• Please cite the study you referred to on college education in the 90’s. I would be interested in reading it.
• In reference to the administrative staff levels and teacher aide staffing, do you have a cited comparative analysis that indicates Woodstock’s staffing levels are out of line with the other communities in the state?
• Where do the staffing levels of the Academy fall in comparison with the other high schools in the state?
• What methodology did you use to account for the diverse timing differences of building cost investments by all the different towns?
• I’m not sure that I understand your usage of the term ‘recapitalization’ in regards to the buses. Are you saying that we are refinancing them?
• I also do not understand your reference to ‘legal fees’. Please detail which of these fees you feel are inappropriate and why?
• I’d also be interested in your explanation as to why you feel that student enrollment should be able to directly correlate and/or be the only factor impacting the overall growth in education funding.
• I’m uncertain what the ‘cafeteria debacle’ was. Can you explain it and what was adverse financial impact on our budget?
• What particular ‘construction projects’ are you citing as expensive?
• What study has been done that indicate special education provides babysitting jobs and not remedial education for special needs children? Does the breadth of special education’s responsibilities begin and end with remedial education?
• How is the methodology for reporting education costs to the state different so as not to include ‘many expenditure by our local system’. Do all the other towns use a different reporting process?
• How is it that our continual standing of being in the bottom of the state with our per pupil spending constitute the inappropriate request for funding from the town?
Answering these points would allow us to actually have a discussion. ‘Rendered’
Hahahhahahahahja!! I have to say, that whenever Ernie gets stepped on, or steps on himself, I am REALLY amused. This is a GREAT site!!
This is exactly what I mean.
One article is: Why Does College Cost So Much by Mark Huffman. There are dozens of others if you search the internet. Its a rather obvious conclusion to anyone with half a brain.
The frightening thing is Ernie now has the full support of Woodstock Academy and the First Selectman behind him.
Mr. Wetzel, Thank you for providing the source of the article Mr. Huffman wrote and was published February 12, 2007 by consumeraffairs.com. I did read it with interest. However, I’m not sure how you feel this article supports your argument that education is spending too much money. If anything, I believe, it lays out clearly why higher education cost have risen. A similar analogy could be applied to our education systems in town.
I am in possession of considerably more than ‘half a brain’ to quote your reference to me and would suggest that your statements of categorical fact are rarely supported by anything beyond your vitriol. If there is as much information out there as you purport, why shouldn’t you have the burden of proving your statements. The following is a direct quote from your less than civil comment to Bowman: “In the 90’s they did a study on college education and wondered why it grew at a 10% rate when inflation was growing at 5%. The answer they came up with was, because it could.” Your response was to send me (the obvious simpleton to the internet – albeit with some specific direction) to an article. You specifically alluded to a ‘study’ and that was one of many things I was asking for you to clarify. The specific queries used in seaching the internet have great impact on what results one is able to retreive. I was trying to gain access to the precise study to which you made reference. As you have stated, “its a rather obvious conclusion to anyone with half a brain.” So, please do enlighten me. Then perhaps we can move on to the next point.
Ernie, you attempt to cause a lot of damage and hurt a lot of kids with a bibliography of “one article”. Again, you can substantiate NOTHING. “I am what I am” doesn’t cut it for you.
It would be nice if we deterred from making this the Wetzel Debate Club. There is really no point in pursuing this string. Let’s move on to more creative pursuits. I think we know Ernie’s MO and where stands by now.
Citizen Cain for once I agree with you. There is no point of any discussion with any of you. Good bye and good luck.
Isn’t it telling that as soon as the questions get pointed and aimed at the basis for Ernie Wetzel’s unsubstantiated claims, he bails out. Just like when he took a powder after his ticket got defeated in the Selectmen’s race for 2003. He says he quit because he moved out of town. But, then he reappeared shortly thereafter (in his ousted running mate’s home), so that reason also held no water.
It’s like mostly everything he says -hot air. Untrue, unfounded and when challenged, he’s got no legitimate response.
BTW, isn’t most of what he said here repeated in the same skewed way on CPSAcademy’s website. That site is a joke. There is nothing in their “Forum” and so all it is a bulletin board for their self-selected meaningless FOI wastefulness, and ramblings of a handful of malcontents. It’s clearly a way to avoid any further scrutiny of the CPS publications and activity which is an illegitimate Political Action Committee. And there is not one item that could be viewed to be positive. Just a ranking on the public school system. What a waste of the blogshere space.
Citizen Cain,
Mr. Wetzel has made some specific assertions without supporting evidence. I’d like to see the evidence for those assertions. If he cannot produce such evidence, I’d like to know (and everyone else to know) that too.
Thanks.
Bowman – Well there you have it. Wetzel/CPS have made a political career out of baseless attacks on the WPS. But more important, why have the First Selectman and the Academy aligned themselves with this program? You say it is interesting that the Academy supports P-46 as it will eventually undermine their own program, but their legal/funding position is protected by state law, and the Trustees will not concern themselves with the deterioration of the K-8 system. As the town’s spending is well over the threshold for a legal claim, there is no potential lawsuit here.
MW’s recommendation to evolve the MFATF – which has produced nothing but fluff – into a K-8 watchdog group to “hold the BOE to the flameâ€? (sounds like a Puritan judge overseeing a witch trial) will institutionalize the CPS mentality and reflects MW and CPS public threats to “audit the school systemâ€?.
The Academy bought 30 acres of land with unknown development costs; owns three single family homes; has staff travelling on global junkets; had an ongoing sex/alcohol/stalking/spouse abuse scandal in its senior ranks; increased its payroll 25-30% in two years; has no public accountability; and we are forming a K-8 watchdog agency?
As MW holds the keys to a legal solution to P-46 and has publicly refused to exercise it, how can you escape the conslusion that this is a deliberate program on behalf of the Academy? If the Town/K-8 Split is fixed; and K-8 spending is a “result” rather than a “variable”, then it appears the Academy controls the only remaining variable which is P-46.
Thus Taxpayer’s conclusion below of “corruption”.
I think that “other” website (which is obviously put out by CPS as suggested ) is awful. If they are going to show minutes/movies of ANY town board or commission, it should be in their ENTIRETY, and not tampered with. These movies look like they are TAMPERED with, and that is wrong.
Any time you scumbags would like to have a public debate about these issues I would love to take you on. This website is a waste of time because only you morons visit here and have this stupid circular argument.
No Ernie, LOTS of people look at this web site, and DAILY. It is YOUR web site that no one looks at. This one has a free exchange of ideas- EVEN YOURS. The “circular argument” you refer to, is you “stepping on it” repeatedly with baseless accusations and bull. Day by day, more and more people are getting a clue about you and your below standard bunch of bullies through this site and through just plain talk around town. Obviously, you cant resist this site. So you would love to squash it, but you never will.
The original meaning of scumbag is “condom.” The Oxford English Dictionary dates the term to 1967, with 1971 as the first example of the “despicable person” sense, but current research has pushed the dates back to 1935 (based on the still earlier scum, “semen,” and bag, “a condom”) and 1950 respectively.
I wouldn’t call anyone a “sc…” because I like to write and speak at a higher level. I think that when you can’t measure up this is what ‘low-lifes’ resort to. I guess this is the standard for that scholarly organization – you know, Theeee Woooodstock Acaaademyeeee.
Mr. Wetzel, I remain curious as to the assertions you have made and upon what methodologies, studies, or other sources of fact you have based your positions. I don’t think you know any of us, particularly myself, well enough to classify any of us as scumbags and morons. As for circular arguments, we are trying to actually understand what you are saying and the basis for you contentions. I think it would be relatively easy to have a debate here and I believe it would be a fairly public one, given your following and those who regularly come here. Let’s get back to the issues you have raised and discuss them. Answer the Questions!
Lets not get distracted now. We all know both Wetzel and his co-Trusteee Jim Kaeding visit the Cafe often – but not to provide information or answer questions. They participate only to derail discussions they know are damaging to their client – Woodstock Academy.
I think the BOF and BOE need to further investigate the definition of State Mandate as an exception under Prop 46.
This calculation has historically been in the range of about $100-$125,000. …(see new article “THe Boards…” Admin).
(This comment was also placed under the new article by Joe Breen) Mr. Breen, Thank you. I have been curious about the State Mandate definition for some time. When I have brought this question up, all I have received is blank stares which left me wondering if, in all my moronic scumbag ignorance, there was something else I missed. But perhaps its that transparency (God, I hate that word) issue again? Since the salt shed debacle I have been surprised, borderline alarmed, that this question has not been asked or publically debated (to my knowledge). One response noted that it would be wiser to bond certain items (such as the salt shed) rather than make an allowance to Prop 46 because the cost could be paid out over a period of time rather than taking a huge chunk out of an annual budget (makes sense). And YET, I do see other large chunks taken out of the annual budget that seem to go without question. Does the Fire Protection budget come to mind? Such as new equipment funds and capital improvement funds—yearly– which other departments needed to place on the (failed) Capital improvement project??? Is this overlooked by the BOF? Am I missing something? As a start, wouldn’t it be nice to find out which items on the budget are mandated and which ones are not? I am unable to attend the Tuesday’s meeting, but if you or anyone asks the question, I would love to hear the response.