Woodstock CT Café

Communicate by email to “woodstock @woodstockctcafe.com� or leave a comment

“When the Board of Finance is asked to explain (their rigid rules), their answer is essentially, ‘Just because!’”

I am extremely disappointed with the recent Villager article on April 7th regarding the Board of Education’s budget that is being submitted to the Board of Finance. I was at that meeting held in the evening of April 4th, as was Blaine Moffa, the reporter of the story. I stayed until the end of the meeting, while Blaine left about halfway through the meeting, and as a result, discussion of key budgetary problems was missing from her article. The issues that are missing from Blaine’s article are important in order to comprehend and then realize the uncreative, inflexible mindset of the members of the Board of Finance.

After the Board of Education Chairman, Lindsay Paul’s introduction and the Superintendent’s presentation, members of the Board of Education together with many parents respectfully BEGGED the Board of Finance for additional funding in order to avoid a disaster resulting from catastrophic cuts.

The “Citizens’ Participationâ€? part of this meeting, missed by Ms. Moffa, was most revealing. One parent, in particular, spoke about a lack of good judgment in priorities, citing that the Board of Finance chooses to fund things like a new kitchen for the Camp Nahaco Park Commission at $16,000, but doesn’t seem to be phazed by the short-falls in the projected education budget. Read the rest of this entry »

Every day a Town meeting occurs at this website. The number of commentors is a low percentage of the number of actual visitors who read the articles at this site. There are no harangues and no glaring stare-downs. Consider the possibilities.

“Maybe this is why people don’t volunteer,… get involved…”

Reports of the world going to hell in a handbasket are not, by any means, an exaggeration. In fact they are an understatement if tonight’s meeting of the Board of Selectmen is any reflection of reality.

We all grow up being told that we are a land governed by law. That’s the fairy tale that we are taught. We are not in a land of governed by law. No, we live in a land, or at least a town, governed by cow-towing to ignorant swamp yankees, too lazy to get the 200 signatures needed to force a referendum. [Twenty-five petition signatures (by state statute) are needed to call a Special Town Meeting. Two hundred signatures (by state statute) are needed to call a referendum. The Selectmen can also schedule a referendum.] Our Selectmen, for reasons that are not clear, fumbled about and then were rudely shouted at by some of the many Citizens for Prudent Spending (CPS) that were in attendance.

The First Selectwoman indicated that she was almost positive that the proposed amendment would be retracted if the reinterpretation of 46′s language resulted in the normal yearly exceptions being allowed in reval years. With that on the table she didn’t want to set a referendum date and incur the $2000-$3000 cost should the amendment be retracted. However, as the Selectmen started to discuss the information they were abruptly interupted several times by CPS members, huffing and puffing and being their normal blustery, obnoxious selves. The situation quickly degenerated into a lot of cross-talking, I mean cross-shouting, that was ended with Selectman Eaffy loudly (in his defense, it was the only way he could have been heard) bringing the matter to a close by expressing that this was a meeting of the Selectmen and not a public conversation. (not his exact words, but near enough to his meaning). Read the rest of this entry »

A referendum was scheduled tonight (Apr 6th) by the BOS for April 24th for the Town to vote on the new amendment to Prop 46 described on the the right
Tuesday, April 11th – Board of Finance Town Hall 7:30 pm Combined Budgets
Weds. April 12th – Town Meeting – 8 pm Prop 46 amendment
Thursday, April 13 – Board of Ed, WMS Music Room 7pm
Tuesday, April 25th – Woodstock Academy Trustees, WA Common room 7:30 pm

“…we are ‘heading for a financial train wreck’…”

First, I can not take credit for either the explanation of the proposed amendment, or the amendment itself. It is the brainchild of many people who are working hard to promote a fiscally sound approach to budgeting in our town.

Second, as someone who served as Chair of Planning & Zoning, I truly appreciate the service of all of the folks who volunteer their time to serve our community, especially in the “pressure positions� of Boards of Selectmen, Finance, Education & P&Z. They are thankless jobs that consume your personal lives in ways that most people will never understand until they actually take on the responsibility.

At the same time, because of that service, I have also come to understand that those who serve need to accept certain responsibilities that they never bargained for in the first place when they agreed to serve. And the most important is that of community leadership, and framing the discussion of the issues. I understand that not everyone has the time, inclination, or capabilities to take on this role, but someone has to, and it might as well be those who already serve.

Last night I challenged the Board of Finance, and its Chair, to take on that role in the Prop 46 debate. Unfortunately, the BOF chose again to collectively stay out of that debate.

My own humble opinion is that Prop 46 is broken. I accept as a given the fact that the people of Woodstock do not want to repeal it, based on the vote 2 years ago, and again this year (which in my opinion, should never have been brought to a vote). However, I also believe that there is considerable support in the community to fix 46, and make it more fair, which is what the current proposed amendment seeks to do.

As with all towns, Woodstock residents would like as many services as possible, but not have to pay for them. Because of the current Prop 46, the needs of the community are not being met, with the exception of the comparatively low rate of taxation. Unfortunately, if we fail to meet the fiscal needs of the entire town, we will be facing financial distress real soon.

By the way, when I say the entire town, I mean just that. We have to stop pitting general government services against capital expenses against K through 8 education services against Woodstock Academy. We are one town with many components to our collective needs. Unfortunately, with Prop 46, we are forcing competition between those collective needs because of the limited dollars that the Proposition requires.

I believe that it is incumbent upon the Board of Finance to recognize that we are “heading for a financial train wreck�, as a very smart friend of mine has observed many times. I applaud the BOF for its willingness to properly fund capital projects through borrowing, as it tried last year, and will again try this year. We have put off for too long the long term needs of our community. This is not a novel approach; rather, it is standard operating procedure in the world outside of Woodstock.

At the same time, I believe that the BOF needs to recognize and publicly acknowledge that Prop 46 needs to be fixed in order to be fairly applied to the year 2006, instead of the year 1979, when it was passed. As I said last night, the US Constitution has been amended over two dozen times; what makes Prop 46 so sacrosanct that it can’t change with the times also? Read the rest of this entry »

Steve Adams provided this explanation of the proposed changes in Prop 46 to Becki Leavitt who forwarded his explanation to WoodstockCTCafe.

The proposed amendment makes two changes to Proposition 46.

First, in normal years, Proposition 46 allows several exceptions to the limit on the expenditure increase, but does not allow those same exceptions in revaluation years. The proposed amendment allows the same exceptions in all years.

Second, in revaluation years, Proposition 46 limits the expenditure increase to the lesser of the previous year or 3-year average. The proposed amendment limits the increase to the greater of the previous year or 3-year average.

Current Ordinance
Resolved, the town shall limit the increase in the town’s combined annual budget to revenue generated by growth in the Grand List, in State and Federal assistance, and in other income, except for increases, voted upon by town meeting, necessary to cover debt service on legal obligations, court judgments against the town, State mandated programs and emergency expenditures.

In the event of property revaluation, the actual dollar increase in the combined town budget shall be limited to the dollar amount of increase in the preceding year’s budget or the average amount of increase over the preceding three years, whichever is lower.

Proposed Ordinance
Resolved, the town shall limit the increase in the town’s combined annual budget to revenue generated by growth in the Grand List, plus the following “Exceptionsâ€?, defined as increases in State and Federal assistance, and in other income, and (delete “except for“) increases, voted upon by town meeting, necessary to cover debt service on legal obligations, court judgments against the town, State mandated programs and emergency expenditures.

In the event of property revaluation, the actual dollar increase in the combined town budget shall be limited to the dollar amount of increase in the preceding year’s budget or the average amount of increase over the preceding three years, whichever is (delete “lower” and replace with the following) greater, plus the Exceptions as defined above. Read the rest of this entry »