If we can get good results while spending less than most other towns, I’d say this urgency by the “spender bees” to increase taxes proves that Ernie Wetzel is correct. It also proves that most of the voters in town agree with Ernie and CPS. The silent majority is still there, Chuckles. They ain’t going away and they’re not sleeping, either. I wonder, Chuckles, if you make your living in some aspect of the real estate industry
As I’ve said before, there are many who feel that we have to spend more on our educational system simply because it would create the illusion that Woodstock is an “uppity’ place and, therefore, a place where property values remain high. I’ve heard a number of people express that sentiment over the years. Included in that group is a prominent member on the BOE, a current member and a former member of the PZC, among others. These are people who really don’t give a damn about the educational system in town; if they do, it’s a secondary concern. They care more about the investment in their property turning over the required cash for a cushy retirement when the time comes. Funding the educational system to the max- and then some- is just a convenient way to assure the image of Woodstock remains favorable in the eyes of potential McMansion builders which, in turn, keeps property values high. Of course, those involved with promoting real estate sales and development go hand in hand with the investors. They all present a very strong lobby, especially when the governing boards (especially Wetlands and PZC) are filthy with their presence.
Meanwhile, those of us who value the quality of living (major components, of which, being less people, less traffic and lower taxes) cringe each time a developer comes to the PZC with a plan for a bunch of houses on a cul-de-sac. The development has absolutely no benefit to those here in Town.
The development, does, however, offer quite a few minuses. First, more children to make sure that education costs rise. There will be more traffic. There will be less open space. In addition to that we’re forced to take over the damn driveway…uh, cul-de-sac’s maintenence for ever while only a select few use it.
I guess my message, here, is directed to those of you who have been brainwashed by this powerful real estate lobby (realtors, real estate investement companies, builders, developers, law firms specializing in property closings and the “one horse” speculator). You should understand that CPS members and supporters are not monsters plotting to short cut your children’s education. They are hard working people from all levels of income, age and employment backgrounds. Some of the supporters and members include Lawyers, doctors, TEACHERS ( at least one PTA member) as well as people from many of the building trade industries. They are not old men with empty nests. Many are young folks trying to hold onto their first house with rapidly rising taxes looming over them as their primary obstacle in doing so. Yes, many are older folks on fixed incomes who fear that, ultimately, they will have to sell out because of unnecessarily high taxes. Then there are those of us who believe that unnecessary spending is wrong, not to mention stupid.
Joe, I share many of your views in principle. Does your concern about the “spenders” in Town include arbitrary spending by the Academy at taxpayers’ expense, unrestrained pay raises for the Town leadership by the Town leadership, and frivolous litigations perpetrated against the school board by Town leadership and private citizens?
Joe, I just want Ernie and the like, to focus on some real problems and get off the school system. How much “waste” can there be, if we spend nothing to begin with? How bad can the quality of education be, if our scores are good/above average? Why continue to pound on my kids school system? Just because his kids are out of K-8? For attention? I notice that when the pounding starts on K-8 nothing is ever validated with specifics. Nothing. “goes the school system- goes the town” is a true fact. Focus on something else.
John, I’m not against scrutinzing ANY spending, including the Academy’s. However, in the Academy’s case, let’s not fix something that isn’t broken. I think the Academy’s board is doing a great job without bleeding the taxpayers. If you take their independence away, I believe, you’ll be taking their effectiveness away with it.
Joe, what is your criteria for saying the Academy is effective and not K-8? This is why you guys look bad. You have double standards and nepotism. Just because a bunch of you are on the Board of Trustees for the Academy, doesn’t make the Academy good and K-8 bad. Again, this is why you guys ultimately look so bad.
Chuckles Baby, have you lost your mind? We don’t look bad. Your group of tax, spend, and borrow educrats have gotten your ass beaten by us. Every one of your attempts to waste money have been shot down for the last 8 years. When will you morons wake up and start talking to us intelligently and honestly. Shouting us down and namecalling isn’t working for you. I would like improve education in Woodstock and always have, while doing many services for the school system. Through donations, playing fields, the 8th grade Wash, D.C. trip, reducing Town Govt spending so the school system could spend it for me, 2 years on the BOE. 4 years as 1st Selectman and 4 years on the BOT. But no, I have nothing to offer the Town or you folks, right? John Leavitt, exactly where is this arbitrary spending by the Academy? You need to stop drinking the cool aid offered by Joe Breen and company.
I don’t remember any brainwashing sessions by the real estate lobby, but I may have been under hypnosis. This sounds like the newest CPS conspiracy theory to justify their attacks on the Woodstock public education system.
Klusek is correct about one major driver of the town’s fiscal problem – the continuing – and accelerating – growth of residential development and associated service demands.
But there is another problem. P-46 is deflationary; i.e., it has no inflation adjustment so that even with zero growth in residential development, the town would be forced to reduce services.
Third, the formalization of the fire department by Ernie Wetzel probably was the straw bail that broke the back of P-46.
One of the major problems facing municipalities are unfunded State Mandates. The State is the snake and the liberal General Assembly continues to enact fiscally burdensome legislations that force the towns to either raise taxes or cut programs and services. In Feb. 2006 the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) surveyed 21 communities across the state that were randomly selected from 5 soceoeconomic categories. They surveyed top administrative and financial officers who agreed to comment on their perspectives on State Mandates. These officials were asked to identify the top most burdensome mandates that their municipalities face. The most frequently identified were:
1- Educational mandates. 76% indicated that State Ed. mandates were the MOST burdensome. Particularly, a) SPED and b) the Education Cost Sharing Formula (socialism at its best).
2- Prevailing wage and binding arbitration.
Other burdensome unfunded or inadequately funded mandates included:
—collective bargaining on teacher’s salaries
—Limits on class sizes
—standards for classroom facilities
—requirements for construction of new school buildings
—reporting requirements
—textbook requirements
In addition to the above complaints, local officials were also concerned that they were unable to have meaningful input into the development of local education budgets. Many expressed a desire to have more direct control over their education budgets such as line item and dept. level authority. Having more to say in how local dollars are spent would allow for compromise and improved opportunity for fiscal balance between educational services and other town services.
Some take home points:
1- It appears that Woodstock is not alone in some of the issues faced.
2- Prop 46 may help cap some spending but not state mandated spending.
3- Between State Mandates and Prop 46, non-mandated spending will be
most squeezed and should be first to cut (Dial-a-Ride).
4- The BOE are not to be faulted for these State Mandates but are
expected to ensure that they are properly enforced and should be
held accountable for doing so. This is why the inappropriate ELL
funding, although seemingly minimal and benign, is an important issue
and this mistake should now set a precedent for more diligence in
determining the letter of the law of particular mandates.
5- Ms. Wholean is not alone in her desire as a top official to have more
control on the education budget.
6- Financial Officers having control over the education budget rather than
Educators may be seen as a good thing or a bad thing. Personally,
I think a balance between both are necessary, but all levels of
spending (K-12) must be fairly scrutinized.
7- It appears that in other towns non-educational services feel more of
a squeeze from fiscal restraints rather than in Woodstock where it is
purported by some that the educational services are being most
effected. Funding equity must be determined through fair and accurate
documentation of trends and spending.
8- If unchecked, fiscal imbalance between education and non-educational
services will create further burdens and strife within communities.
9- Taxpayer advocacy groups are an important component in creating
balance. However, balance and fairness in scrutinizing spending across
the spectrum (K-12, government) must be a priority.
As an end note, Jodi Rell-R put together a commission to investigate the problems occuring because of unfunded educational state mandates. I have not heard of any progress or outcomes from this commission as of yet. Has anybody?
Joe, what is it with you CPS men? No answer? Can’t you let GO of anything? You say in reference to the Academy “lets not fix something that isn’t broken”. WHERE IS K-8 BROKEN? Why do you continually pound on K-8, when it isn’t broken???? Preston Schultze is a wounded and unfortunate man who will never be happy, what is the excuse for the rest of CPS?
Joe, I have just one word to respond to your blind support of the Academy’s spending: Football.
How can you possibly justify it or the decisions that have brought it?
Tax – I know you have no interest in our system of government or the LAW but consider the following brief points:
1. The mandate issue can only be addressed AT THE STATE LEVEL and I encourage you to do so.
2. It is a VIOLATION OF LAW for Queen Margie to interfere in the business of the BOE.
3. If all K-12 spending should be scrutinized, why do you pound away at K-8 while IGNORING PROBLEMS AT THE ACADEMY?
You have been tutored like a child on these same subjects for months. It is not possible to believe you do not understand. You simply prefer regurgitation of right wing fantasy-rhetoric to serious discussion of education in Woodstock.
And stop dispensing advice on paranoia medication to other commentators – there is a reason you are on it and others are not.
T2,
1-I noted that the responsibility of the BOE is in assuring that state mandates are enforced.
2-I noted above that many Municipal leaders expressed a desire for more control over education budgets.
3- I noted above that fairness in scrutinizing spending across the spectrum (k-12, government) must be a priority of taxpayer advocacy groups.
Try reading comments before reacting to them in your usual straw man fashion my calvinistic cocker spaniel friend. (Oops, guess you’ll get me for “name calling” next time around.)
Ernie, It’s “Kool Aid” (six original flavors) not “cool aid”…anyway I get your drift. Regarding arbitrary spending, I’m sure it’s not arbitrary to the Academy, but I’m talking about the expansionism of the Academy at taxpayers’ expense. I actually mis-spoke because I was thinking of the calculation of the tuition rate based upon an arbitrary underestimate of student enrollment. This is what I meant by “arbitrary spending” at the Academy, e.g. arbitrary spending of taxpayers money.
Joe, I’m not advocating taking away the “independence” of the Academy. I believe strongly that better representation from the sending towns (by appointment through their respective school boards, NOT BY HAND-PICKED RESIDENTS) would help the Academy to meld with the sending towns in a true partnership rather than a seemingly adversary relationship. The Gilbert School has done this by creating two separate Boards – a larger Board of Trustees that manages and builds the endowment and a smaller Board of Directors numbering 7 members of which the Gilbert School appoints 4 Directors and the sending towns appoint 3 Directors. Thus, Gilbert still has its majority of Directors to maintain the school’s independence and the sending Towns can exert their influence with 43% of the voting members of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors manages the business of the School while the Board of Trustees focuses only on building the endowment. These two distinct functions do not work well together. I think that by not separating these two functions, both functions become intermixed and confused due to lack of focus.
Joe, Regarding your “uppity place” comment, I don’t that the advocates of the education system are thinking about creating better property values by investing in the education system. I think that pro-education people are thinking more about investment in the children and giving them the best possible start in life. This kind of investment in the children ultimately is an investment in the community since many of these children will keep their ties with the community. A football analogy that I recall was Vasquez, the linebacker Permian High in “Friday Night Lights” who left Odessa for college (Harvard), ultimately got his law degree and then moved back to Odessa to practice Law in his own community.
John, My “uppity” comment most definately has it’s place. I’ve heard too many people complain that Woodstock is listed at third from the bottom in spending. I don’t care if we’re dead last and all of us shouln’t care, either, if a good job is being done. I’ve heard too many folks complain, in public, about our low spending and how we’re perceived by others as being “cheap”. They’re convinced that more spending will give a better image of our town and therefore, keep property values up. That kind of thinking is WRONG for the reasons I mentioned, above.
If you ask any developer, real estate agent or land investment company if enough money is being spent in our town on education, I can almost guarantee that NONE of them would say yes. Yet this solidly unanimous group of spenders and their brainwashed followers remain in the minority. Why is that?
Joe, I would agree with you that real estate agents probably tout the Woodstock school system as a good reason for a client buying the house. I would agree with you that developers are well aware of this selling point. And I would agree with you that the perception of better schools drives the development industry in Woodstock.
I believe that when others point out that Woodstock is at the bottom in spending per pupil among 169 towns, they are simply trying to counter the seemingly false claim that Woodstock is ‘over-spending’ for education for its children – they are not necessarily claiming that more should be spent … although many who support education would wish to improve our education system whereever possible. This is why we have the PTA and the Education Foundation in Town. These generous hard working people are raising financial support independently of taxation for the betterment of the school system. I also applaud the Academy Football boosters for the same reason. If less money were spent defending the BOE in court and abusive mis-use of FOI, perhaps that money could be redirected toward toward better education or reduction of the budget.
You remind me of Gilda Radner when you say “That kind of thinking is WRONG for the reasons I mentioned…” refering to “They’re convinced that more spending will give a better image of our town and therefore, keep property values up.” I don’t know whose thinking that and I’m not thinking that. If you can find someone whose thinking that who’d be willing to say that they’re thinking that, have him/her step forward.
So this is when RosannaRosannaDanna says “Never mind”.
Joe, On your last point on your guarentee that NONE of them would say yes, it might be persuasive if you had such a poll. Developers/agents are banking on the current persception or mis-perception, not what might exist in the future.
Mr. Wetzel, if that’s how you respond in a public forum, I’m not quite sure how you could have been an elected official. You accuse others of shouting you down, with phrases such as “Your group of tax, spend, and borrow educrats have gotten your ass beaten by us. Every one of your attempts to waste money have been shot down for the last 8 years. When will you morons wake up and start talking to us intelligently and honestly”
Shouting down. hmm…well thought out and thoughtful statement?
Anyhow, I’m not a supporter of Prop. 46. However, I’ve come to accept that it’s going to be difficult to repeal it.My concern is about the WA budget and BOE budget. I wish I could remember where I read the quote, but I’ve seen something to the effect of “WA can’t concern itself with the constraints Prop. 46 puts on the town of Woodstock”. I can see the point of this statement. WA provides a quality education to students from many sending towns (and even a few private students, but that’s for another day…) On the other hand, this can also come across as an extremely arrogant statement. If the BOT/WA is concerned about educating students, they need to consider that sending towns must adjust their budgets for PK-8 education budgets to use whatever is left over after WA gets what they need. As one example, WA hired a 3rd music teacher a few years ago. That same year, WMS cut the instrumental music position. I would not argue that WA can’t benifit form 3 music teachers. But when a sending town has to cut the intrumental music program the same year it’s high school hires an extra music teacher, it just doesn’t make sense. I realize WA wants what is best for WA, but for the BOT to ignore the budget constraints of sending towns does not help the educational system as a whole, just WA. So why do CPSers seem ( or is it just my mis-perception) to support WA no matter what, and attack the public schools at the same time?
Dear Jeff says, obviously you are a new comer to Woodstock politics or you are one of these idiots. I have reached the point where being civilized to you folks is a waste of time. Your past behavior of lying, misrepresenting and unethical behavior have left me past the point of being reasonable with you. The basis of argument for the Woodstock BOE is based on false assumptions, such as, the K-8 system suffers financially due to Prop 46 and the Academy. Now that you folks have lost the public debate and at the ballot box, all of this is a moot point. But you still have hope with the morons on the BOE, Paul, Loftus, Corden, and Andrezik. In this election you might pick up some more support. I would hope that your candidates would at least inform the citizenry of what your true platform is about education and taxes. If you actually told the truth your candidates wouldn’t stand a chance and you know it. John Leavitts position on education is such a nice liberal position of caring and wanting to help. John exactly where and when are you going to get this fiscal responsibility that liberals always talk about, usually that comes in the form of a tax increase.
For years I’ve been joking about wanting to become a curmudgeon when I get older but once in a while I come across one and just shiver. Much better to joke about becoming one than to encounter a real one.
Thanks.
Dear Ernie –
Obviously you are old news in Woodstock politics or you are one of these CPS idiots. I have reached the point where being civilized to you folks is a waste of time. Your past behavior of lying, misrepresenting and unethical behavior have left me past the point of being reasonable with you. The basis of argument for the Woodstock Academy is based on false assumptions, such as, the WA is exempt from Prop-46. Now that you folks have lost the public debate in the last election, all of this is a moot point. But you still have hope with the morons on the Trustees – Lynn, Livernois, you, Paul Kelly, John Rowe, David Teed, Kevin Johnston. In this election you might pick up some more support. I would hope that your candidates would at least inform the citizenry of what your true platform is about education and taxes. If you actually told the truth your candidates wouldn’t stand a chance and you know it. Margie Wholean’s position is so anti-education of inference, accusation and attack. Margie exactly where and when are you going to get this fiscal responsibility that you Citizens for Prudent Spending always talk about, instead of giving yourself and everyone in town hall 10% raises? Usually that comes in the form of a tax increase.
Mr. Wetzel:
You said
“Your past behavior of lying, misrepresenting and unethical behavior have left me past the point of being reasonable with you. The basis of argument for the Woodstock BOE is based on false assumptions, such as, the K-8 system suffers financially due to Prop 46 and the Academy.”
Perhaps I’m an idiot or a newcomer, but you might want to explain yourself a little more clearly. WA sets a budget, and charges sending towns on a per pupil basis. That means the BOE (and the selectman) must base its budget on what is left over. What am I missing?
As for your assumption that you know who my candidates are, I’m not yet sure who I will support, so perhaps you’d like to tell me more about my future. The Cafe is not my sole source of info, but it is certainly informative.
Anyhow, I find that when adults try to understand one another rather than name calling they can get a little more accomplished.
What amazes me the most is that there are people still willing to run for office in town, when anyone who disagrees with an elected official (or anyone else) feels it is necessary or appropriate to resort to name-calling, insults, and inflammatory language.
I find it interesting that Wetzel and Klusek are now playing good cop/bad cop with Wetzel’s rant becoming ridiculous and offensive but Klusek sounding, at least in tone, more reasonable.
Jeff –
My problem with the Academy Trustees and Margie Wholean is not that they advocate for the Academy. It is that they have aligned themselves with the anti-education group at CPS in order to do so. This undermines political support for the public education system in this town through the CPS-style campaign of inference, accusation, attack and mob intimidation. This seems not only perverse, but contrary to their own charter and to their own interests.
While charged with educating our kids so they can be good citizens, the Academy is proividing them a cynical lesson in brass-knuckle politics that would make Machiavelli blush.
You guys all need to ask the Post Masters how many new addresses they are sending mail to within the last year. They will tell you “none”
Taxpayer Too: I think your comment where you turn Ernie on Ernie is just great! Its SO true!
I’m a newcomer to Woodstock and still trying to sort out the political landscape. It’s not that easy to do sometimes. All of this name-calling back and forth is distracting to someone who’s trying to familiarize themself with the issues….(see Newcomers’ new article. Admin).