Woodstock CT Café

Yesterday morning, somebody called me and asked me what I knew about a town meeting that was supposed to be held that night (Thursday, the 21st) concerning a cell tower going up in East Woodstock. Well, you can imagine my surprise because I knew nothing about a town meeting… or another cell tower. So, I checked in at Town Hall while I was out doing errands. I couldn’t find anything on the notice board about a town meeting and nothing about a cell tower at all. I checked with the town clerk, who then referred me to the Selectmen’s office. After checking in with Carolyn Derrico, I got the information I was looking for.

There was going to be a town meeting but the proposed cell tower was not an agenda item on this regularly scheduled Selectmen’s meeting (scheduled for Thursday, the 21st). However, the Selectmen’s office had been fielding calls from citizens and expected there would be a group coming to speak during the meeting’s ‘Citizen’s Comments’ period.

The meeting started on time at 7PM. The agenda was relatively short: 2 Minutes to be approved (with 2 more added), a discussion of the Dog Pound, an added item – stump an brush removal bids, another added item – rear portico and air lock bids, 3rd Annual Jog with Judy, FOIA charges, Tax Rebates, Correspondence/Announcements and Citizen’s Comments.

• the minutes were approved
• it was announced that the dog pound will no longer be used

Read the rest of this entry »

From Homeboy: 

• First, Woodstock definitely does not have a town charter.
• Second, absent a charter, the town meeting is the “legislative body” of a municipality in the state of Connecticut. (CGS 1-1(m)).
• Third, a budget is not an ordinance but it must conform to and be consistent with the town’s ordinances.
• Fourth, I know of no mechanism in this state by which the town can be forced to recast prior year’s budgets and refund money to the taxpayers.  The only real remedy would probably be a recalculation of what the permissible budget total is going forward.

That said, I think the legal analysis that has to be undertaken is the proper interpretation of the wording of P46, particularly whether the “extras” get counted when determining the amount by which the budget may increase in subsequent years.

From Kevin:

Fair enough, I’m willing to be convinced.  The first two points I agree with without comment. 

For the third I would like to know why you feel that way, on what do you base your conclusion?  I think you may be getting too hung up on the phrase ordinance in the same way a treaty isn’t really a statute.  The question really is, does it have the same status when a legislative body adopts it (why or why not)? 

In a practical sense I agree that since there isn’t an absolute contradiction between the adopted budgets and some interpretations of prop 46 the courts would likely stay away from this question since the statutes are not explicit.  The question would only become relevant if the interpretation used by the BOF were incorrect.  It is much easier to assume no contradiction in the two legislative acts. Read the rest of this entry »

“Woodstock Academy is an intriguing model and a critical asset for public education in northeast Connecticut. For many families, this school is a primary motivation for a decision to raise their families in this part of Connecticut….” From the Summary at the end of this statement. Admin

Submitted to Andrew Fleischmann, Chairman of the Education Committee, CT General Assembly, on February 21, 2007

Key Points

• The Town of Woodstock has a local ordinance called Proposition 46 which imposes a rigid fiscal constraint on the town’s expenditures.
• Woodstock’s public education expenditures are consistently ranked in the range of 160-165th among all Connecticut towns.
• Woodstock Academy is privately chartered with a public education mission and has almost exclusively public students and funding. Sending town representation is nominal.
• The Academy receives priority public funding and asserts exemption from Prop 46, so that Woodstock’s public K-8 system bears the full fiscal impact of Prop 46.
• The Academy is expanding staff and facilities and reserving cash from public tuition payments for a planned expansion. Woodstock Public Schools are reducing staff and programs and are unable to make necessary capital investments.
• Contract negotiations between the Academy and Woodstock BOE are deadlocked. The Academy asserts private control of its governance and budget; WBOE asserts the need for more effective sending town participation in Academy decisions in order to balance and coordinate overall educational expenditures.
• Payment for complete reconstruction of the Academy was recently completed; withdrawal and construction of a public high school is impractical.
• Statutory guidance (CGS 10-36/10-285b) for Academy governance appears to have ceased. Based on the substantial public investment in the school, Woodstock is seeking (i) clarification of the public education role of the Academy and its Sending Town Representatives; (ii) 50% sending town representation on the Academy Board with full participation in major decisions; and (iii) reimbursement of domicile costs.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been looking into answering Homeboy’s question that cuts to the quick of my original thesis, are approved budgets and ordinances rules of equal status?  I’ve been through most of Title 7 and the answer is … probably. 

The state statutes are maddenly not explicit on this and case law not immediately available (if any exists that answers this question).  However the answer is hinted at in chapter 99, Municipal Charters and Special Acts.  While we apparently don’t have a charter, this lists the rules that such a charter must follow and presumably would also apply in concept to non-chartered towns.  In Section 7-193, it states:

“(1) The municipality shall have a legislative body, which may be: (A) A town meeting; (B) a representative town meeting; (C) a board of selectmen, council, board of directors, board of aldermen or board of burgesses; or (D) a combination of a town meeting or representative town meeting and one of the bodies listed in subparagraph (C). In any combination, the body having the greater number of members shall have the power to adopt the annual budget and shall have such other powers as the charter prescribes, and the body having the lesser number of members shall have the power to adopt, amend and repeal ordinances, subject to any limitations imposed by the general statutes or by the charter…”

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap099.htm

The important part being that whatever body adopts the budget and the body that creates town ordinances are both acting as municipal legislative bodies which would seem to make them rules of equal status. Read the rest of this entry »

Dear Cafe’ers, We are still investigating the bandwidth issue since we should have been okay. We drove down to Virginia Beach on Saturday and were unaware that there was a problem until late Sunday. The Cafe came back on Monday afternoon, after I woke up Digiwize (our host)…snore. If the problem turns out to be the result of an attack on the Cafe, to be sure, all Cafe’ers will hear about it. Admin

Janet Stebbins of Woodstock had the same reaction to last week’s front page article as some of us at the Cafe. Her “Letter to the Editor” (above) was published today in the ‘Any Town’ Villager and received this defensive annotation from the Editor embedded within her Letter. Let’s face it. The article Janet is talking about was so tedious to read that most probably never got to the part about what happened in Woodstock, Pomfret, and Eastford. Perhaps they should change the name of the newspaper “One Size Fits All”. See our article below published last weekend. Admin

See the interesting debate ongoing in the Comments.

Reality Check stated, “The BOF’s estimate, submitted to the town for approval, can be lower than the maximum amount allowable under Prop 46 or it can be equal to the maximum. It can NOT be higher than the maximum.”  This is not technically true.

Prop 46 is an ordinance voted on and approved by the town.  Like any other ordinance its terms can be overridden simply by another ordinance put to referendum, such as say, the town passing a budget ordinance for a year.  When dealing with conflicts between laws/rules of equal status, the later takes precedence.

There is no valid clause that you can put into an ordinance or statute that precludes the voting body from later putting forth another ordinance or statute that superceeds the original.  Otherwise legislative bodies would be throwing all kinds of verbiage into their statutes/ordiances to head off the possibility of later bodies (possibly held by the other party) from simply undoing their legislation.

The fact is a later body can just undue or partially override earlier legislation.  The BOF has powers to bring budget ordinances “to the floor” for a vote and they did so.

You may disagree if the BOF interpreted prop-46 “correctly” in bringing those those budget ordinances to the public but they were brought  forward and they were voted upon by the citizens of Woodstock and are now “the law of the land”.  Where the terms of those passed budget ordinances conflict with earlier ordinances, they take precedence.

Kevin

This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BOE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BOE in any way

This is the hour by hour activity at the Cafe in terms of “page views” over the last 10 days (5655 page views). During this period of time, the Cafe had 596 “Absolute Unique Visitors” (not counting returning visitors) according to Google Analytics inspite of the fact that this is a slow period for the Cafe.

On the mis-conception that people want better schools so they can have higher property values. 

I would say that not everyone is concerned about K-8 funding simply because poor performing schools will affect higher property values.  I think that some people, especially parents, are more protective of their children receiving a quality education than they are of their property value.  I’m actually quite pleased with the education that my children are receiving in Woodstock.  And for those who have not read my posts in the past, I’ll just reiterate that currently, all of my children are in WES, so that is the school I refer to when I comment.  I have no personal experience yet with either WMS or WA.

I’m not looking to raise taxes and over-fund the schools.  I’m looking to secure enough funding for K-8 to maintain the quality of the education.  That’s the point that we are at right now, as I understand it.  If our schools become underfunded and remain so for any prolonged period of time, then the quality of education will suffer.  That means our children will personally suffer.  I feel there’s a very real difference between struggling to maintain the bare minimum and throwing money at education that is not justified.

As far as keeping taxes low for people on low and fixed incomes, that should be a priority.  You’ll get no argument from me there. Read the rest of this entry »

If Mr. Richardson sues the Town of Woodstock for its past errors in applying Prop 46 according to his OPINION, and if he succeeds in obtaining a court judgment against the town for its mistake, would the amount of the court judgment be an exception to the limitation imposed by Prop 46 under the current interpretation of the ordinance?

If Mr. Richardson filed such a lawsuit, could another person intervene in the suit and also claim that the town had committed prior mistakes in its interpretation of Prop 46, as perhaps with its failure to acknowledge that the tuition paid to Woodstock Academy is a state mandate and another exception under our Prop 46?

If Mr. Richardson filed such a lawsuit and there is no insurance to cover the loss, like Errors and Omissions coverage or something similar, would the members of the Board of Finance who committed these agregious errors in the interpretation and application of our Prop 46 be held personally liable for their errors? If so, would that mean that Mr. Richardson’s best friends on BOF would end up shelling out their own money to make him and the townfolk whole again or would that be an exception under Prop 46?

Who has the answers to these burning questions? And what was the final vote count of the town meeting when Prop 46 was originally passed? And as a bonus question, if the town failed to count the six votes of the four people who were locked out of the meeting and the two who were in the bathroom when the final tally was made, would that have any effect on the validity of Prop 46 as a town ordinance?

There is a set of state statutes by which all non-chartered towns in Connecticut are governed.  There is a separate state statute for each town board providing for its legal establishment and operation.  The statute for “Boards of Finance” requires the BOF to RECOMMEND “its” budget to the town for approval or rejection.  And the town attorney has advised the BOF that the budget it recommends, as you state, must be in accordance with P-46.

But the town attorney has also provided several additonal advisories.  First, the interpretation of the meaning of the terms (like “emergency expenditure”) of P-46 is in the hands of BOF.  Second, the town’s ACTUAL expenditures in one year, whatever their makeup, becomes the base for the next year’s calculation.  Third, once a total allocation is made to BOE, the BOE has legal authority to reallocate betweeen line items.

I have heard Mr. Richardson speak to this matter many times – he has made it clear he seeks to go back several years and reduce the current budget by the cumulative amount of the past “errors” he has listed, not just prevent them in the future.  And his “errors” are not consistent with the law (i.e., BOE’s powers) or with the interpretation of P-46 which BY LAW lies with the BOF – not with Mr. Richardson.

Update on Primary voting results:

• Turnout 67.8% (1500 out of 2930)
• Republicans 42.8% (678 out of 1583)
• Democrats 61% (822 out of 1347)

Each week we receive a rating for “political influence” in Connecticut relative to about 40 other blogs by BlogNetNews. If you glance at the BNN icon below on the right, you will see that we are rated 8th this week – our rating from week to week has ranged from 2nd in the state to 18th.

BBN will not reveal the criteria that they use to rate these blogs. My best guess is that rating is a calculation base upon the number of articles and comments each week. The rating calculation may also factor in other criteria. For example, the Cafe is distinct because we publish essays, and our comments are for the most part substantive. If one scans the many comments at CTLocalPolitics, rated 4th this week, you will find a lower level of commentary intellect (usually); and CTLocal Politics is riddled with ‘bells and whistles’ while the Cafe has remainded relatively pristine. Who are these other blogs?

“Capital Watch” is Numero Dos this week. The owners of this site are Hartford Courant writers, Mark Pazniokas who writes articles on state politics for the Courant and Chris Keating the “Capital Bureau Chief” for the Courant. The Cafe is 2 and a half years old whereas CW was started last May and is run off of Courant servers.

Colin McEnroe, another Courant writer and radio personality, fell out of the top 20 this week, but is usually in the top 10. (more below the table)

Connecticut’s Most Influential Political blogs

“Consent of the Governed,” Numero Uno this week, was founded by Judy Aron who works for the National Home Education Legal Defense as research director. She is an advocate of home schooling. She’s also Editor of BlogNetNews. Read the rest of this entry »

The Woodstock Villager’s headline this week was “Voters favor Clinton, McCain.” The picture just under the headline was a picture of Dick Cass, Margaret Wholean, and Leslie Sweetnam holding Obama signs at the entrance to the Town Hall of Woodstock. I wondered how many ‘readers’ would believe from this headline that Clinton won in Woodstock. Could it be that this headline is a not-so-subtle indication of Editor Bird’s anti-Obama bias?

This is a long and tedious article to read. Rather than present the vote tallies in a readable table, the voting in each northeastern CT town was embedded in redundant text interspersed with lots of useless numbers like ‘voter turnout shortly after noon’. Surely if there was any story for Woodstock residents, it was the fact that Obama won in Woodstock after a surge in Democrat registration and a registered Democrat turnout of 66%. The fact that Woodstock stood out in its support for both Obama and Clinton was the real story here. 

As Woodstock goes, so goes the state. I agree with Leslie Sweetnam – this was a surprise.

Town Boards and Community “Meet and Greet” a Great Success!

On January 31st, many of Woodstock’s citizens gathered for a meet and greet at the Inn at Woodstock Hill. We estimate about 80 people attended from various parts of town government, educators such as Dr. Francis Baran and Headmaster Rich Foye of Woodstock Academy as well as members of the public. Guests were entertained by music from the Woodstock Middle School Jazz band.

The board would like to thank Mr. Richard Naumann of the Inn for the generous use of his space and for refreshments. We would also like to thank Mr. Tim Cassell and the Woodstock Middle School Jazz Band for their fine performance.

Student Highlights: WMS First Ever Chess Club Tournament

You could almost hear their minds at work. Thirty-four students from schools in Brooklyn, Eastford and Woodstock showed up for the first ever WMS chess tournament. Each participant played for five rounds of twenty minutes each. For games that were not completed in the allocated 20 minutes, five additional moves were allowed. Unfinished games were declared a draw. Woodstock’s Adam Piche was undefeated and came in first, followed by Woodstock’s Zackery Wood. Woodstock’s Cormac Lundt and James Hamelin tied with Brooklyn’s Derek Lindia for third. On February 27th the second scholastic open tournament for children grades 5-8 will be held. Registration is open from 3:30-3:50 with play beginning at 4:00. All are welcome to attend this friendly tournament. Read the rest of this entry »

Just in case you missed it, today’s Selectman meeting was very interesting. Dave Richardson continues to make a very good case for noting blunders in the Prop 46 formula particularly in regards to carry over of emergency expenditures. In a documented legal inquiry (Tyler, Cooper, and Acorn) dating back to 1993, it was noted that Prop 46 does not include in its cap bonded debt services, court judgments, increases in state mandated programs, and emergency expenditures. This practice has cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Apparently there is a liability policy that may recover tax payer losses. Also noted was a carry over for emergency expenditure of 73K for a new roof when in fact it was not an emergency expenditure but a capitalized item. Also very interesting was that in the 04-05 budget, transportation cost increase from prior year as noted in the Prop 46 worksheet was $110,644.00 when in the actual budget it was only a $23,130.00 increase. Again in the 05-06 Prop 46 worksheet, SPED increases were noted as $259,180 and transportation noted as $123,447 but in the actual budget, SPED only increased by $112,803.00 and transportation by $54,229.00. Very interesting information. The selectman handled this very well and are receptive to clarification. Legal counsel is and will be utilized. Thanks Dave and Selectman for good work!