See Kevin Ford’s update on the January 3rd Board of Education meeting .
Yesterday (1/5/2008) there were 358 unique visitors to the Cafe and 890 page turns. Yesterday (1/6) there were 359 unique visitors and 827 page turns.
The source of the document below (provided by Kevin Ford).
12/11/2007
Dr. Frank Baran
Superintendent of Schools
147 Route 168
Woodstock, CT 06281
Dear Dr. Baran:
Pursuant to the open records law, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. Secs. 1-200 1-241, I write to request access to and a copy of the following information:
1. Communications to or from and or notes from telephone conference RE: dissemination of information concerning referenda vote billed on 5/07/04. (See Exhibit 1, Page 1)
2. Memorandum from RE: funding issue as billed on 4/11/05. (See Exhibit 1, Page 2)
3. Any notes from telephone conference RE: realignment of grades, communication from R. Harris as billed on 4/11/05 (See Exhibit 1, Page 2)
4. Memoranda RE: funding issue as billed on 4/12/05. (See Exhibit 1, Page 3)
5. Letter or correspondence RE: funding issue billed on 4/14/05. (See Exhibit 1, Page 3)
6. Correspondence from W. Loftus, K. Munroe & F. Baran RE: funding issue as billed on 4/21/05. (See Exhibit 1, Page 3)
7. Correspondence and information RE: Board budget and Proposition 46 & correspondence to or from K. Munroe RE: Proposition 46 issues as billed on 4/25/05. (See Exhibit 1, Page 3)
8. Correspondence to or from K. Munroe RE: Proposition 46 issue as billed on 4/27/05. (See Exhibit 1, Page 3)
9. Any notes from telephone confernce RE: referendum financing issue as billed on 4/28/05. (See Exhibit 1, Page 3)
10. Communication, documents and materials referred to RE: funding issue and or meeting as billed on 5/19/05. (See Exhibit 1, Page 4)
11. Documents RE: funding issue referred to in 5/20/05 billing. (See Exhibit 1, Page 4)
12. Correspondence and documents RE: funding issue referred to in 5/25/05 billing. (See Exhibit 1, Page 4)
13. Any notes from 5/26/07 meeting regarding funding issue billed on 5/26/07. (See Exhibit 1, Page 4)
14. Communication RE: Proposition 46 referred to as billed 2/17/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 5)
15. Communications and notes from telephone conference RE: funding issue billed on 2/23/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 5)
16. Any notes or communication RE: budget issue as billed on 2/27/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 5)
17. Any notes or materials from meeting RE: budget issues a billed on 2/28.06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 5)
18. Any notes RE: telephone conference regarding referendum on Proposition 46 and referendum financing issues and correspondence with W. Loftus on Proposition 46 issue. Any notes from office conference RE budget referendum. Any notes from telephone conference with F. Baran regarding same as billed on 3/9/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 6)
19. Any notes from telephone conference RE: Proposition 46 issue, budgetary requirements as billed on 3/22/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 6)
20. Communications RE: Failure of Proposition 46 referendum. Any notes from telephone conference regarding same as billed on 3/23/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 6-7)
21. Communication with Driscoll/DeCrescenzo RE: status of Proposition 46 issue as billed on 3/31/06 (See Exhibit 1, Page 7)
22. Communication from Chudwick RE: ability of taxpayer to challenge legality of ordinance. Town opinion letter regarding same as billed on 4/6/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 8 )
23. Town opinion letter and correspondence RE: Proposition 46 as billed on 4/18/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 9)
24. Opinion letter and correspondence RE: Proposition 46 issue billed on 4/24/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 9)
25. Any notes from telephone conference or contact and memorandum regarding funding issue and Proposition 46 as billed on 5/1/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 10)
26. Memorandum RE: Proposition 46, any notes from office conference regarding same and communications RE: Writ of Mandamus as billed on 5/11/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 10)
27. Proposition 46 Memorandum, any notes from contact with Town attorney and notes from meeting with Board of Education regarding same as billed on 5/11/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 11)
28. Any notes from telephone conference RE: Proposition 46 issue as billed on 5/15/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 11)
29. Any notes from telephone conference RE: Proposition 46 issue as billed on 5/15/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 11)
30. Any notes from telephone conferences RE Meeting & MER finding for 2006-2007, correspondence from B. Mahoney regarding same as billed on 5/22/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 11)
31. Any notes from conference regarding litigation and related options concerning school board budget as billed on 5/22/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 11)
32. Any notes from telephone conference regarding budget issue as billed on 5/30/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 11)
33. Any notes from contact with R. Harris regarding budget ordinance question and correspondence regarding same as billed on 5/31/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 11)
34. Correspondence regarding budget issue as billed on 6/6/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 12)
35. All correspondence as noted regarding telephone conferences RE: Board budget issue as billed on 6/8/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 12)
36. Correspondence with and or notes from telephone conferences with M. Stapleton RE: Proposition 46 Ordinance issue. Any notes from telephone conference with F. Bran of L. Paul regarding same as billed on 6/9/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 12)
37. Correspondence with F. Baran regarding budget issue and any notes from telephone conference with F. Baran regarding meeting with State Department of Education and any notes from telephone conference with State Board of Education as billed on 6/13/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 12)
38. Correspondence with L. Paul and F. Baran regarding strategy for meeting with SDE officials as billed on 6/18/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 13)
39. Any notes from meeting with L. Paul, W. Loftus, F. Baran and G. Brochu regarding meeting with State Department of Educaion as billed on 6/19/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 13)
40. Any and all documents referred to and any notes from telephone conferences or correspondence by or between Victor Muschell andF. Baran RE Negotiations with Woodstock Academy as billed between 5/31/06 and 6/22/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 14)
41. Letter regarding Woodstok Academy agreement as billed on 10/26/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 15)
42. Communication regarding Woodstock Academy Board of Trustees issue as billed on 11/1/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 15)
43. Any notes from telephone conference regarding potential legal issues regarding Woodstock Academy as billed on 11/28/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 16)
44. Communication regarding Woodstock Academy issue as billed on 11/28/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 16)
45. Memorandum regarding legal status of public school-private academy relationship as billed on 11/20/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 17)
46. Memoprandum regarding legal status of Woodstock Academy and its statutory legal authority as billed on 12/05/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 18)
47. Any notes from telephone conference with L. Paul regarding legal memorandum and negotiations wih Woodstock Academy as billed on 12/13/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page19)
48. Communication with L. Paul regardingimpact of Woodstock Academy charter and bylaws on negotiations with Woodstock Academy as billed on 12/13/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 19)
49. Any notes from telephone conference regarding memorandum and negotiations with Woodstock Academy as billed of 12/14/06. (See Exhibit 1, Page 19)
50. Any information or correspondence regardless of subject by and between any Board member, Board attorney, the Superintendent or any employee of the Board and Mr. Joseph Breen for the time period June 2004 to date.
For the purposes of this request, information shall include but not be limited to: handwritten notes, paper and electronic documents and emails t or from any participant in any of the above mentioned events. “As billed� shall mean the date of entry and or the date of the event for any and all events noted on Exhibit 1.
I agree to pay any reasonable copying and postage few of not more tan $25.00. If the cost would be greater than this amount, please notify me. Please provide a receipt indicating the charges fr each document.
As provided by the open records law, I will expect you to comply with this request on or before December 21, 2007.
If you chooses to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely.
Please be advised that I a prepared to pursue whatever legal remedy necessary to obtain access to the requested records. I would note that willful violation of the open records law could result in a fine of up to $1000.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Preston D. Shultz
Citizens for Prudent Spending
The Number One Red Herring of Woodstock
According to Kevin’s article at his website, the BOE discussed the FOI request in executive session. Does this mean that Rosendahl will be reporting executive session discussions directly to Shultz. Also #50 is rather broad suggesting that any school employee who communicates with Mr. Breen on any subject (including Mr. Breen’s wife) must disclose the communication to Mr. Schultz.
Perhaps Preston should be forced to pay for the full time assistant that Dr. Baran will need to hire to comply with this ridiculous request. His antics remind me of conversations that I overheard with my retired parents, who are proud of the fact that they saved 10 cents a pound on their meat bill by driving two towns over for their groceries. When I suggest to them that their time is more valuable than that, they give me the same quizzical look that my kids do when I try to explain a new concept to them. Preston has way too much time on his hands, and is part of the sadly growing contingent that believes that the world revolves around them and has the audacity to believe that their time is more valuable than others….. especially highly educated and skilled professionals. Preston, have some self-respect and quit embarassing yourself in this manner!!
This illustrates exactly what I do not understand about CPS. If they have documented proof of past fraud, abuse, etc. then why aren’t they rolling it out for all to see? If proof of wrong-doing existed from the time period questioned above (in Mr. Schultz’s complaint) then that would be one thing. It would at least provide a reasonable basis to search for more wrong-doing.
But so far, I haven’t seen any tangible evidence of illegality or misconduct and this is not Mr. Schultz’s first FOI request. So if there is no past evidence of corruption or whatever Mr. Schultz is looking for, why does he continue to insist that it must exist somewhere? What is the basis for all of his suspicion?
I think that Mr. Schultz should be careful if these witch hunts continually come up empty. Isn’t it also against the law to use a Federal law such as the Freedom of Information Act as an instrument of abuse? Same for the court system? If Mr. Schutlz doesn’t find some solid proof of something soon, it just might be grounds for a lawsuit. Surely the records of all of these extensive FOI requests are grounds that a private citizen is attempting to use a Federal law to abuse agents of the State, no? Not to mention that if anyone such as Mr. Breen, Dr. Baran, or members of the BOE have the financial resources, they just might have grounds for libel/slander suits if this keeps up.
I’m no lawyer, but something sounds out of line in all of this…
Why not just make all BOE conversations, executive sessions, legal consultations available and accessible or on-line thereby forgoing the need or cost of FOIA requests?
JW,
Maybe Mr. Ford could comment further, but my understanding is that Executive sessions are not intended for public consumption. As far as throwing open the doors of “transparency” on the rest of it, I would have no problem with that. I just think it’s only fair and right if that applies to all boards and commissions such as BOS, BOF, etc. Even with all the openess one could stand, I don’t know how prudent it is to include all conversations of each board member. They can’t all be pertinent and relevant. Are we going to dive into the minutia to such an extent that the public receives reports anytime board members exchange personal emails about trivial and/or personal matters such as inquiring about how someone’s family member is doing or sports talk etc., etc. A line has to be drawn somewhere or else the practice of transparency will bog the system down more than help it.
And here again, we run into the issue that was discussed a few BOE meetings back where the CABE legal counsel informed some of the BOE members that they are agents of the State moreso than agents of the people. If the BOE wishes to clarify this matter within the public realm, then it might not be a bad idea to have the CABE legal counsel provide a written statement of the legal role of BOE members and the limits of their role. Then the BOE could release that to the public. This might make it clearer for all of us as well as addressing accusations that BOE members hide behind this.
First let me say, that anyone who actually hands over pieces of paper correspondence or stands before the inquistor and confesses (to who knows what) for Schultz, deserves to be abused by this unhappy and tormented man. Newcomer, those who have been in town for a while know that Schultz has lots of issues and lots pf guilt and anger that can only be resolved some day with the almighty.
Its another Joe McCarthy press conference . . . . “I have right here in my hand the names of over 200 confirmed Communists who are employed at senior levels of the Department of Defense and Department of State . . . . ”
It took several years to shut McCarthy down. Even Truman and Eisenhower were intimidated by him and would not publicly defend former Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State George Marshall who had organized the entire U.S. effort to win WWII. As distinguihed and accomplished an American never lived - and yet his closest allies were afraid to defend him once he had been accused.
Its a real lesson for Woodstock - it just shows how powerful this kind of induced hysteria can be. This time its Breen and the Academy Proposal - what and who will be next?
Boudicca,
Until that day comes, Mr. Schultz does have the right to request information via FOIA’s, like it or not.
Newcomer,
You raise some good points, but again, in the meantime, right or wrong, efficient or inefficient, like it or not, the BOE doesn’t seem to have any recourse against the FOIA, state agents or not. So why continue playing the game at taxpayer expense? Just Wondering.
Just Wondering: Joe McCarthy, I mean, Preston Schultz, can keep requesting these F.O.I.’s- yes he can! They are still stupid and hurtful. I have a hard copy of one of my favorite F.o.i requests from Schultz: it lists all of the employees within the school system, teachers etc. and their salaries. Another favorite of mine is the absentee records of all of the school employees.Such genius!
JW,
Perhaps the BOE may be forced to consult a FOIA attorney? I was just browsing a website of an agency that is one of the largest users of the FOIA. According to this agency, there are legitimate exemptions under the FOIA laws that allow FOIA requests to be denied. The website that I checked out is the National Security Archive at George Washington University. They have a page regarding FOIA exemptions. A few that jumped out at me:
Exemption (b)(2): internal personnel rules and practices
Exemption “low” (b)(2): internal matters that are essentially trivial in nature
Exemption (b)(6): personal privacy
Exemption (b)(5): inter or intra agency communication that is subject to deliberative process, litigation, and other privileges.
Again, I’m hardly a lawyer. But if I can pull up that info in a matter of minutes, maybe it’s worth a closer look?
Newcomer, my guess is, that Schultz is the “dom” and the BOE and Superintendent are behaving like the children of an alcoholic ie: “if I go along, it will all go away and he will get what he wants and maybe be nice”. I hope one of them look into what you have suggested. I am sick of hearing about the brightest BOE that wev’e had in a long time being bullied and poked at by a real numb-skull like this Schultz guy.
First of all if any of you bothered to study history, you would know that McCarthy was right in certain respects. We had alot of Communists in our government and in higher education. Alot of them are still there, now they are running for President. Second, keep hiding from answering questions and claiming it is just a witch hunt, it will get you nowhere. Your BOE is hiding behind the law and not being open and honest with the public, therefore, FOI’s are necessary. Open government is what we need in Woodstock. The biggest problem in Woodstock is the education group who think they can bully and threaten citizens to get their way. Give them all the money they need and shut up. Fortunately, we are too smart for people like you, the “best and the brightest”, morons are what I call them. They keep pursuing the same failed tactics and get their heads slammed at election time and budget time. Gee, I wonder why? You will not get more money until you come clean and start answering questions.(see Ernie’s new article. Admin)