Yesterday, Monday the 20th, the Cafe had 288 visitors (including boycotters
) and >800 page turns. Sunday the 19th, the Cafe had 320 visitors and >600 page turns.
I hope that you will see the desperation in Mr. Wetzel’s last post … the fantasy he lives in is simply amazing.
1) Mr. Breen has recognized the artificial barrier that Prop 46 imposes upon reasoned evaluation of the budgetary needs of Woodstock. So have many others, including ironically Mr. Wetzel himself. In fact, Mr. Wetzel spearheaded the last effort to repeal Prop 46 much to the consternation of his pals, like Gerry Ralston, a ruthlessly deceptive act perpetrated upon his own supporters and proof that he’ll do anything to accomplish his objectives. As to the belief that Prop 46 should be amended … check the results of the vote on that referendum … extremely close and to the extent that Mr. Wetzel’s claim of a mandate against Prop 46 amendment is devoid of factual foundation.
2) Mr. Wetzel demonstrates clear confusion about Mr. Breen’s role in contract negotiations with the Academy. It is Mr. Wetzel himself who has contributed to the outcome of no contract. The record shows that Mr. Wetzel has stated at several Woodstock Academy meetings that the Academy should not negotiate a contract with Woodstock BOE.
3) Mr. Wetzel has once again incorrectly characterized Mr. Breen’s proposal to the legislature as an attempt to “take over” the Academy. Mr. Wetzel demonstrates a complete failure to understand the Breen proposal by such a statement which is obviously intended to fan the flames again without factual basis. One only needs to read the Breen document and the draft legislation that was issued by the Education Subcommittee of the General Assembly to see how far off Mr. Wetzel is in his allegation of a take-over attempt. And in another example of contradiction by Mr. Wetzel, one can see that he was one of several former BOE members, including Mr. Livernois and Mr. Masiello, who previously advocated for increased representation of sending town representatives in a published BOE report that Mr. Wetzel signed himself (see “WA Agreement Committee…- 1999″ in Key Articles on the right. Admin).
4) Mr. Wetzel’s suggestion that the Woodstock Democratic Town Committee and Mr. Breen have stated that taxes should be increased is a complete fabrication and figment of Mr. Wetzel’s deranged imagination. Actually the facts would show that since the last election when there was an increase in Democrats elected to office in Woodstock, taxes in Woodstock have not increased by any larger extent than in prior years, and in the case of some citizens, have actually decreased in the last year.
5) It was Margaret Wholean who championed the last bond issue referendum with the full support of the Board of Finance members Wisnewski, Hosmer, Rapose, Dowd, Woodward and Murphy. All except the comatose in Woodstock know that Ms. Wholean and Mr. Breen don’t agree on much, so Mr. Wetzel has incorrectly identified the source of his bonding paranoia … it is his friend, Ms. Wholean.
The Woodstock Democratic Town Committee has not spent even one hundred dollars in legal fees to obtain anything. What they did without expending any legal fees was accomplish victories by substantial margins in the last municipal elections 2005, especially over Mr. Wetzel’s CPS candidates who were overwhelmingly defeated, a result that shows their platform was obviously understood and endorsed by the voters at the ballot box.
John, it seems clear that no matter what you may publish as your endorsed position, as he has done with Mr. Breen’s stated positions, Mr. Wetzel will fail to understand it, and then through twisted maniacal self-delusion, misrepresent it in his subsequent ranting.
Ernie Wetzel has pretty much been the kiss of death for any politician in Woodstock. I don’t think Wholean’s cause is helped by the endorsement of this disturbed individual.
I am curious.
With regard to the “artificial barrier that Prop 46 imposes…” – Other towns across our quiet corner are faced with their own serious budget constraints so, what makes Mr. Breen and others believe that the townspeople would necessarily vote in a budget which met what some consider are the “needs” of Woodstock?
It took Thompson 4 referendums to pass their budget and they did not have such an ordinance as an impediment to “evaluation of its budgetary needs”. (?)
It seems to me that the townspeople of Woodstock would be just as reluctant to vote for a tax increase, they feel they can not afford, regardless of Prop 46.
What’s the expression? “Can’t get blood out of a rock”
Exactly Reality. If the Board of Finance presented a budget that was totally “out of whack” wouldn’t the town rise up and defeat the budget regardless of Prop. 46? If voters think of Prop. 46 as a safety net that will protect them from higher taxes they don’t have to consider the ramifications of continued lower spending year after year. Sooner or later the “piper will have to be paid.” Mr. Klusek, Mr. Wetzel et. al. can continue to defend the spending cap imposed by Prop. 46, but some day in the near future, the long term effect of this ordinance will prove ill-advised. What may have served the town well 30 years ago is not necessarily so today.
Reality Check –
I think you are right but I would make a couple of points.
First, if true, the taxpayers don’t need P-46 – they can protect themselves. Second, I think the BOF hides behind P-46 so they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions (“We are powerless . . .”). As a result, they have become completely lazy-brained each year just calculating the cap, calculating the cut, and allocating the cut. If this is all they do, the town can dispense with the BOF altogether.
The process this way is neater, but has made the BOF lazy.
Hawkeye,
Your statement: “First, if true, the taxpayers don’t need P-46 – they can protect themselves.”
I can not agree with the simplification you provide. You would suggest that the protections that citizens are afforded via laws and ordinances are unnecessary. The foundations of such protections are fundamental to our society.
I have yet to fully comprehend (and decide for myself) all the intricacies of Prop 46. What I have discerned is that the ordinance protects taxpayers when the local economy is affected by a run-away housing market as the entire nation was witness to in the last few years. Assessments, upon reval, are adverseley afflicted in such a market. Therefore, this is one protection that I believe Prop 46 offers to its taxpayers that is needed. Taxpayers can not be expected to support that which their incomes will not.
In a housing market that reaches a level that outweighs the incomes of home buyers (to the extent) that occurred most recently, the economy, taxes, and communities are affected. Having a “protection” via the municipality for taxpayers, in such a market, is reasonable and welcome to most people. Whether or not Prop 46 does this as effectively as it should or is in need of some balance, I am still attempting to figure out for myself.
Reality Check –
You said “what makes Mr. Breen and others believe that the townspeople would necessarily vote in a budget which met what some consider are the “needsâ€? of Woodstock?” I thought I was agreeing with your point but may have misinterpreted it.
Hawkeye,
Taxpayers do not always agree that the “needs” (and their potential increases) identified by the budget-making bodies are truly needed or are accurately assessed. While certainly arguable, I think it’s safe to assume a great number of citizens are aware that those who “make the budgets”, in business and in government, ask for more than they need with the anticipation that they will not get all that they seek.
The absence of Prop 46 would mean that the budget-making bodies would be unrestricted in the budgets that they can present to the town and voters would be able to vote for those budgets as presented; however, it does not mean they would pass. In fact, they might not even make it to referendum. Taxpayers will not vote for budgets with tax increases that they feel they can not afford to pay or believe to be exorbitant. Without Prop 46 there could very likely be far more scrutiny and failed budgets, in Woodstock, without some form of a spending cap protection.
I have had conversations with several individuals who felt that many Woodstock budgets have been exorbitant but, voted for them regardless because they felt secure in their belief that Prop 46 was “doing its job”. There seems to be a very broad sense that Prop 46 keeps the budget-making bodies in check (at least to some extent).
Based upon the results of several attempts to repeal or amend Prop 46, I believe most concerned (or involved) citizens have voiced their desire for protection against inflated taxes that they believe this ordinance provides. Indeed, there have been budgets presented which have met the Prop 46 calculations and still voted down by taxpayers.
Towns that do not have an ordinance such as Prop 46 often have difficulties passing their budgets (equal to or greater than Woodstock). Taxpayers, in those towns, vote down budgets that many would consider are needs-based.
I would be curious to see how the application of Prop 46 would affect other town budgets. If one were to apply the calculation of Prop 46 to Thompson’s 2007-2008 budget how would it fare?
RC, I share many of the same sentiments of your comment above. I spoke on this in an early June article “Our Views…” You mentioned that there have been budgets that met Prop 46 requirements that were voted down by taxpayers. When did this happen? I think you are right that Prop 46 has actually helped in the passage of the budget especially in the last two years. However, when residents blindly accept a budget because it meets Prop 46 requirements, this is not necessarily a good thing. One example would be the 8.9%-9.9% pay increases this year for the First Selectman and three other Town Hall elected leaders which in my opinion goes against the spirit of Prop 46.
Reality Check and others presume that the results of Prop 46 referenda have suggested a mandate in support of the ordinance by Woodstock citizenry. To the extent that any referendum turning out less than fifty percent of Woodstock citizens can show a mandate, the referenda regarding repeal of Prop 46 may have shown a mandate against repeal. The same can not be said regarding the referendum to amend Prop 46 which the author above has stated was extremely close. It actually was a statistical tie wasn’t it?
It appears that Reality Check is not sure if there may need to be a revision to Prop 46, and that would seem to be an issue still in play with the voters. I wonder what the views of the candidates for First Selectman are concerning the amendment or repeal of Prop 46?
John,
The budget failed in the ’90s, if I recall correctly. I’m sure that Mrs. Rich would have the specific year. As for other years, I admit to not knowing first hand and only what I’ve heard.
RILS,
I believe you are confused. The referendum to amend Prop 46 had a 48% voter turnout with 71% of the voters against the amendment (1536 NO, 673 YES).
48% voter turnout is fantastic
I am not sure how you arrived at, “It appears that Reality Check is not sure if there may need to be a revision to Prop 46″.
As for breathing new life into the repeal/amend of Prop 46? I’d say that horse already left the barn. Woodstock needs to move forward. In my opinion, public officials need to start working together and hopefully, our children can look forward to a more unified community for their children. One can hope.
[ I posted this last night but, it is not here. I am making a second attempt to respond ]
It got posted at about 6:40AM along with others as soon as we logged on. Admin.
RC,
Weren’t there two referenda to amend Prop 46. I recall that there definitely was a referendum result on the question to amend Prop 46 that was very close with a decent voter turnout. I think the margin was about 150 votes.