here is the mishandling the budgetary process by the BOF and Barbara Rich under Prop 46 (an example relating to the BOE will follow). And ‘pet projects’ may be a problem if they cost less than $20,000 because they do not need funding based upon a bond issue voted by the citizens. However, if the first Selectman and the BOS were performing in a true leadership role as stated above, then there would be over-site on the ‘pet project issue’.
To add to the confusion Wetzel and Shultz inappropriately veer into another area in their continuous rant in the Villager accusing 196 Woodstock “employees� (meaning primarily teachers) of taking “1600 absences.� If we assume an “absence� means a full day of leave, this equates to 8.16 days per employee per year of sick and personal leave. Last year I took about 8 days sick and personal leave (out of 18 available) either because I had the flu, or because I had a doctor or dentist visit. If Wetzel and Shultz had jobs, they would understand that predictably (the reason these benefits are offered) normal hardworking employees have to take some time off to deal with health and personal matters. This is especially true in the nosocomial environment of the schools.
In the Villager, Wetzel and Schultz also revealed some degree of jealousy for a certain teacher that earns $65,000 a year. This can be understood best if one compares the earnings of these two complainers with those that have to work to support their families. Fortunately, it’s the BOE’s responsibility to evaluate the performance of this teacher and the number of kindergarden teachers needed, not Wetzel and Shultz. This is not a Prop 46 or Town budgetary issue.
Finally, Wetzel attacks the “lazy electorate.� These lazy people are the ones that elected him to two terms as First Selectman and a third term as a selectman. Could it be that the “lazy electorate� elects Town officials (with pay) with the hope that they will provide the expected leadership? This allows the ‘lazy voters’ to then go on and continue with their jobs to support their families while leaving the Town in the hands of responsible people.
Unfortunately Wetzel rarely visited the Town Hall in his last year as First Selectman and he was too lazy to fulfill his third term a Selectman (in the same manner as Ed Neuman). After about a month, Wetzel left the BOS and Mr. Eaffy (a ‘republican democrat’) was installed as the third selectman… and as Delpha Very’s right-hand-man. The result of Wetzel’s non -involvement was the installation of a selectman who opposes everthing Wetzel has ranted about. As a direct consequence of Wetzel’s ‘lazy’ non-participation, Eaffy was subsequently elected by default for the same reason as Wholean – the electorate developed a negative opinion about Ms. Very and the ‘old guard’ republicans within only one term. The electorate had no other option in my opinion.
But what about Prop 46?
The BOE for years ‘cut’ their budget as a first step before they even submited a ‘needed’ budget because they accepted the Prop 46-based figure from the BOF to develop the budget – that is, they submited the budget so that it complied with the BOF guideline. This cart has been in front of the horse for many years. The BOE’s job is to tell the Town and the BOF what a reasonable education is going to cost. This reasonable education must comply with federal and state mandates, legal contracts, and upkeep and maintenance. State mandated programs should have been viewed by the BOE as exempt from Prop 46. Instead the BOF fails to consider these valid exemptions through their misinterpretation of Prop 46 when providing the figure that the BOE must base its budget upon – the cart before horse.
In past years the BOE has abdicated their responsibility for determining the true needs of the school system under the mute leadership of Charlie Snow (he has been in the way for years). For the first time in several decades, we have to give kudos to the BOE. This is because for the first time in a long damn time the BOE is putting forth the budget based upon real needs rather than basing their budget on the misinterpreted figure put forth by the BOF. They have put the horse back in front of the cart for the 2006-2007 budget. However, if 46 is not repealed then the BOF will be allowed to prevail with its inappropriate interpretation of Prop 46. The new members of the BOE and the reconstituted leadership – Lindsey Paul, Chairman, and Bill Loftus, Vice Chair, together with Frank Baran, Superintendent of Schools – are trying to straighten the budgetary process out so that the BOE budget correctly reflects the needs of the school system. It will be interesting to see how the BOF handles this situation.
This is why we elected them to the BOE – if only the Board of Selectman could do their job and provide true leadership according to the “powers and dutiesâ€? they were elected to enforce. After all, aren’t they ultimately “responsible for presenting to the Board of Finance the amount, purpose and proposed method of financing projected capital expenditures“.
Ah, it is so good to read the intelligent rantings of a moron like this one. I guess all you can do is attack me personally. Leave my family out of this discussion please. Where have you been in the running of this town over the last ten years? Obviously you have never held a public position. The newspaper writers get their facts wrong all the time. There is nothing confusing about what I am talking about. Proposition 46 has become the problem for Woodstock and both sides are hiding behind it. Just what is it you don’t get?
The people of Woodstock have voted to support Prop 46 over the years. They have loudly sent a message to the elected representatives of Woodstock that they want Prop 46 to control spending. Yet for the past year alot of your elected representatives have only complained about Prop 46 and the damage it is doing to Woodstock. Where are all of the supporters of 46 demanding they spend the money alloted to them now in a more cost effective way. Many suggestions have been made to Education to save money yet none are taken. Instead your elected officials threaten children with the loss of sports, spice, music and thus expect the parents to fork over more tax dollars. Your Board of Education has threatened the Woodstock Academy for the last year. They have misrepresented the Bond Issue, withheld payment of tuition, tried to take the 9th grade, failed to sign a reasonable contract, and more. Where have all of you been while this was going on. This has hurt the childrens education and wasted alot of time and money. They have blamed the reasons for this behavior on Prop 46. And you don’t think 46 has become the problem instead of a solution. Why don’t people like the author of this article bother to find out what’s going on in your own town.
The way I read this article, it’s against Prop 46, and it clarifies why. It praises the new BOE leadership for taking a new approach with the budget. When I read Mr. Wetzel’s statements in the Villager, I wondered why he attacks just about every sector of the town including all of the citizens of the town. And where is your family mentioned, Mr. Wetzel?
And, you would know about the rantings of a moron because thats what makes it so hard to take what you say seriously Mr. Wetzel. You keep trying to blame the BOE for everything when in fact it was perfectly okay with you to let them twist in the wind while the BOF deliberately and incompetently misinterpreted Prop 46 because it made you look good while you were first selectman. I don’t think the author of this article was being personal with you. The author of this article seemed to be supporting the repeal of Prop 46 and I thought the explanation was rather enlightening. The shortcomings and misapplications of 46 seem pretty clear when you read this explanation. Did it ever occur to you that the BOE was trying everything they could to make a budget because the BOF wasn’t giving them reasonable or correct advice while you just stood on the side knowing that 46 was being abused and not saying anything? And, I really don’t think you should be so smug about how everybody has been hiding and not being involved. Did you ever think of telling people that Prop 46 was being misused when you were on the BOE and the BOS? You shouldn’t be claiming any brownie points for helping out the situation because your ‘drop both barrels and fire’ approach doesn’t leave many people standing to have a reasonable discussion.
As one of the lazy electorate, I would like to thank the above author for the commentary in my defense. My area of expertise is not in local government , politics, finance, or education. I do what I can to stay informed and perhaps speak up, but there is a naive concept which some may have heard of. Its called trust. I know, I know, I’m old-fashioned. Or as Mr. Wetzel likes to call it “lazy”. Well anyways, somewhere, someday, Mr. Wetzel may need one of the lazy electorate’s expertise and perhaps he may find out that we are not quite so lazy afterall, just perhaps a little too trusting and a little too busy to pay attention to every committee, every elected official, and every detail of prop 46. Gee, you think thats what they are counting on?
In defense of Margaret Wholean, if you are not sure where she stands on an issue and you think that her silence is “deafening”, then do yourself a favor, don’t wait for the next Villager article, call her up and ask away. A reporter is only a go-between. This is a nicety for lazy electorate like me, but not necessary. M. Wholean is certainly approachable as was Delpha Very as was Mr. Wetzel. The Board of Ed. members also return my phone calls and are very informative and candid about any question I might have. If I feel as though my trust is being betrayed, looking deeper is only a phone call away. I’m not giving up on trust just yet, nor will I be silent if its betrayed.
Thanks, Randy. I already know where Ms. Wholean stands. It would be nice if she told the rest of the ‘lazy’ electorate with a little more conviction. As the ‘leader’ of Woodstock she should take a more public stand and explain her position. I’m sure she would gain some respect for doing this either way. If she were to publically take the same position that she did in the informational meeting…with conviction, she might do the town some good by swaying the electorate.
Dear Author, I apologize. I meant “you” in the collective sense of the lazy electorate readers of this forum, not you specifically. I totally agree with your point. This was my biggest criticism of Delpha Very. She never showed any public displays of conviction on any issue except for when she was organizing the winterfest. In fact Very implied that her job was merely administrator and that the real power was in the hands of Board of P&Z and Finance. Nevertheless, I argued that her voice would have a big influence that could make a difference. By not using it, I concluded that she was a weak leader and she lost my vote. I was hoping M.W. would be different, but perhaps she views her job description in the same way as Very did.
Excellent Randy! Thanks for the clarification. This is exactly what I wanted to say to our First Selectwoman. If she says nothing, she either has no opinion or she is not up-front with her electorate. Why not be up-front and explain the rationale for her position? One might win over the electorate this way and prevail in the face of being outnumbered on the BOS. Through our exchanges, I confess that I am learning a lot about the Town.
Randy, What you say about Delpha Very’s view of her job – “…her job was merely as an administrator…” – is very very interesting. I wonder what she felt she was ‘administrating’? One ReNews article here talked about her desire to hang birdfeeders at the Roxbury Village Apartments. I wonder if she or Ms. Wholean have ever read the Town bylaws or Town Charter. If the job description of the First Selectman and BOS in these documents is anything like the description at the beginning of this article, then something has to change in Town management. It would be good if the Town did what Durham has done and put the salient points of these documents on a functional Town website.
ReNews Writer, Unfortunately, Woodstock does not have a Charter, nor are there “Bylaws” per se, except for those adopted by each individual board or commission. There is no job description for the position of First Selectman, or BOS, for that matter… (see the newest feature article)
[...] Unfortunately, Woodstock does not have a Charter, nor are there “Bylawsâ€? per se, except for those adopted by each individual board or commission (his comment to ReNews Writer in Woodstock’s Leadership Dilemma). There is no job description for the position of First Selectman, or BOS, for that matter. [...]
I don’t think M. Wholean ever thought she would win.
[...] We are called “morons� by Mr. Wetzel when we express views that differ from his [...]