See the article about Mike Alberts running for Selectman in the Norwich Bull.
From Joe:
Newcomer,
I’ve expressed my views concerning what’s happening in town many times on here. I’ve had harsh criticism and crude responses from several wackos, but there has been some that were in agreement from those with similar values to mine. I don’t remember all of the articles I’ve written but one comes to mind that I recently submitted in August of this year that reflects some of my opinions (see this August article).
The troubles we face are all about differences in values. I prefer Woodstock to remain a quiet place with less traffic, less bureaucracy, and, generally, less people … more people mean more problems. Big spending liberals like mean Joe Breen want “progress” which means more spending, more taxes, with rising property values being the bottom line.
I see the trend moving fast towards “progress” as I go to work in the morning and drive the posted speed limit. Cars with long distance commuters stack up behind me honking their horns and flipping me “the bird”. Many of them still have Massachusetts or Rhode Island tags on their cars. They pass me in no passing zones that are new because of their arrival (until recent years, there were many places in town where you could pass legally. Now because of the increasing traffic, they’re gone – just another chip off the quality of life in Woodstock).
I see the push to create more bureaucracy, especially in the school system. It’s become a jobs program with more new positions created each year that we don’t need (like more curriculum coordinators, teacher assistants, para professionals, reading, writing and math specialists and the one that really gets my goat, guidance councellors for 5, 6 and 7 year old children). Of course, more staff means more votes to keep the same damn people in the “jobs program”. And these people, of course, will push for more expansion.
Mr. Wetzel, who has done more on this site to point out the flaws in our system, attacks the problem from a different angle than I do, but I agree with him just about all of the time. He may or may not want to respond to your entry, above, so if mine is not enough, I suggest you dig like the rest of us to learn “who’s on first”. Even that may not be enough because of the rapidly changing face of our town.
From Newcomer:
Mr. Klusek,
Thank you for taking the time to answer me and get me started. I will look for past articles and start with August.
I can see what you are saying to a point and I also see a little bit of what K-8 is saying. I actually moved here from out of state myself. I chose Woodstock for the peace, quiet, slower pace…all of things that you cited above. I was also attracted to the WES.
I guess that I fall into a gray area in terms of big government versus small government. I would like to see a balance of governmental power. In my opinion, there are some areas where government should stay out of the way or farm out to private industry if there is a private agency that can perform a needed service more efficiently (both in terms of cost efficiency as well as service provided). But there are basic services also that a town should maintain for its residents and those also need to be managed as efficiently as possible.
I agree that this town needs more job-generating business and that the school and a handful of other companies are not sufficient to provide enough local jobs for an expanding population of residents. However, Some of the positions at school are quite helpful to the children, at least in my opinion. You mentioned a school psychologist for such young children. My children have actually not needed a school psychologist but I do have a neighbor who has a child that is receiving a great benefit from this service. The child’s parents have had quite a turbulent divorce and it had a rather pronounced negative impact on one child in the family, in particular. Although she’s young, she’s making progress by having someone to help her who is neutral. She was at a point of not talking to either of her parents about how she was feeling. By keeping everything bottled up, some problematic behaviors were beginning to emerge.
I posted in a separate article about my experience with teacher aides, particularly as it relates to Sped children. Just to summarize quickly if you missed it: my child has an aide and I had to jump a few hoops to get one. In my experience, the school was not at all liberal about handing an aide out. On the other hand, when a legitimate need was proven to them, they did provide what my child needs.
One of my other children could benefit from a reading and math specialist, actually. I’ll be trying to set that up in the near future so I’d have to wait and let you know if that service has real merit and meets a real need. I just haven’t had any experience with them yet.
I’ll have to defer also on the curriculum coordinator. I’m nowhere near familiar enough with that to comment.
So in general, I have not yet seen a major abuse of positions in the WES. But as I said in an earlier comment, most budgets have room to trim and there could very well be an extra position or two here and there.
I do think that there need to be more employment opportunities in and around Woodstock. But the trick is what could they be when we definitely don’t want Wal-Mart and strip malls dotted around town? That’s why I had suggested looking into developing a low impact tourism industry. Things such as regattas and concerts; other fairs and festivals where the town would benefit financially. Things like this would not permanently alter the look of the town. But then someone responded to me and pointed out that depending on how one interprets prop 46, the town may not be able to accept other income from any source but the grand list.
I’m still searching for “the answer” and beginning to think that one does not actually exist. Maybe you’ll find some common ground in what I’ve said here and perhaps not. But I do thank you for taking the time to dialogue with me.
There you have it folks: More people means more problems. It couldn’t have been said any better in newcomer’s response.
JK,
It sure does. Having said that … more people are coming, there is no changing it, only managing it. The question is; what is the best way to deal with that reality?
Thanks.
Bowman, Number one would be to get rid of anyone on the PZC that is either connected with development or is developer friendly. That’s going to be hard to do in the near future since most of the current ones are developer friendly and some of those running this fall are too.
Number two would be to get some people on the BOE that are not so eager to expand the “jobs Program” as well as a new superintendent-one who will run, smoothly, what he has instead of constantly trying to expand what he has, which creates more problems. The man we have in there now has demonstrated time and time again that expansion is what is needed, when, in fact, the enrollment of school kids in our town has slowed in relation to the pace he’s going.
Mr. Klusek,
I consider myself fairly moderate. What did I say that gives you reason to believe that more folks like me are indicative of the problems you were mentioning? Clearly I missed something in your initial response to me.
For example, while you did express very clearly that you feel there are too many positions/jobs at WES and/or K-8 in general that are not needed, I replied to say that there is SOME need there. Perhaps, I should have expanded my response. I was actually thinking about it more as today wore on.
I did say there is wiggle room in the budget in the sense that most budgets have room to trim. What I should have suggested was more of a balance. I do think that a school psychologist is helpful to some children. I would have to know what the current school psychologist’s case load is, but it might be possible to hire one on a part-time basis (assuming he/she is currently staffed full-time). If the case load is small enough that the students who need the service can receive the service in one or two days rather than all week, then there is room here for compromise. Provide the service for the kids if a need for the service is clearly demonstrated, but provide it in a way that saves the town a little money in terms of both salary and medical benefits. Same for the other positions.
WHY do I advocate not eliminating these services altogether? Glad you asked. As someone with children who have made significant progress since moving into this school district and receiving these services, and someone who lives with children with special needs to begin with, the services in this district serve two important functions.
1. They make a measurable difference in a child’s life. One of my children was hardly verbal at all when we moved here and is now speaking in full sentences and holding conversations.
2. The earlier a school system intervenes with services, the greater the savings in later grades (as in middle and high school). Why? Because when the brain is young and still developing, there is time for new neural pathways to develop where none existed previously. Bottom line: if you want to pay extra money for a one-to-one aide and remedial instructors for a kid throughout his/her entire schooling (k-12), then do nothing in the early years. If you want a great shot at being able to mainstream a child into a regular classroom with minimal support staff (and the expense of support staff) if any, spend the money when they are little and intervene early with intensive services in order to reduce the need for those services to continue in later grades.
If you have not raised a child with special needs and have seen this dramatic difference for yourself, then I cannot hold this against you. But sir, I came from a regional school district where because of budget cuts, only the bare minimum of services were being provided – only what was mandated. That district had more lawsuits than you could shake a stick at because parents had to bring in child advocates and literally fight for the most basic needs (ex. 1 1/2 hours of weekly speech therapy as the family specialist prescribes, versus the 1/2 hour the school offered). At least in Woodstock, there are a few lawsuits here and there, but nowhere near what many other districts see because there are more services here than in many towns.
The flipside to that is that there are also other schools in other towns doing a better job of providing service. Perhaps there is something to be learned from some of those districts. I’m not arrogant enough to say that there is no room for improvement here. I’m simply trying to educate you to other points to consider in the event that you have not yet shared your life with a child who needs extra help in order to enjoy the same quality of life that most of us take for granted.
Joe, What about the “jobs program” in the Bullshit Castle with dramatically raised salaries, the prospect of a “town administrator,” an overpaid “town planner,” and the approval of zoning permits for commercial development that have taken place without going through planning and zoning? Does the fact that the Academy wishes to expand their football facilities bother you? How about the hundreds of high schoolers that are bused in from far away places like Canterbury and Brooklyn on THEIR buses? I bet ya, that many of those speeding cars that flip you the bird are driven by high schoolers while heading in to town and back to Eastford, Pomfret, Brooklyn, and Canterbury before and after a hard day at high school; or they are parents picking up and letting off kids at the Academy or at local daycare centers (same thing) on their way to and from work. Maybe many of those Mass and RI license plates are coming to and from newly expanded (without P&Z approval) ‘Sweat Evileenas’ along with the Harleys after or before a belly full of french fries. Gooday Mate
Mr. Klusek,
I neglected to comment on what you said about housing developments and I feel I owe you that, since you did take the time to write about it.
You may be surprised to learn that I too would prefer to see less housing developments in town. The road maintenance does put a strain on the budget and there are other increased costs associated as well, which I believe you pointed out already. But primarily, I agree with you about this from an aesthetic point of view. I came here looking for a rural look and feel of the town and would like to preserve that for all (residents and passers-through) to continue enjoying. You may be interested to know that when I was house-hunting here, I only looked at two homes that were in developments and while they both had all of the bells and whistles, I did not choose either of them. I simply did not want to live in a neighborhood and felt I could have chosen a susburb if that was the look that I was going for.
One last point in response to Mr. Klusek,
I just re-read my initial response and there is a sentence that does not read the way that I intended it to. It doesn’t state what I was trying to say and it gives an opinion that was not the one I was trying to convey. So I would like to re-state my view here. Here’s the sentence that I would like to re-word:
“I agree that this town needs more job-generating business and that the school and a handful of other companies are not sufficient to provide enough local jobs for an expanding population of residents.”
I lumped a few separate thoughts into one sentence here and should not have done so. That sentence gives the impression that I agree that we have very little employment opportunities in Woodstock and the school is a major employer.
I now see why Mr. Klusek reacted as he did and I apologize for my error. What I wanted to say and what I DO believe is that I do think there are very few employment opportunities in Woodstock and while I would like to remedy that, I do not have many ideas that would serve as a remedy without changing the nature and face of the town. That is why I had suggested the low-impact tourism. Although, while it may bring in revenue, it wouldn’t help the job situation much at all. I had intially considered tourism a revenue-generator for the town before some folks informed me that it would not matter based on prop 46.
When I included the mention of schools in that thought, I did so only to recognize that many residents are indeed employed there. But I did not intend to imply that the school should serve as the major industry for the residents.
My feeling on that again is a position of balance. We should employ people to fill needed positions. If there are some positions that can be done on a part-time basis to save the town money without neglecting the legitimate (by that, I mean proven or somehow demonstrated/measured) needs of the student body, then I am for them.
I am sorry for the confusion that I, myself caused when the point of this discussion was to try to see things a little more clearly.
Newcomer, It’s okay to say the the school system is an employer of many Woodstockians. So is Hyde and the other smaller employers in town. Those employed by our public school system add to the vitality of the town whether the CPS’ers like it or not.
Is Klusek aware that subdivision and development are rights of property owners under state law? Is he advocating violation of state law? Is this one of his “values”?
How would Klusek stop the town’s growth, other than publicizing claims that the PZC is in bed with developers?
And selecting the leanest school system in the state for job cuts while allowing Town Hall and the Academy to go on an unchallenged staffing and spending spree seems a little inconsistent.
If anyone is in bed together, it is the Academy and First Selectman Wholean. Where is Klusek on this conflict of interest?
Joe,
I did do some checking on this very issue a while ago. The Town of Woodstock does have a development plan (http://www.woodstockconservation.org/PDF%20Files/A_Plan_of_Open_Space_and_Conservation_12_03_03.pdf), which I was glad to learn. Do you think this plan is a good one? If so which members of the board or people who are running for P&Z do you think are working against it and why?
As far as the BOE, a few years ago they were cutting jobs, now they are adding some. The spending per student is still low compared to other towns in the state and the achievement good. I need to know specifics behind what jobs at the BOE should be axed and why they are not needed before I can really support such a statement. Last time I talked to someone about fraud, waste and abuse at the BOE all I heard about was 10 hours of legal fees that they didn’t agree with and a questionable number of students on a bus he spotted. That just doesn’t cut it. Should we also be worried about expanding sports programs at WA and sharply increasing town employee salaries?
Thanks.
At the last BOE meeting Dr. Baran reiterated the need for additional administrative staff – two assistant principals. These positioned were requested in this last budget but were cut. He felt that the additional administrative support would enable the schools to better meet some of the BOE goals. I have not formulated an opinion on whether or not these positions are needed, however, many folks did feel these positions were ridiculous for a school system of our size. The BOE mentioned that they wanted to better understand the needs of the schools so they can better explain them and justify them to the public. Duh. So one issue for the taxpayer is to demand justification. However, at this past year’s budget presentation, there was little taxpayer representation, little taxpayer questioning, and little of taxpayers demanding justification. (Guess it doesn’t matter when we have Prop 46). No one questioned WA, no one questioned salaries, no one questioned the BOE. One person questioned the fire dept. and good ‘ol Delpha immediately brought emotion into it thus stifling any conversation. Perhaps what we need in town is a bipartisan Taxpayer Association that represents all taxpayers and plays an active role in all issues and perhaps organizes events like debates that we could videotape and use to hold politicians to their words. What’ya think Gas?
Bowman, I’ll bet that you were speaking with that scholar, of CPS notariety, Schultz. I got the same cock and bull from him one day at the transfer station. It’s unfortunate, that approximately 300 or so people in Town are incapable of critical thinking and actually listen to this crock. (Our First Selectman came to a Democratic Town Committee one night quoting Mr. Schultze and in sympathy with his unvalidated theories of “waste”. This probably one of the reasons her own Town Committee did’nt back her)
Citizen With Child,
I am o.k. with saying that K-8 is one employer in town among others. I just didn’t take care to choose my words carefully enough and it came out sounding like I intended the school to be the bigger or biggest employer. That’s not what I wanted to convey. I would only add that in a given year if there was a higer enrollment of sped students requiring aides, the school ‘could’ end up being the biggest employer. I’m o.k. with that as long as those positions are to fill a demonstrated need. Likewise, if there were to be a year with a low Sped population for whatever reason, I would expect to see fewer positions at K-8. So far, I haven’t seen a liberal waste of resources. But if someone can prove that it has happened, I am willing to hear them out.
I’m not in favor of wasteful spending in any arena, whether it’s K-8, WA, whatever. I am in favor of justifiable spending and I do believe that a school district saves money in the upper grades if it invests in its children while they are young.
Gasparov,
As far as developments, there is actually a man in R.I. and I cannot think of his name right now. But he is a consultant to towns that allow housing subdivisions but want them to have as little impact as possible on the community where they are built (mostly rural communities). I lack the proper terminology to describe it, but this man basically plans a devlopment that does not end up looking like a neighborhood. It all looks rural with forest buffers between the homes and conservation areas reserved from development as part of the plan. The article that I read about him said that he is so skilled at the type of planning that he does that a builder typically can get one or two houses more into a “development” than originally thought. Yet someone driving by can barely notice a change in the area and this guy somehow manages to preserve more land in the process than is usually done with a typical subdivision plan.
So, I might go for something designed by that guy. I just think these little neighborhoods look a bit out of place in a farm community as they are usually done. There again, I would opt for balance. If the town could find someone like the guy I mentioned who can plan a development that fits in with the character of the town and still permits a builder to make a living, I can deal with that.
I come from a town that put a two year halt to any and all building, not just subdivisions. Even a homeowner who owned their own land had to wait the two years before a building permit would be issued. They did continue to issue permits for renovations to an exisiting home. But even an addition was reviewed on a case-by-case basis. So your news about it being illegal is not something I’m aware of. Of course, I did not live in this state.
I wish there was a brick and mortar building called the Woodstock cafe where we could all get together and go back and forth about this. My fingers are on the verge of turning blue.
Newcomer,
Stopping all new development temporarily while creating a development plan is legal in CT. But it has to be temporary for that purpose (which is, I suspect, why it happened in the town you came from in RI). It is my understanding that it also happened when the Woodstock development plan was created.
The plan itself has not been fully implemented. I’ve obliquely heard that the P&Z board has plans to implement more of the plan over the next few years but there is a strong contingent in town that is very much against curtailing subdivisioning in any way shape or form.
I’ve written several posts about that issue here and there on this site. I think the largest debacle around development in Woodstock in recent memory was the Pulpit Rock subdivision that was only stopped by a private citizen spending his own money and going to court. We have a need for a strong P&Z commission that is supported by the community to get the proper zoning in place in the first place and then enforcing it. I suggest you read the plan for the town (I linked to it earlier in the thread) and see what you think of it.
Thanks.
Good points as usual Bowman. I would love to hear from some of this year’s candidates for P&Z…particularly interested in Joe Breen’s take on all of this and his position. Thank you.
By the way, Bowman, what are your thoughts on the formation of a taxpayer asociation?
Bowman,
Thanks for the link. I checked it out. I support the idea of open space and conservation. I’m uncertain about where the money comes from to purchase land to protect. I know some is grant funded as well as some state and federal assistance. My fear is that the town won’t have available funds to purchase land for conservation with the schools and now the salt shed to pay for first. So, while I support the idea and the goal of conservation, I’m not sure it’s an attainable goal in the very near future. Definitely something to strive for.
As for P&Z’s role in conservation, that web page said that cooperating with other essential boards was a mission. But I got the general impression that it hasn’t been achieved yet.
I would also like to know more about who is running for P&Z and what they are for/against in terms of development. I hope that either Mr. Klusek or someone else answers your query about this above.
Tax,
Your suggestion about a taxpayer association….what about merging it with John’s idea for a community liason? I can see a bit of overlap in the functions. I would like to see a neutral and bi-partisan group as you suggest that does two main things: It needs to represent the taxpayers because clearly low taxes are a priority of the majority of residents who voted to retain prop 46. I actually don’t know many people who would consciously vote to have their taxes jacked up. But there also needs to be some means of non-biased reporting to the residents as to what actions their elected members are taking on their behalf. I don’t mean this in a witch-hunt sense. I mean it in terms of a gerneral reporting of what’s going on/Public Relations sense. A liason to inform voters so that they may be more inclined to exercise their vote AND know that they are represented and have a collective voice as taxpayers. I think this idea of yours could be that step toward transparency that many people are seeking – just as long as it doesn’t become bogged down with political in-fighting.
Newcomer,
John’s idea and mine have two separate agendas and attempting to merge them would result in a focus too broad to manage effectively. The rest of your thoughts are correct however I might add that although low taxes may a priority, smart spending
may be equally desireable. Prop 46 may keep taxes low, but it does nothing to prevent foolish spending. I’m not suggesting some power-to-the people pow-wow, but rather an organized bipartisan body that acts as a watchdog and taxpayer advocate which pursues accountablity, fairness, and no-spin. Is “bipartisan” too scary a term?
Tax,
Bi-partisan works for me. I agree with you about proper spending. Shouldn’t have left that out in my reply and glad you added it in yours.
I think that both groups are needed then. One for taxpayer advocacy as you suggest. And another for clear communication and transparency of board and town issues.
So if many folks agree with these ideas, how does one go about starting up something like that that would be respected by the board members, first selectman/woman and taxpayers?
The only respect worth gaining is from the taxpayer and there is only one question that must be asked by the boards and selectmen that is relevant: “What can we do to gain the respect of the Taxpayer Association?” It must recognized that most politicians, political hacks, and government officials/workers would only respect a Taxpayer Association as much as a prisoner would respect his gaurd. Therefore, the gaurd must rule with an iron fist. If done right, they would need us more than we would need them. Regardless, working together would be ideal and the way to achieve this would be through a Taxpayer Association endorsement of candidates who, if elected, would beckon to their constituency. The first step toward the conception of such an organization would be to determine if there is taxpayer support for such an effort. Utopic idea? Perhaps.
Tax,
Maybe ‘respect’ wasn’t the word I was going for. I was trying to ask how would it be possible to get the boards and elected officials to recognize the authority of a taxpayer association? And how would said association derive or obtain authority in the first place? If the group had widespread support among taxpayers, that would help. But doesn’t a group like that need to have the teeth to enforce any changes it agrees need to be accomplished? In other words, how would such a group actually rule (with an iron fist)? I agree it would have to rule and have authority. I was asking how a group comes by that authority in the first place.
We have two examples of groups in town that have successfully accomplished their agendas, CPS and the Coalition. I would follow their lead, hope that they would support, and seek endorsement as well by others who are fiscally conservative and have a venue to voice opinion (ie. the Leavitts) With broad support, a website such as the coalitions, the cafe, and email, communication to the electorate can occur with relative ease. Boards and candidates would seek our endorsement as we would have the power to communicate with a strong base and mobilize support.
In addition, there are other sources in the state that can offer guidance and other taxpayer associations that can offer advice.
Newcomer,
I think that the man in RI that you have in mind is Randall Arendt, who is the nation’s leading authority on conservation development. You can see his web site at http://www.greenerprospects.com/. He has also written several books. The PZC did bring him to Woodstock to help design its subdivision regulations, and he did a detailed review of the draft. Woodstock now has what is probably the most comprehensive implementation of his design principles anywhere in CT.
Realist,
Yes, that’s the man. Thank you for the link and info regarding his involvement in Woodstock. It goes a long way toward easing some of my concerns if Arendt’s design principles are to be implemented in such a comprehensive way.
Tax,
There has been some concern in the cafe here (from what I’ve read so far, anyway) about CPS and the Coalition using intimidation and other methods to gain their support. Whether those accusations are true or not is not my concern. But that’s not a route I personally would care to travel to gain influence. However, I’m all for widespread communication through web sites, email, etc. to gain and mobilize a base of support.
As long as this would not become a group bogged down by personal attacks on people, I’m still with you on it. If you can get some folks like Bowman and Gasparov to jump on board, you might be onto something.
Newcomer, Thanks. I concur 100%. Read carefully: Support for an idea is like a seed that grows on a rocky ledge. It might sprout up quickly but without the ability to develop strong roots it also quickly perishes. Committment to an idea on the other hand requires rich fertile soil, but it is often full of manure.
A Tax,
Now I think you’ve lost me on the idea of a Taxpayer’s Association. I don’t agree that the politicians would need you more than you need them. If you agree to collabratively work together, that’s fine. When you start using phrases such as “ruling with an iron fist”, that sounds awfully Fascist and reminiscent of the other “watchdog” groups in town that choose to further their agendas through intimidation, misinformation and fear mongering. Make constructive proposals and then get out of the way. Let the elected officials do their jobs. If they ignore you, then run a slate of candidates yourself to replace them the next time around.
A Tax,
One last thing….I disagree with your contention that CPS and the Coalition have been successful. The Coalition had nothing to do with the defeat of the 9th grade proposal…the BOE was never going to vote in favor of it in the first place. The BOE merely felt that since the issue was brought onto the table, it should be examined once and for all to its logical conclusion…which would have been the same decision whether the Coalition was formed or not. In fact, I would argue that the despicable actions of the Coalition actually prolonged the process which never would have passed in the first place.
Now let’s move to CPS. If success is measured by bullying, intimidation and the spread of misinformation, then I suppose you’re right. But I believe most knowledgeable people in Town can see through their line of bull. And they surely have been successful in getting into Margie’s head, but that seems to be no trick at all in my estimation…lots of empty space.
Stranded,
All I am saying is that both groups, CPS and Coalition, were successful in mobilizing people and votes.
Ideally, yes, I would love to just sit home and drink beer while watching American idol as the elected officials do there jobs.
As John Leavitt and Joe Breen may contest to, runnning a slate of candidates to replace the ones not doing their job is easier said than done.
Fascism? As it stands now, it is the taxpayer who is victim to fascist special interest groups. All I am suggesting is that the tables turn. One doesn’t accomplish this without playing the same game so why beat around the bush and pretend it isn’t so?
I think Taxpayer is on to something. Think about it. Why should CPS hold the market on taxpayer representation? I mean aren’t we all taxpayers? When was the last time any of you were invited to a CPS meeting? Why not form a more solid taxpayer association that stays on good terms with all of the boards and carries some weight by being courteous and professional. I’m with you Tax!
A Taxpayer,
I don’t have a problem with such a taxpayer group in theory but I do think you have to be careful of the pitfalls that have been pointed out here previously, such as.
1) The group getting co opted by special interest groups with an agenda that doesn’t necessarily have to do with looking for reasonable government.
2) Micro managing the finances of the groups to the overall detriment of government. I.e., you don’t want to turn it into a witch hunt. An example was recent complaints by RC for things such as not knowing why a bus was running nearly empty, arguing over a few hours of legal advice, etc.
This is one that I think a lot of people fall into because they don’t necessarily understand what is happening or why it is needed nor does everyone understand what seems like a exorbitant sum for an individual is just the cost of doing business for a large organization and an extremely small fraction of their budget. Taken to the extreme, this can really grind government to a halt and make things that should happen not happen and that can cost us a lot of money down the road.
Having said that what would be interesting is if we got the budgets for WPS and general government (for WA we’d just need the amount because there is not much we can do about it) before it is cut or vote on. Then we could go over it in a public forum online such as this to discuss what would be the proper budget to approve (i.e. what should be cut looking at the whole budget).
I imagine that this would be a spirited debate but it would give everyone who participates an understand what is on both budgets and hopefully some people will put together some of the proposed solutions and forward them to the BOF. You never know they might actually consider them instead of doing cuts in the manner they are currently doing them. I also think it would be more likely to find things like big first selectman raises before they happen. Finally, an anonymous online format would remove the ability of certain groups to make sacred cows out of areas like the fire protection budget. Look at it all openly and discuss what should go and what should stay in an open forum with no repercussions for those involved.
It would be an interesting and fun exercise in any event and would be very hard to co opt.
Thanks.
Folks
The Republican members running for P&Z are typically pro-development- hidden within the language of “protecting property rights of owners”. … (see Ken Rapoport’s new article. Admin)
Oh no Bowman, you’ve been won over by Taxpayer. Are you really willing to give Woodstock Academy a free pass on providing a transparent budget in your online budget forum. They also need to be as accountable as the other sacred cows even if the citizens have no real input into their decision making. Making them as accountable in their reporting as other governmental departments is essential to informing the public of where their tax dollars are going.
Perplexed,
No I’m not willing to give the WA a free pass. But for the budgetary exercise I advocated I’m just bowing to the reality of the situation. There is no point in arguing over cuts the Academy in a proposed budget because we currently have no way to make them happen so any budget using them is not implementable.
Thanks.
Now Bowman, are you seriously saying that in an anonymous forum where budgets are being reviewed and debated that one could not propose Academy budget cuts and a means by which the town might compel them? Isn’t the Academy a public agency and why wouldn’t they also be accountable as a public agency to the town and the anonymous forum participants?
Thank you for your input.
I have to disagree with Bowman here – if the town is spending $4.0+ million/year at the Academy, they should know where the money is going. If nothing ele, this may lead to a discussion of WHY they do not have any control of this expenditure.
I rarely do anything for one single purpose. One of the reasons for the exercise as I envisioned it is that people would walk away with ideal budgets to hold up as a model for what should happen and as a comparison for what did happen with the town budget. If you include cuts in the WA budget that idea will be excluded. As a group or as individuals, the budgets that would be created by the exercise would be unrepresentable to the town as an ideal budget that they should think about as they would be based on something that can’t legally be done, that is require cuts at the Academy.
Now that’s not to say that it wouldn’t be interesting and informative to look at the WA budget (what they would be willing to show you anyway). But any “what if” exercise around cutting money from their budget is a fantasy and unimplementable given the current legal environment. I don’t like it any more than you do but that’s the reality we are presented with.
Thanks.
Its not clear the Academy budgets cannot be cut. If the public schools were making deeper and deeper cuts, and the Academy was making greater and greater expansions of staff and programs, then voters might demand a change. But they need the information first – and the Academy has already lost a lawsuit over their refusal to provide financial information.
That’s quite a bit different than my understanding of the law as it currently stands for their ability to set tuition. Can anyone elaborate?
Thanks.
Curses for my inability to edit a post!
I see what you are saying and am trying to modify my proposal.. OK, so let me throw this out and see if it sticks.
So you take the three budgets; town, WA and WPS. You still do the exercise as I stated to come up with a proposed town budget using only the WPS and general budgets. We would also go over the WA budget to come up with a list of cuts that you would like to do if you had that power instead of cuts to the other two budgets (though I think you will have a hard time getting their detailed budget, having a right to something and being able to easily execute it are not always tied together).
So this will do a couple of things for us:
1) Come up with a budget that is implementable without a seachange in public pressure/legal ability of the WA to dictate tuition.
2) Really exemplify the vice that the dual issues of Prop 46 and the WA tuition are currently causing the town. If you include cuts to WA budget off the bat you won’t get this. It will feel much less dire than it probably will turn out to be.
3) Give a good understanding of all three budgets (my initial proposal only covered two).
Now if you want to go the extra step of creating a second budget of what you would like to see if the WA could be cut then that might be interesting to do as an extra exercise.
Does this address your concerns?
Thanks.
Bowman –
The town is not going to have an on-line budgeting exercise – that is what we have a Board of Finane to do. I just think people should know where their money is going, that’s all.
The town is not going to have an on-line budgeting exercise – that is what we have a Board of Finane to do. I just think people should know where their money is going, that’s all.
Probably not. But it would have been an extremely efficient way for people to know where their money is going and to educate the participants. Instead what is actually going to happen is a few individuals with agendas will be the one’s actually looking, pulling things out of context, and much of the rest of the public will be swayed by their arguments becuase there are very few in town with knowledge of the budgets to refute them. Just like is happening now.
Thanks.