by JK
Other towns don’t have Prop. 46. If, for some reason, the schools need and can substantiate requests for more funding than Prop. 46 would allow, they can do so.
Proponents of Prop. 46 will claim that this is a good thing. They will assert that it makes government deal with a finite amount of funding, and schools always seem to stay open.
What some people refuse to consider is that there are some years when extra expenditures may be necessary, say to buy some new buses, so some major renovations, replace textbooks, equipments, or any other fairly expensive item you can think of. It may be, that we will spend more in the long run by putting off certain expenses. Just as a hypothetical example: suppose there is a leaky roof that could be fixed for $10,000 today. It may be put off because there isn’t money to pay for the repairs. Once the leak is allowed to continue, there may be substantially more damage and costs in the future, as things under the roof get damaged. Save $10,000 this year, and pay $50,000 next year instead. Again, I’m not saying that this is happening, but that is the sort of situation that Prop. 46 encourages.
I agree that sometimes tough decisions need to be made to keep budgets from getting out-of-control. Prop. 46 means that WA can send a bill for tuition, and WPS has to make cuts in order to comply with the limits that are set. Other towns can decide on a yearly basis what they are willing to pay once they receive a bill from WA.
If someone had the financial backing and the time to pursue it, a lawsuit may find that Prop. 46 is not legal. It was challenged when it was first voted on, but the Town chose not to appeal the Superior Court ruling.
JK,
Historically the budget has been less than what Prop 46 allows. This would suggest that with or without Prop 46 the electorate is likely to vote down any budget they think is exhorbitant. So be careful what you wish for.
Tax:
I agree. I sometimes think that budgets would be cut more if Prop. 46 supporters voted at every budget referendum.
At the rate we are going, this town will probably be a real trashy low life place within ten years.
Why buy new buses. Only two towns in Connecticut own their own buses. What do the other towns know that we are ignoring? Why are we not leasing buses and ending the need for cost of repairs, salaries and benefits for drivers and etc. We would know annually what the serves would cost and would not have to factor in maintaining a fleet of buses.
The state legislature approved a statute which resulted in Woodstock Academy having unfair, unwarranted control over the public education system in Woodstock.
In order to reverse this legislation, town advocates will “have to develop relationships with state lawmakers.” The place to start is with our voice in the legislature, Representative Mike Alberts.
It’s imperative that those elected officials directly concerned with allocating town money, the BOS, the BOE and the BOF, present a united front as regards negotiations between the BOE and the Academy.
(The above quoted phrase is that of Alexandra Dawson of Hadley, MA in an interesting article in the 1/25/09 Worcester Gazette “Smaller Farms Still Going Strong.”)
joni says:
January 26th, 2009 at 9:18 am
At the rate we are going, this town will probably be a real trashy low life place within ten years.
Low life?
What examples would you give?
DB
The above comments probably should have been placed under the previous topic, ‘A Harsh Impending Reality.” Also, the article referred to in the Worcester Gazette appeared on 1/26/09. Sorry about that.
joni, The tax mongers said that ten years ago.
Mr. Klusek, do you agree that with Prop 46 in place, that the Woodstock Academy’s tuition increases continuously squeezes the BOE budget?
Do you have a solution for that?
No, I don’t agree. Our BOE budget goes up every year. The academy’s sometimes doesn’t. In any event, what do you think it would cost us if there was, suddenly, no academy?
Mr Klusek, I don’t want the Academy going anywhere. I think that they provide good value, I sometimes question who they pick for trustees, and spending alot of money on recreational fields doesn’t fit in my priorities, but they do a good job.
However, the Academy’s budget does go up every year (with the exception of one year a few years ago when Woodstock was in another of our budget problems).
One point that I was surprised that you made though is that the BOE budget goes up every year, but shouldn’t it if the Academy’s budget goes up every year (save one)? Also, doesn’t your own household expenses go up every year? Do you not understand that everything costs a little more every year?
Also, isn’t the proof that the schools are slowly being strangled is the fact that programs at the schools are slowly being lost?
Is anyone taking into account that the Academy can and does spend taxpayers’ money …(see Hill Resident’s new article. Admin).
“not again” said: “Why buy new buses. … (see A Student’s new article. Admin).