Woodstock CT Café

“Deborah Benoit, 28, mother of four, died…2010.”

This was the lead Letter to the Editor in the Villager on Friday. Deborah lives in Putnam and has a “slow moving” form of pancreatic cancer. She published her own death notice in advance with a plea for higher research funding for pancreatic cancer. She points out in her letter that while the average 5-year survival rate is 92 percent for women with breast cancer, the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer patients is a dismal 5 percent. She provides the following website www.pancan.org/Public/take.html where readers can show their support for the National Plan to Advance Pancreatic Cancer Research Act of 2008 (HR 7045), a bill introduced to congress by Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL). Deborah is not asking for support of this bill for herself; she is asking for this support “for the children of all patients facing an untimely death from this disease” stating that “they are the ones who are the real victims.”

Based on my understanding, support of this bill is even more justified than it may seem on the surface. In the last decade there has been significant progress in treating certain cancers like breast cancer, colon cancer, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia because of modern drugs like Herceptin (from Genentech) and even newer drugs like Erbitux (from Imclone), Tarceva (from Genentech) and Gleevec (from Novartis).

Only about 15 years ago cancer therapy entered a new era owing to advances in understanding of the nature of cellular events involved in the process of carcinogenesis and tumor growth. Biologically targeted therapies like those mentioned above are now used as part of a regimen to treat breast, colon cancer, and other cancers. But these modern treatments are rarely effective against pancreatic cancer. Read the rest of this entry »

“Just heard on WINY news that someone in Woodstock is questioning a software program purchased by our First Selectman. I make reference to CGS 7-12, see footnotes, highlighted in yellow (in bold italics below).”
_________________
 Sec. 7-12. Duties of selectmen. The selectmen of each town shall, forthwith, after the election or appointment of any town officers of whom an oath is required by law, cause them to be sworn to a faithful discharge of their respective duties. They shall superintend the concerns of the town, adjust and settle all claims against it and draw orders on the treasurer for their payment. They shall require of the treasurer a sufficient bond, with surety, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office; and the selectmen who fail to require such bond shall be jointly and severally liable to the town for all moneys not accounted for by the treasurer. They shall make a sworn report to the treasurer of the amount, number and date of each town order drawn by them, at the end of each month; and they shall keep a true account of all expenditures in the form of a permanent record which shall be verified under oath at the end of the fiscal year and made available for auditing purposes and public inspection.

      (1949 Rev., S. 536; 1953, S. 216d.)

      See Sec. 7-83 re requirement that orders for payment of town’s expenses be signed by majority of selectmen.

      Earlier cases (2 D. 323; 5 C. 367) denying the right of Selectmen to compromise or arbitrate claims, or prosecute or defend suits, overruled. 19 C. 331; 29 C. 113; 33 C. 504; 64 C. 94. In removing encroachments on highway, selectmen are agents of the law, not of the town. 2 C. 294; 54 C. 68. They are agents of the law in laying out highways. 17 C. 199; 64 C. 100. But are agents of the town in building or repairing highways. Id. Act of a minority assented to by a majority is obligatory. 21 C. 636. Read the rest of this entry »

The Cafe encourages others to submit their own version of the recent history of Woodstock.

I started to become aware of political activity in Woodstock in the spring of 1999 when I went over to Martha and Ernie Wetzel’s house to meet Ernie. Ernie had written up a resume to begin his campaign for First Selectman, and Becki noticed that Ernie had graduated from the same college that I did (ten years before Ernie) – Bethany College in West Virginia, known to its more esteemed graduates as ‘The Small College of Extinction’ J . We reminisced about some of the funny things that went on there like the time that Tom Poston took a cow up to the top of the Bell Tower of Old Main and left it there. Ernie asked me “Who was the most famous person to graduate from Bethany?” I said with a straight face “Why, me Ernie…it’s me” much to his disappointment.

During this meeting I heard the phrase “Manure Mafia” for the second time and many times thereafter. Ernie was livid about the way the town was controlled by the Manure Mafia and he wanted to do something about it. I had heard this label three years earlier when I was talking to a client on the phone from work who happened to live in Woodstock. I had mentioned that we had just moved to Woodstock and so he felt it necessary to inform me about the onerous Manure Mafia that ran the town. So it seemed to make sense that Ernie was going to create change for the better by winning the election to start the process of taking the town from the Manure Mafia. He was facing off against Ed Newman who represented this old guard in town.

Over the years I have concluded that the old guard (i.e. a conservative faction; an aged segment; free-market anti-interventionists) and the Manure Mafia are one in the same. This clique is not just the farmers. They are casually aligned groups of residents whose families have lived in Woodstock for a very long time – the extended families of farmers, large land-owners, loggers, and local builders among others.  These residents feel entitled to control all municipal matters to defend their personal family and commercial interests because they’ve earned this control due to their longevity. In some ways the Academy because of its longevity fits snugly into this clique, and indeed many longtime Academy supporters and trustees are members of the old guard faction.  Read the rest of this entry »

That sounds about right – 20-25 hours a week for 9-10 nine months. Evenings, weekends, workdays. Meeting after meeting of the full PZC; 1-2-3-4 meetings a month. Discussion after discussion. Line by line, phrase by phrase, word by word. Draft language back and forth to engineers, lawyers, planners, developers. You can call John Guzkowski and get his version of this. This is an enormous undertaking requiring a high level of expertise whether it is hired, volunteered, rented or begged. But your hourly rate is too low for my time – the $100k is the cost to have a commercial planning firm do this work – my time is more valuable. And it did not lead to nowhere – the reg’s were passed and are now the town’s official regulations.

To put this effort into perspective “1000 hours plus about 40 hours for either sick leave or vacation is exactly one half of 2080 hours or 1/2 year’s worth of 8-hour work days (from Mathchecker).” Consulting fees for this work would range from $100,000 to $300,000. Admin

Because this was such an enormous undertaking, it could not be replicated. And since the next step was to create a base platform of zoning regulations, the full PZC decided to change the method. It asked the newly elected Ken Goldsmith to draft a new zoning code, consistent with the town’s existing basic zoning scheme, and based on best practices statewide, with a full, modern professional language platform for enforceability. Ken Goldsmith spent the better part of a year in this effort, updating the PZC on occasion. When it was completed, the Republican Town Committee held a meeting and hatched a plan to undermine it, with the theme that the PZC had never asked Ken to do this work, that the new Zoning Reg’s had “dropped out of the sky”. This theme was introduced by Dottie Durst, her husband Wayne Durst, and Dan Very, who all blatantly lied in public about this, carrying the theme into the campaign.

And for all the reasons I have described, I do not think the Academy Proposal was “overreach”. It is well understood by the town’s conservation-minded residents that they can pursue their hobbies if they stay out of the education funding fight. I am not going to do that.

Snuffy

This is a good outline (to Taxpayer). Let me take a crack at this based on my understanding and summarizing your questions just for brevity:

Q. Determine responsibility/liability of BOE to the town and schools. Notify BOS, BOF, BOT of plan to address it, seek their support.

A. The BOE/Superintendant has legal responsibility under state law for the overall town educational system, including the performance of any “private” or “charter” school it uses. There are no major student performace problems at either school. But the Academy has financial control over its tuition, and this impacts the K-8 budget.
You can notify BOS, BOF and BOT with a letter, but they are all well aware of this – it has ben a civil war for decades. The political support is not there.

Q. Determine support among BOE members for bringing it forward.

A. Bringing it forward has had strong support within BOE in the form of the contract negotiations. The Academy refuses to negotiate away in a contract economic rights it believes it has under state law. Other contract issues like year/year head count adjustment; academic cooperation; etc. are not the real stumbling blocks.

Q. If the majority support moving forward, form subcommittee that exams: (i) Academy structure, history, legislation; (ii) quantify, specifically, financial impact on K-8; (iii) identify barriers to change (lack of supportive citizenry, town officials, Academy); (iv) develop plan to overcome barriers; address issue with public; (v) present outcomes to BOE.

A. The BOE has a contract negotiation
subcommittee. The Academy structure, history, legislation, are understood generally by BOE; i.e., the basic legal “box” they are in. Financial impact has never been catalogued historically in detail, and I have encouraged this effort, but the consequences play out each year in live time when the Academy gets everything they want without question, adding staff, programs, facilities, foreign policy apparatus (half-kidding); and K-8 goes through a knife fight – every single year – with CPS/BOF to fight off false allegations of financial waste, fraud and abuse. Barriers to change include all of the constituencies you identify – town officials, citizens, Academy. Read the rest of this entry »

The meeting that you (speaking to Snuffy) and I refer to took place 3 or so years ago when you were Co-chair of PZC. Present also was the Chair plus Paul Loether who, at that time, was Head of the CT State Department of Tourism. Loether is not a friend: I met him for the first time that day. Also present was Wendy Price who is a talented, intelligent and articulate land use and preservation professor and planner employed by Historic New England. Also present was Brad Schide, a CT State Circuit Rider for the CT Trust. No one at the meeting was a friend of mine although I knew of all of them because of my work in the preservation field.I had nothing to say or contribute to this meeting; I only listened. I watched all of the professional preservationists offer to you and the Chair their expertise, help with organizing workshops for the public on the topic of zoning. And of course, they offered funding. You and the Chair turned offers down making the comment, “anytime we need some money, all we have do is go in to the town hall at 3 am and come out with what we need.” It was both embarrassing and infuriating to witness you two acting like adolescents while casually tossing off offers from people in a position to guide Woodstock in the adoption of popularly acceptable and legally strong zoning.

Naturally, professional preservationists are politic to the extreme. They know that they won’t be able to inform communities of what’s available to them unless they offer obsequious politeness, hence the reassurances were made to you and the Chair that the town needs to do what is best. At that time, you represented the town and you chose to do what you thought was best for the town by declining the offers. That same day, you said “you’d take care of things . . . that the special permit process is a powerful tool for denial . . .” We all know the score on that.

Despite your familiarity with the work of Ayn Rand, you would have us believe that you are the only truly altruistic giver of your time in Woodstock. Most folks are motivated by self-interest in what they do and how they choose to spend their time. This goes for time spent toward ideals that do not have any monetary gain or loss attached. For example, you and I hold Lindsay Paul (Chair, Board of Education) in high regard for the work she accomplishes under difficult circumstances. If Lindsay had No children, my guess is that she would probably be spending her time as CEO of a highly successfully, wildly profitable company rather than working hard to make a positive difference in our school system. Jean Pillo is a well educated environmentalist so when Pillo volunteers much of her time for the town and has for years, she does it with the eye and concern of an environmentalist. A father who coaches his daughter’s athletic team would not volunteer his time this way if he had no daughter. My interest in our debate is in the preservation of Woodstock’s historic, environmental and cultural assets. Read the rest of this entry »

If you look at the responses to Preston Schultz/CPS’s Freedom Of Information letters provided by Rep. Fleischman, co-Chair of the Education Committee of the CT. State Legislature that have been posted on the CPS Academy website, you will find there, in Joe Breen’s emails, clear evidence of the following facts:

1. Breen expected that there would be a public hearing on the legislation that he proposed to the Education Committee.

2. He suggested that the Woodstock Board of Education AND the Academy Trustees be involved in meeting with Rep. Fleischman to discuss his proposal.

So, all of the BS that Breen pulled an “end around” is just that … BS because he wanted a public hearing and he wanted the Academy included in it. Breen clearly was confident enough in his proposal that he did not need to seek an exclusive audience with the Education Committee. The Academy’s use of a lobbyist got them inside contact with all the legislators they needed (including Senate President Don Williams) to kill the Breen initiative and keep it from coming out of the Committee (although clearly a bill was drafted that came close to achieving Breen’s proposal).

The Academy’s response to the Breen initiative by using a paid Statehouse lobbyist, even while they would have been given full opportunity to address their concerns in bilateral discussions with the BOE before the Education Committee, answers Taxpayer’s question as to why the BOE has not been able to do anything but the 9th Grade proposal since the 1999 Final Report shown above. They have no means to get any attention to their issues when faced with the Academy’s public relations machine and its ability to keep the playing field heavily slanted toward their favor. Left with that reality, the BOE can really only consider draconian measures to address its concerns. Breen correctly identified that the problem between Woodstock Academy Board of Trustees and Woodstock Board of Education will never be solved locally. He was foiled by the Academy’s ability to submarine his effort which obviously was viewed by the Education Committee as having much merit.

A comment submitted by ‘Fantasy in Foyeland’ on June 17th 2007

We must recognize the following:

1. The BOE already went through all this over the past three years. These concerns are the same as the concerns raised and documented by the BOE ten years ago (see the article below. Admin).

2. The Academy is entirely public students and entirely public money, but for a handful of private small college scholarships. This is a regional public high school but for a 207 year old incorporation document. The FOI case established it as a public agency. It is essentially an independent state agency with state/local funding. It really is not a “private school”.

3. The Academy has estimated capital projects of $20+ Million on the table including the Bentley Fields (+/- $5M); the Science Center (+/- $13.5M); and the Sewer (+/- $2M). These projects will overwhelm the town’s ability to pay, especially the BOE.

4. Norwich Free Academy built its endowment over a century, not a decade, and with a deeper demographic. There is no way the Academy will raise these funds privately for these projects; this fundraising effort is token at best.

5. The Academy already hired a professional fundraiser to study the demographics and issued a report a year ago that represents a wild guestimate. There has been a full time fudraiser on staff at the Academy for over a year. I don’t think they have raised $50,000 or even $25,000

6. The contract was negotiated for two years. The Academy’s only proposal states they will dictate tuition each year for operating and capital costs with no negotiation and the BOE must pay. The BOE attempted a wide variety of creative approaches to negotiate some fairness, including better representation, and the Academy simply rejected all requests. The Academy would not give up their basic right that they have by law to charge what they wish. Read the rest of this entry »

This article was first published on June 15, 2007. Admin

“The charge of the Woodstock Academy Agreement Committee is to: 1) Examine the current agreement between the Woodstock Board of Education and the Woodstock Academy; 2) explore possible revisions to a renewed agreement with Woodstock Academy; 3) consider alternative means of educating the Town’s high school aged students; and 4) report back to the Board of Education verbally and in writing with the committee’s recommendations by April 15th, 1999 (extended to June 15, 1999).”

Introduction

“The Woodstock Academy Agreement Committee was formed in February 1999 and began meeting in March 1999 to fulfill the above charge and specifically to generate possible negotiating considerations as the Board approaches the expiration of the current agreement with Woodstock Academy (see attachment A). In the process of examining the agreement, two key issues have emerged: First the under-representation (based on enrollment) of the Woodstock Board of Education on the Academy Board of Trustees, the Executive Committee and the Finance Committee; and second, the lack of ongoing meaningful dialogue between the Academy and the Board of Education/Superintendent, which has contributed to a lack of performance accountability, reporting criteria and communications needed to jointly conduct the job of educating children.

In exploring alternative means of educating our students, diversity, special needs, and good management require that we continually examine the other school systems and remain open to alternative arrangements. The school profiles which we have examined as part of our charge indicate some areas where we may work with the Academy.”

Committee Members and Attendance (6 meetings with attendance in parentheses)

Daniel Atwood (6, Chairman of the BOE)
Ernest Wetzel (3, BOE)
Jay Livernois (3, BOE)
Edward Neumann (3, First Selectman)
Victoria Scheufler (5, Middle School Principal)
Linda Galton (6, Superintendent)
Gus Masiello (6, BOE, CPS member, publisher of ‘Comings and Goings’)
Barbara Rich (4, Town Treasurer)
Charles Snow (1, BOE, Chairman of the BOE after Dan Atwood and Romeo Blackmar)
Nancy Young (6, BOE) Read the rest of this entry »

The Problem Statement did what I believe it was intended to do, namely identify the problem. It also proposed a legislative solution. Since that solution was never realized, I think that indicates that it may be time to look for new solutions to the ‘problem’. There’s a discussion about the role of compromise going on in another thread that may come into play here as well.

As I understand it, the problem is that the Academy holds its private governance structure dearly and has no intention of relinquishing it. Yet it is an institution that accepts predominantly public students and public funding in order to exist. It’s this 1/2 private and 1/2 public issue that is the problem. I also understand that WA is steeped in the town’s history and that history needs to be respected, which is why I think many people are hesitant to tamper with it. Maybe this was never a problem until recent years, relatively speaking, throughout the hundred some-odd year history of the school. In the school’s early years, perhaps issues such as transportation costs and special education were non-entities. But today, these costs can’t be overlooked. There are now three schools serving the students of Woodstock and they are all quite costly to operate. There needs to be fiscal responsibility and scrutiny of such for all 3 schools to ensure that our students’ education isn’t compromised at any of them. There may or may not be enough money to go around so that all 3 can fund everything on their ‘wish list’. But this means that the pain needs to be evenly distributed. If we short-change the students in the lower grades, this will erode their academic performance by the time they reach the Academy.

Yet there is no way to force the Academy to agree to this sharing of the pain. So it may be time to look for a compromise. We haven’t seen a lot of it so far since both sides can’t agree on a contract negotiation, but it still needs to be pursued. Read the rest of this entry »

Let me outline a few simple concept that have kicked around for many years:

1. Village District – draw some simple boundaries around the five historic villages; shrink lot sizes, setbacks, sideyards; maintain appropriate scale and architecural vernacular; allow village-style commercial uses.

2. Scenic Route – Reduce density from 2.5 to 3.0 acres; increase setbacks; increase conservation setaside; decrease curb cuts; allow residents to vote their streets into scenic route zoning.

3. Commercial Zoning – Draw some boundaries around the existing obvious areas – Route 171 to South Woodstock Green; major intersections; existing commercial nodes; maintain appropriate scale and architectual vernacular near historic villages; etc.

My question is, if you put a simple, conceptual plan in front of the town, sans smear campaign, would most people support it or reject it?

Suffy

I, like you (speaking to Stew), am more of a follower than a leader. I have been to meetings, I have seen a professional, educated representative of the Wetlands Committee speak out. I have seen him jumped on by community bullies, his comments swept aside, and the bullies supported by the one sided monitor. I have witnessed the way the Woodstock clique stacks the deck when they want something passed. They, when needed, walk hand in hand into the meetings with a impressive cast of politicians and friends. They have the control and the power, we have fought wars in the name of freedom and democracy yet people like Alberts, Vary, Young, Porter, and CME rule with a clinched fist and get what ever they want, legal or not. I have watched the hiring practices of the Town Hall. Yes, I too am a complainer, the only power I have is my one vote to assist those who would contest openly only to be belittled and degraded as a result. I have stuck my neck out before, once but twice shy. I guess that’s why I was thankful to find this blog to see how many people feel just like me. We all know that from the Town Hall, to the elected appointed boards, to the Woodstock Fair, that corruption exists. We need strong leaders, I wish I was one! “We have to live somewhere.” Survival is a deaf ear and a blind eye and a open check book. The only victory we can enjoy is to openly expose those and let them know we are wise to them!

Avenger

The Putnam Bank, formerly the Putnam Savings Bank, posted a $4 million dollar 3rd quarter loss. Yesterday afternoon I heard a glowing ad by Putnam Bank on WINY touting the successes and safety of the bank. The article is in the Worcester Telegram on Nov 15th yesterday. Thanks to the Cafe’er who provided us with this news. Admin

Well, the fine art of bullying isn’t one ONLY practiced by CPS or Academy supporters.

The initial posting that began this riff of chat between me and Snuffy was a submission of an e-mail from Eric Thomas of CT DEP. Along with that, I expressed hope that the waiver granted to Woodstock by the DEP would someday be reversed so that future development in town will be more responsibly planned for a sensitive environment.

I do not and could not speak for all Hill residents or even some of them. The group, like any other group, is a collection of individuals. We do work together well as a group and we do share a core value in that we’d like to see the district preserved.

I sit on the Woodstock Water Pollution Control Authority not the Historic District Commission. I do not speak for or represent the WPCA in my postings. There are two members of the Hill neighborhood on this commission out of five. I sit on the WPCA because I recognize that zoning in Woodstock is weak; therefore, maintaining a strong “sewer avoidance” policy has some ability to exert control over development.

I am not opposed to development nor do I strive to see the Hill neighborhood or any other area of town “frozen in time.” I am however, strongly supportive of good zoning and good planning – neither of which we have currently.

Four years ago, residents of the Woodstock Hill neighborhood requested that WPZC sponsor and host a public forum with speakers from all the various fields of expertise related to planning, preservation and zoning. At no charge, the speakers remain ready to go, but Woodstock’s WPZC refuses to hold the forum. The goal of the forum is simple – to give INFORMATION about what’s available, what works and what doesn’t and why. Read the rest of this entry »

From ‘Snuffy’ (vis a vis Woodstock) “The town has to do three things:
1. Support its public education system.
2. Support proper land use regulation.
3. Support proper fiscal reform.
Then go neighborhood by neighborhood and replicate the effort. And after you do that, and you develop true support, and have some people who will stick with it, attend meetings, serve on boards, and demand change, week after week, month after month, year after year, and not fade when things become controversial…”

Also see the situation described in “A Neighborly Act” – the 11th article down (next page).

If you consider protecting residential property values a “hobby” (suggested by one commentor ‘Disgusted Watcher’) then you don’t understand property rights. The right of a property owner under the adopted Zoning Regulations to contest the development of adjacent property in a way not permitted by the Zoning Regulations, that will significantly reduce property values, and diminish the residential quality of the neighborhood – then that’s my hobby and right.

The issue isn’t the logging operation; it is the “work yard” and “pad” that Bob Lussier established. When the complaint was filed, the logger was starting diesel equipment early in the morning, fueling (est. 1,000 gallons of fuel a week) from tanks on site that were not on impervious pads, he was cutting logs on a portable sawmill, he was chipping wood on one or two commercial size chippers (think noise), and trans-shipping logs (think very large logging trucks coming and going on rural Pomfret residential roads); and all this at the end of a narrow private driveway with 4 residential homes plus 2 houses at 34 Weatherbee Road at the end. Two of the properties were put up for sale and sold at prices substantially below assessed valuation.

Did the equipment and industrial activity on the pad reduce the property values?
“Life’s too short people, move on.”

Your solution is unacceptable (to find a hobby suggested by ‘Disgusted Watcher’). Why should an activity that is incompatible with an existing residential neighborhood and contrary to the Zoning Regulations that have gone to Public Hearing and been adopted by the Town’s Planning and Zoning Commission have to “move on” because a person wants to start a heavy industry in a residential neighborhood? Not the logging of a property, but an industrial operation. I suggest that you were not told all the facts when you had your talk with the logger.

This isn’t a case of a compatable home occupation just parking his equipment on his property, this isn’t a property logging operation that will be completed in a year or two and cease; this is Lussier trying to establish another Hull industrial operation (and there is no question Hull’s operation preceded zoning and is properly zoned) in a residential neighborhood and the neighbors have every right to protect their property values in face of this incompatible development.

The balloon is the location of 34 Wetherbee Road according to Google Maps. Admin