Woodstock CT Café

If this tax abatement really does result in such a negligible increase (I believe $10/yr was mentioned last night as a “potential” number) to taxpayers, I have absolutely no problem with it.

I believe in the preservation of open space and assisting our local farmers and such an increase is acceptable to me.

HOWEVER

I was EXTREMELY disappointed in how this went down. (Admin, yes, Jim Kaeding expressed my thoughts on this, as well).

* It appears that NO ONE really knew that this committee had been formed. Citizens were therefore ignorant of the formation of a town committee, it’s express charge, and were denied the opportunity to observe or participate in public meetings.

* WHO established this committee? Aside from the assessor, the committee members are all farmers? Yes? No? If this committee is comprised of only farmers, then there is a serious prejudice/agenda issue. If this committee was established by town government, why wasn’t a notice posted for volunteers?

* Is it really true that a letter was sent only to farmers??? By whom? If the letter was sent by town government/officials/committee, can they actually DO that (send only to the farmers)?

* No information, except given verbally (if you could actually hear & understand what was said), was provided for citizens in order to make an intelligent, educated decision on the adoption of this TOWN ORDINANCE. I find that unacceptable. The adoption of a town ordinance is a LAW and it is inconceivable to me that a town can adopt a LAW in such a manner.

Again, if this tax abatement proves to be as negligible to taxpayers as claimed then I support the assistance it will provide our local farmers and the preservation of our open space. ABSOLUTELY.

In fact, I have no doubt (if the assertions made last night are correct) that most Woodstock citizens would wholeheartedly support this assistance to our farmers.

BUT I do not believe in “means to an end” actions. EVER. And, sadly, that is what appears to have happened here.

Reality Check

The Woodstock Board of Education encourages community participation in our regular board meeting on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 7 p.m. at Woodstock Middle School at which time the Board will discuss its Long Term Goals.  Please join us and share your thoughts and suggestions.

By the way, kudos to JK for posting the results before I could get home! ? (Truth be told I gave JK a head start because I had to go put gas in my Jeep.)

Well, I felt kind of stupid sitting in the meeting tonight. Had I had the information made available at the meeting I would have stayed at home and tended to other pressing family matters. (I know waah, waah, waah!) Enough of the whining!

The meeting was well attended – at least 90 seated and 20 out in the hall. The three Selectmen made at least two trips into the storage room across the hall for stacks of additional chairs. It was an interesting mix of people. Some faces were completely unfamiliar, others were better to well-known and then there were the diehard never-say-I-didn’t-let-you-know-how-I-feel set. Obviously, this was a matter of great interest to many.

Dawn Adiletta was nominated and approved by the body at hand to moderate the evening’s agenda. The ground rules were verbalized and we got down to the business for which we’d assembled.

The first two items were the adoption of two subdivision roads. The first was fairly well aired with several concerns and questions being raised about maintenance. Doug Porter responded as the developer of the Alpin Road development and five others in Woodstock. While the concerns voiced were certainly important, from my perspective it seemed like reasonable measures had been taken and were in place to address those issues. Read the rest of this entry »

You may recall that our former First Selectman Margaret Wholean filed an FOI complaint against the BOE while she was First Selectman. She then turned over documents received from that FOI request to Preston Shultz with a WINK, WINK… So, our First Selectman was using her position in the Town Hall to feed documents to Shultz as ‘evidence‘ for CPS litigations out of her First Selectman office. This fact was Shultz’s own testimony at the June 6 2008 FOI Commission hearing.

What was the ’smoking gun’ that Ms. Wholean supplied to Shultz? The ‘smoking gun’ was two pages of hand-written notes taken by Lindsay Paul while attending a meeting at the State Board of Education (a well-known subversive organization) in Hartford several years ago. Lindsay is known by her colleagues on the BOE for her copius note-taking (a sign of competency and professionalism). On the second page about 2/3’s down it was clear that a section of the notes was redacted because the lines on the ‘xeroxed’ paper were not there. This is what Wholean was excited about WINK, WINK when she turned over this document to Shultz WINK, WINK. What subversive activity was Lindsay trying to cover up?

To get back to the other missing evidence for a moment, Shultz’s demands for documents included all bills from Shipman & Goodman. The bills contained references to drafts of memos and opinions provided by the lawfirm to the BOE. But none of those documents were handed over to Shultz. This was Shultz’s evidence that documents were withheld. The Commissioner quickly grasped that the ‘evidence‘ that was missing was protected by client-attorney privilege and his body language started to change in the direction of Skelley and his client.

Then both Dr. Baran and Ms. Paul testified that the smoking gun was two sets of notes, the first part taken during attendance at the subversive State BOE meeting and the second part taken from a meeting at Shipman and Goodwin right after the State BOE meeting (this is on the record). The purpose of the second meeting to meet with Ann Littlefield was stated during the course of the testimony.

I have no knowledge of the purpose of the second meeting that day at Shipman & Goodwin but Ann Littlefield was the attorney that represented the BOE against Powers who had sued the school system to get money to educate their son at taxpayer expense at the Rectory.

It seems obvious, however, from the testimony that memos from attorneys and notes taken in meetings with attorneys are subject to attorney-client privilege and that the BOE had blocked out the notes taken at Shipman & Goodman which dealt with their effort to protect the town against the frivolous lawsuits by this well contected group which clearly includes Ms. Wholean.

The hearing came to an abrupt end after Attorney Shapiro cross-examined Preston Shultz, and I paraphrase from memory: ‘Do you know what attorney-client privilege is?’ Shultz hesitantly responded ‘Well that’s what we are here to find out’ . The pregnant question in the room was ‘what is Skelley getting paid for?’

Powers was quoted in the February 23rd 2007 Villager article “My bigger concern as a taxpayer, is that the town is spending all of this money on legal defense and this is how the lawyers conduct themselves.” This is a ludicrous statement because the primary reason that the BOE has had to meet with lawyers is to defend the town against the continuous legal attacks from Powers, Shultz, and Wholean. And these defenses are paid for by none other than Woodstock taxpayers.

Here’s the FOI Commission’s Proposed decision (relevant portions) to be settled on September 10:

… Read the rest of this entry »

We should all watch out for this bug, not just Doug Young. Catch one and contact the CT Dept. of Agriculture. This would be a great project for our K-8 and high school students. More info on the bug.

The Cafe is offering a $100 reward to the FIRST K-8 or Academy student who catches one of these bugs IN WOODSTOCK and delivers to it to his/her biology/science teacher or the Dept. of Agriculture.

WOODSTOCK, Conn. — An inch-long, wood-boring beetle native to Asia has Connecticut scientists concerned about the state’s forests.

The Asian longhorn beetle is destroying trees in nearby Worcester, Mass., the bug and plant scientists said on Monday.

The beetle attacks and kills healthy hardwood trees, such as maples, birches, elms, horse chestnuts and others, they said.

State and federal scientists said they beetle is nesting in a 16-square-mile area near Worcester, Mass., only a few miles from the border of Woodstock, Conn.

In Woodstock, farmer Doug Young said he’s been told to keep an eye out for the pests.

(from http://www.wfsb.com/news/17290081/detail.html )

This just in from JK
In case you missed it:

The ordinance passed. According to the information at the meeting, this could result in up to $50,000 less tax revenue if all eligible taxpayers received the abatement. It was also noted that this will not affect the grand list. All property will still be included in the grand list, there will just be less taxes collected on those properties. This was a disappointment (I think) to at least one resident who seemed to hope that the properties included would be removed from the grand list, which would reduce taxes under prop. 46.

“By the way, part of being in the farm business is to make a business of it. Its not the taxpayers’ business make sure that happens. “

Every once in a while… when I think of it… I tune into WINY between 9 and 11 AM. Most of the time there isn’t anything that really piques my interest. Usually, I end up muttering under my breath about how small many people’s worlds are. (Not to dismiss anyone’s point of view, but if you’ve listened to WINY with any regularity, there are a finite number of callers and most have well-defined positions and rarely waver from their individual interest topic.)

Today, as I was listening, a fellow Woodstockian called in to alert the public to the ‘Town Meeting’ scheduled to be held tomorrow evening (Tuesday, the 26th) at 7:30 PM.

I went to the town website for the actual verbiage. It is as follows:

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR FARM BUILDINGS
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE TOWN OF WOODSTOCK

Pursuant to the authority of the General Statues Section 12-91(c), the Town of Woodstock hereby provides an exemption from property tax for any building, to the extent of an assessed value of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) used, actually and exclusively in farming, as defined in General Statues Section 1-1. Such exemption shall not apply to any resident of such farmer and shall be subject to the application and qualification process provided in General Statues Section 12-91 (d), this ordinance to be effective with assessment years beginning October1, 2008.

Now, I know this has been a topic of conversation already, but this is one of those times when I have to agree with the Woodstockian on WINY. This is a tax ‘exemption’ of up to $100,000 for any ‘farm’ building. The way this reads, it looks like it could be up to $100,000 each for the milking parlor, the tractor garage, the granary, the hay barn, and on and on. Read the rest of this entry »

I applauded Mrs. Wholean’s Letter to the Editor for the very reasons that you just mentioned. By posing a series of questions whose answers would provide facts leading to an educated determination of the ordinances validity, Mrs. Wholean was NOT simply making blind assertions (which you admittedly are opposed to).

Even if the reason for her questions were politically motivated as Snuffy suggests…so what?? It still doesn’t deny the fact that her questions offer the town much more than they politically undermine.

Therefore I do not understand the reason for your initial criticism which seemed to be based on a narrow opinion rather than fact and seemingly, politically motivated. The two faults which you now decry as unsubstantial. if I were Snuffy, I would call you a hypocrite.

Further, you continue to justify your response by correllating it with another issue (education) in which you feel Mrs. Wholean’s stand diminishes her credibility on all other issues. I don’t agree with that, although others may because it is politically expedient. But then we are working from a political framework rather than one that simply calls for doing the right thing. I am opposed to that kind of framework. Read the rest of this entry »

Historic District residents would like you to know that opposition isn’t confined to the Academy neighbors. Contributions and support have been sent to them by many people outside the Historic District.

July 25, 2008

To: Board of Trustees
Fm: Richard Foye, Headmaster
Re: Update on Bentley Complex Improvement Plan

The purpose of this memo is to update Board members on the actions that took place at the various meetings regarding the field improvements at the Bentley Complex.

Since our June meeting of the Board, there have been two meetings of the Planning & Zoning Commission, and a site walk. The site walk took place before the June 19th meeting. At the June 19th meeting, those opposed to the improvement plan were represented by Attny. Tim Bates and an engineering firm. As you know, the opposition to the improvement plan has been quite strong from our neighbors. In addition to the attorney and the engineer, at a previous meeting, a person with expertise in town planning spoke against the plan.

The June meeting was quite lengthy, going into the late hours of the evening. Many people spoke in favor of the project and we thank them for their support. At the end of citizen’s participation, the public comment portion on our project was closed. This gave the Planning and Zoning Commission 65 days to make a decision.

Since that meeting, the boundary line between the Bentley Complex and the town of Woodstock was agreed upon and formalized. At the July 14th meeting of the Inlands and Wetlands Commission, the Bentley Complex improvement plan was approved.

At the next meeting of the P&Z on July 17th, interveners put forth a letter stating, in layman’s terms, that the project was such that it would hurt the environment and should be stopped. There were a number of criteria that the interveners brought forward which were discussed by the Commission, and were not accepted by the Commission.

The Commission then looked at the eleven regulations of a special use permit. For each of the regulations there was general discussion as well as thoughts on possible contingencies or conditions that the Commission may require. I am providing two attachments for your reference.

One attachment speaks to the issue of whether lot combining in order to provide the necessary frontage is automatic based on the regulations, or whether some formal action needs to be taken.

The other attachment lists some written conditions that may be proposed to the Commission. You can see by the conditions that some could be accommodated within the plan, some would delay the project perhaps for years, and some would make it difficult to complete the project at all. As I said, at this point, these conditions have not been passed by the Commission but were within the discussion phase.

The next meeting of the P&Z Commission is August 21st. I will update you further at the August 19th Board of Trustees meeting prior.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Richard Foye

Read the rest of this entry »

“My first impression of Woodstock, then, was very positive and Thank God, my children have really made amazing progress here.”

In my own personal experience and in speaking with and listening to the challenges that several other families have faced (I’m referring here to those families mostly in my children’s prior school district which was not in CT), I think that families with special needs students are caught in between a rock and a hard place really, especially if personal funds are limited. I don’t know the financial situation of the Powers, nor is it any of my business, but I do know that in families with limited resources, there is no choice but to rely upon the public school to provide Sped services because private schools aren’t an option for all families. And the simple fact is that some school districts provide better/more comprehensive services than others.

I’ve thankfully had the opposite experience to what is described above of the Powers family. I am not normally a “sue-happy” person but I was in the process of bringing a suit against our former school district. The only reason that I didn’t was that it took so much time and energy to do my homework in preparing to sue, that it took far too much attention away from my children and I wanted them to be the sole focus of my energy and effort. So we did the next best thing. We put our home on the market and started hunting for a school district that we felt would serve our children better.

In that search, I spoke with Superintendants and/or Sped directors from Brooklyn, Canterbury, Pomfret, Sprague, Sterling, and Woodstock before making a decision. If you are a parent of a special needs child and you are unhappy with the Sped services in Woodstock, I don’t think you’ll be much happier in some of these surrounding towns. That’s only my opinion and things could have certainly changed in the three years since I looked into this. But at that time, Pomfret told me that they bused Autistic children out to River St. school in Hartford because they did not have enough students on the Spectrum to justify the expense of providing accomodations. One of my sons was an elopement risk at the time so 45 mins. to an hour one way on a bus out of town wasn’t a situation I would even consider. Sprague was even worse. They had only had one family at the time with an Autistic child and no services in place so the poor family pulled out and opted to home school (this according to their Sped director at the time). When I spoke to the Superintendant in Brooklyn, who was an older woman, I can’t honestly say that she even understood the questions that I was asking her, based on her responses. Read the rest of this entry »

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
A.P., a minor, by and :
through CRAIG R. POWERS and :
SUSAN R. POWERS, : Case No. 3:07CV833(MRK)
:
Plaintiffs, ::
v. ::
WOODSTOCK BOARD OF :
EDUCATION, :
:
Defendant. :
RULING AND ORDER
This action is an appeal from a state administrative hearing under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Currently pending before the Court is Craig and Susan Powers’ (“Parents”) Motion for Judgment on the Record [doc. # 30] and the Woodstock Board of Education’s (“Board”) Motion for Judgment on the Record [doc # 35]. For the following reasons, the Court grants the Board’s Motion for Judgment on the Record and denies the Parents’ Motion for Judgment on the Record.
I.
A.P. is a fourteen-year-old student diagnosed with a non-verbal learning disability. He
attended Woodstock schools from kindergarten through April of his sixth-grade year. In April 2006, his Parents removed him from Woodstock Middle School and placed him at the Rectory School, a private school for fifth through ninth graders located in Pomfret, CT. Thereafter, the Parents requested a due process hearing with the State of Connecticut Department of Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415. The Parents sought a ruling on four specific issues:
2
• Whether the Board failed to meet its so-called “Child Find” obligations
during A.P.’s fourth-grade year.
• Whether the Board violated the procedural requirement of IDEA by utilizing
Child Study Teams (“CSTs”) in A.P.’s fifth-grade year.
• Whether the Board provided A.P. a free and appropriate education (“FAPE”)
in his sixth-grade year.
• If the Board did not provide FAPE, whether the parents’ unilateral placement
of A.P. at the Rectory School was appropriate and whether A.P. is entitled to
other compensatory services.

A Hearing Officer heard testimony over twelve days, during which the Parents, who were
represented by counsel, and the Board presented extensive exhibits and had ample opportunity to question numerous witnesses. Following the filing of post-hearing briefs, the Hearing Officer issued a comprehensive, nineteen-page, single-spaced Final Decision and Order, finding for the Board on all issues. This appeal followed.
II.
The IDEA “represents an ambitious federal effort” to ensure that all children are given access
to a public education regardless of any disabilities they may suffer. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179 (1982). Federal funding under the IDEA is available to states that “develop educational plans that are ‘reasonably calculated’ to ensure that all children with disabilities receive a ‘free appropriate public education.’” D.F. ex rel N.F. v. Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., 430 F.3d 595, 598 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)). A local education agency (“LEA”) that receives federal funding under the IDEA has what is called a “Child Find” obligation, which is a duty to identify,
3
locate, and evaluate children who have a disability or who are suspected to have a disability. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(4)(A) (2000); Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335, 347 (2d Cir. 2006). Children who are suspected of having a disability and who are in need of special education and related services are referred to what is often called a planning and placement team (“PPT”), which evaluates the child to determine whether to designate the child as having a disability under the IDEA. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.534(a)(1) (1999) (stating that after the completion of tests and other evaluative devices, “[a] group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child must determine whether the child is a child with a disability”). Once a child is designated as a child with a disability, the PPT develops an “individualized education program” (“IEP”), which outlines what special education and related services the child will receive. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(4) (2000); 34 C.F.R. § 300.346 (1999); Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 127 S. Ct. 1994, 2000 (2007). A parent or guardian who disagrees with the services that are provided by their local public school district may request an administrative hearing before an impartial Hearing Officer. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f) (2000); A.S. v. Trumbull Bd. of Educ., 414 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D. Conn. 2006). Read the rest of this entry »

You say (to JK), “many small farms are struggling and/or closing and selling their land to developers.” Really? Are you sure about this? How do you know? Why and/how are you led to believe this? Who told you? Is this reflective in our current real estate market?

The fact remains that even if none of the farms were to sell and were gauranteed to persevere for eternity, there is still mucho amount of land in Woodstock for developers to soak up…and they do. That is the point that Snuffy tried to bring home in arguing the fallacy of Dawn Allito’s Open Space fund. Maybe he is wrong, but I think his argument is worth considering and worth using as an argument against the subsidizing of farms while squeezing other taxpayers…and squeezing other town services (ie. schools) as a result.

My intentions are not meant to harm the farms. In fact, I sincerely regret the closure and selling of farm land. These properties certainly add to the bucolic nature and scenery of our town which adds to our own housing values. The proliferation of cheap housing developments along with our apparently weak zoning regulations is not in our best interest. But maybe these are the problems that really need to be addressed.

Owning and running a farm is a choice much like the choices I have made in life. If my choices prove wrong or do not fare well, I am not expecting tax breaks or sympathy. Nor should they.

Keep in mind that many of these farms already pay minimal taxes thanks to PA-490. I think that this is fair enough of a benefit in helping our farmer neighbors out as certainly there is some value in helping to preserve them. However, enough is enough. And we must be careful not to be sold a bill of bad goods because of greed and special interests that are politically tied… you are naive to think that greed and special interests don’t exist. Read the rest of this entry »

This evening (Thursday), the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission denied “without prejudice,” Woodstock Academy’s application for expansion of their athletic fields. The frontage requirement does not meet the criteria for Special Permit.

The clock is reset on the application; the process will begin again with same time line as all applications for Special Permit. Included within the new process, there will be another public hearing related to this application. Attendance at this hearing will provide an opportunity to voice your concerns and/or opinions.

The word is that Craig R. Powers lost his case against the Woodstock School system one more time. In the past Mr. Powers has been quick to post PDFs of trial transcripts and decisions in his three and a half year effort to attack the school system through the courts. He also persuaded the Villager to publish several articles and Sound-Offs attacking the school system, those who support the school system, the Cafe, and the court for its decisions rendered against his numerous cases (there have been at least three).

The Cafe has no primary evidence of his losing his current case, an appeal of his last failed case. This time around he chose not to post the court decision at his website. This is uncharacteristic of the past behavior. I guess he just doesn’t want others to read the full document.

Since Mr. Powers is unwilling to show us the actual court decision we are left with the bottom line of the original decision (rendered in April 2007). This comes from the final testimony taken from the trial transcript which he posted on the Internet himself:

Littlefield (the BOE attorney): “And isn’t it true that this July 12, 2005 letter from Ms. Lustila to you addresses the very same concerns that you raised in the December 27, 2005 letter from your attorney?” Powers: “I don’t believe it does, no.” Littlefield “Is it a substantive response to your claims of procedural violations or failure to identify the student?” Powers: “Not in my opinion.” Littlefield: “Does it specifically address (your son’s) prior history in Special Education and the comments made by Ms. Foco and Ms. Foisy?”… Littlefield: “Does it contain substantive information about (your son’s) prior history?” Powers: “Not in my opinion.” Littlefield: “It’s not substantive in your opinion?” Powers: “That’s correct.” Littlefield: “Okay. Does it address the concerns about statements made by Mrs. Foco and Ms. Foisy? I’m referring you to paragraph two on B-24, page one of two …. Does it address your concerns that you had raised concerning statements made by Mrs. Foco and Ms. Foisy? Does Ms. Lustila address those concerns in this letter?” Powers: “Not in a substantive fashion in my opinion.”…Littlefield: “Isn’t it true you just didn’t like Ms. Lustila’s answers to the questions you posed?” …

This last question by attorney Littlefield sums up the case very clearly. Apparently the new judge felt the same way (if indeed Power’s appeal fell through). Maybe he should show us the court’s actual decision so we can ALL read it.

On the second legal front we have Preston Shultz’ FOI complaint. The FOI commission was to publish its decision toward the end of July or in August, yet the last posted court decisions were on July 9th. Maybe Mr. Shultz already knows the outcome… but he’s not telling us either.

Finally, it’s been great not having the observe Ms. Wholean’s passive-agressive political activities until today. Read the rest of this entry »

From ‘What the…’:The line item for the proposed bond was “recreation field” for the sum of $300,000. Since we already owned the field off Hawkins Road, it was the estimate to BEGIN remediation on it. Why in God’s name would we begin to pay to remmediate/fix this particular field for “play”, when we had/have troubles with adequate funding for our school system and have a salt shed that needs fixing? Soccer and basketball IS run by volunteers and is also pay for play. My understanding was that we created the position and hired a Rec Director because there was no one on the Committee and we wanted to promote more senior type activities and “trips to NY” . Soccer and basketball were and have been running JUST FINE without another employee on the payroll at Town Hall.

If this is in the current budget request then it will be to make that field operational. The orginal $400k that was approved for the fields back in 98/99 or so was offset by a later approved grant from the state for $200k if I remember correctly. Total costs to the town was around $300k excluding the grant moneys. The remaining money was returned to the town and not spent where it was approved.

The work on the fields was to build/support 2 full soccer fields a 1/2 practice soccer field, baseball, softball and Tee Ball. We got 1 and 1/2 soccer fields the Baseball, softball fields at WMS and a Little league and Tee ball field at WES. The outfields space at WES was also designed to allow for some soccer at other times.

We had to abandon the efforts to remediate that field. The current soccer field at WMS is heavily used in the fall and needs the “rest” cycles. The field at Hawkins Road was suppose to allow for the rest and growth. If you don’t let the fields have time to regenerate they wear out. It is either a rest period or put water on the fields.

So when the Recreation Fields-Sub committee was directed by the BOF to return the non-spent moneys to the town that is what it did. Even though we on the committee knew that we needed the additional field space or ways (read irrigation) of the WMS fields to keep them in operational shape. Read the rest of this entry »