Woodstock CT Café

by Becki

“…this Board of Education made a rational, informed decision to reject the retention of the Ninth Grade based on a process of consideration that was in-depth and broad based.”

From the first presentation of the 9th Grade Proposal, I couldn’t decide if it was the stressful reaction of constricting budget dollars or if it might have been an effort to pressure the Academy to reasonably negotiate for a contract. It didn’t really matter.

A quick glance showed the proposal to be not only creative but also fairly well thought out. Mind you, I am not including the public response. I’m just talking about the original presentation of the proposal. I had to admire the depth of the consideration and the broad spectrum of details that had been included and presented.

Within hours a firestorm had been ignited within the populace and not too much later it seemed like the matter had been fairly soundly undone. The budget went forward without a change in the grades being sent to the Academy. Still in the background, an undercurrent continued like an infection.

I never believed that we would end up holding the ninth grade back at the middle school. Clearly, given what had been presented, the savings were not nearly enough to justify that kind of a change. The members of the Board of Education are intelligent, good people who do not take their responsibilities lightly. I know most of them well enough to have a good sense of the people they are.

Still in conversations with people from varied demographics in town, there was a strong sense that others didn’t feel that the matter had been resolved. The general gist that I regularly heard was that the idea had been floated and even though nothing had changed in the budget, there was a feeling that this idea was still out there and could come back at any time. I was confident that it wouldn’t but, it was obvious that many in the community were not comfortable with the matter. It was as if the proposal needed to be resolved, put to bed, so-to-speak and it had not been.

I’m sure that most of the members of the Board of Education were hearing the same misgivings. I’m sure that is precisely the reason they took up the matter again in the fall. They called together a committee to examine the proposal in depth and make a recommendation to the full board.

One of the things I think that people have the hardest time understanding is process. We live in such an instant gratification society that we often lack the patience to wait for the process of anything to come to fruition. In our own lives it is quite acceptable to make instant decisions or see which way something is leaning and bet on where its will land. If our decisions are off or end up being wrong, it is only ourselves (or perhaps a few of those close to us) that pays the price.

In the instance of the Board of Education, such shoot from the hip approaches are not embraced. Theirs is a reasoned approach, one that has served Woodstock well for many years. We have managed to have testing results that are in the upper 40% +/- of statewide averages and yet 96% of the towns in the state have to spend more than we do per pupil. So too the approach to analyzing the ‘9th Grade Proposal’ would be steady and measured. Read the rest of this entry »

by Con 

This group seems to constantly treat readers as though we cannot think for ourselves and require an interpreter for the English language. In addition to a point-by-point refutation of their arguments, it’s important to constantly question them and challenge their re-characterization of underlying matters. They state an opinion as though it’s a fact and then build an argument around this ‘false fact’ – this is an essential element of their tactics.

Many articles bear this out and their Sophist technique is easy to spot – they must re-characterize something in order to insert their bias and convey the message only after applying this ‘hard spin’. To re-characterize, they most often use a preface like: “what they really mean is…” or “in other words…” or “what they seem to be…”. In almost every instance when we see these words used it is immediately after something that already speaks for itself (such as a straightforward quote, description of events, reference to a printed article or comment which we can all read).

However, the citizens of Woodstock are NOT stupid and we do not need someone to tell us what a comment means “in other words…”; we do not need a biased comment to explain “what this really means…” or “what they are really saying…” especially when we have just read the comment, quote, referenced article or described event! We can draw our own conclusions without the extra push. Why not TRULY let the comment, article, event, conversation or whatever is the subject – speak for itself? Why must they constantly re-phrase and re-characterize even the simplest of matters?

A current example can be found at woodstocktruth.com under “Powers: The record of the WBOE speaks for itself” – ironically, contrary to the very title of his own article, Mr. Powers still insists on re-characterizing for us dumb citizens the behavior of the BOE when he asserts that “What they as individuals, and this Board, seem most upset about is that the BOE will have to face the voters and defend their records.” This type of ‘I can read minds’ comments appears quite often in these biased articles. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m glad the discussion of the Woodstock Academy contract has come up. Let’s take a look at that. In general I believe there are three general reasons why the Woodstock BOE and the Woodstock Academy have yet come to contract terms. These are the general problems members of the Woodstock BOE see with the boilerplate contract that they would like us to sign.

• It is a commitment to buy without a discussion of price. In my opinion it would be irresponsible to commit the town to a long term agreement with the Woodstock Academy without any control on price. It is very unusual to enter into any commitment to buy for an extended period without knowing the price or how much it can increase. It is particularly important when the WA has some very expensive capital project on the horizon. This is different than the heating oil delivery person showing up at your house with a different price on oil. You can always send the oil delivery person away and look into different options. This is more like signing up with an oil company that they will deliver your oil for five years at whatever choice they choose to charge. You can’t turn them away, you will buy it. I am somewhat confused as to why CPS isn’t our ally on this, if they actually stood for what they claimed, this would be a no brainer issue.

• There is no commitment to curriculum alignment. The contract does not in any way commit the Woodstock Academy to sharing information with the WPS so that we can design our curriculum to best prepare the children for the Woodstock Academy. I’ve heard a lot about getting the WPS to help children in preparing for the WA math placement tests. That’s what this concern is about.

• There is no discussion on standards of achievement that WA will deliver for the town. At minimum they should guarantee to maintain all certifications.

To be honest with a quick count of board votes it wouldn’t take much for the WA to get a contract. Read the rest of this entry »

Twenty-six percent  (26%) of the 38 petitioners are either a Trustee of the Academy or a family member of a Trustee

Twenty-one percent (21%) of these petitioners are affiliated with the UnTruth website.

Eighteen percent (18%) are affiliated with CPS.

Sixteen percent (16%) have either filed lawsuits against the school system or have threatened to file a lawsuit against the town in writing.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) are not officially affliated with these groups but have consistently aligned themselves with the anti-K-8/pro-Academy sentiment.

Some of these people fall into more than one group.

The ring-leaders are the litigants who are exploiting these other factions for their personal gain with lawsuits pending, appeals pending, and FOIA complaints draining the time of paid staff of the school system.

We are very glad that we are able to provide a forum for discussion in an effort to bring more people to the table here in the many hamlets of Woodstock. Our support of anonymity is to give people the ability to participate without fear. Unfortunately, a downside to this is that some participants are taking advantage of this forum to play with their food.

‘Playing’ Devil’s Advocate is a dangerous game outside of the confines of academia where it is an accepted technique of stretching the parameters of scholarly thought. Asking questions in a juvenile ‘yeah, but’ mode is a technique not for extending discussion but for ‘hog-tying’ elected officials to embarrass them.

Isn’t it fun? Yes, playing behind the scenes with anonymity is a very safe feeling. This is one of those times that our support of anonymity bites us in the ass. Anonymous people enjoy a protection of sorts. Most of us feel the same way almost anywhere we go on the internet. But, like most feelings of safety, its illusionary.

There is an expectation that each of us is discussing our point of view and our real concerns for Woodstock. There is an expectation that more people will participate under the protective cloak of anonymity. Unfortunately, there will also be (and are) opportunists who will use any advantage to further a cause/point of view that they would otherwise not have the backbone to do. Read the rest of this entry »

by Con 

Using this ‘Sophistry 101′ I mentioned earlier, members of this same group seem to share methods which 1) rely heavily on flawed assumptions to reach their conclusions; 2) insist on re-interpreting and re-characterizing facts, events and even conversations, all in their favor; and 3) rely on readers who swallow their assertions wholesale and to not challenge or question them to ‘Prove it!’ or otherwise back up their statements.

sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Importantly, they seem to always insist on re-characterizing nearly every situation, conversation and set of facts, etc. IN THEIR OWN WORDS. They do NOT describe a situation; they re-characterize a situation using bias and spin (and often lack accuracy). This is crucial because within that characterization is baked many faulty assumptions which will eventually support some specious conclusion. This is a telling characteristic of their rhetoric – reality must be re-cast in their favor before they can ‘sell’ it. Nearly all of their writing does this ‘re-characterization before conclusion’. It is not honest.

A minor but good example of this is this infamous “understanding nuances” statement – not only does Mr. Rosendahl mis-quote in his favor and get it wrong (the original statement, as reported in the Oct. ‘05 CPS Newsletter, was that residents may lack “attention spans”), but they insist – every time – on re-characterizing it for readers as if the words (that were just laid out) do not speak for themselves AND as if the readers are too dumb to understand these words without it all being explained to them (by a smug, completely biased narrator, of course). Why do I need anyone to explain a simple statement to me? Read the rest of this entry »

by A Student 

As far as the number of (spare) buses go, we have 4 usable spares at the moment: 2 regular ed (buses 4 and 12) and 2 special ed (buses 3 and 23).

Between the bus inventory found on page 49 of the budget (page 43 of the original pamphlet),

http://woodstockschools.net/PDF_Files/budget/2008-2009%20Budget.pdf

… this article at the Cafe,

http://www.woodstockctcafe.com/2008/08/31/a-look-at-the-woodstock%e2%80%99s-buses-drivers-and-routes/

… my personal observations of the fleet, and communication with drivers, I’ll try and break down how I arrive at a conclusion of 4 spare buses.

I’ll start off by saying that buses 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 25 all have regular-route (HS/MS and/or Elementary) runs. That’s 15 buses in everyday use so far.

Bus 24 has an Ellis Tech/Kindergarten route (16 buses).

Buses 26 and 15 have Special Ed routes (18 buses).

Considering that the fleet goes up to bus 26 and there are two gaps in the numbering (no bus 6 or 21), that leaves 6 buses that aren’t used on a daily basis.

These are buses 3 (special ed spare), 4 (regular ed spare), 8 (special ed spare), 9 (regular ed spare with chair lift), 12 (regular ed spare), and 23 (special ed spare).

However, according to the inventory list, bus 8 is “Out of Service,” and the last time I saw bus 8, it was parked in the corner of the Middle School bus/recess area without license plates, so it can’t be used as a spare. I was told by Mr. Johnson that bus 8 is out of service because of mechanical problems. Read the rest of this entry »

I can’t speak accurately about things that happened before I was on the BOE, but here is a point by point refutation of Mr. Rosendahl’s claims for everything that happened after I was elected:

Mr. Rosendahl states:
“Board of Education is found to have violated FOIA statutes if illegal executive sessions…”
The facts:
The BOE was gigged on not having an agenda item that was worded clearly enough, that’s all. The FOIA commission found that the executive session was proper as were any votes taken after it.

Mr. Rosendahl states:
“The Board of Finance questions Chairman Paul on trying to mislead the Board of Finance with misleading data.”
The facts:
Not enough information here to even know what Mr. Rosendahl is talking about.

Mr. Rosendahl states:
“Dr. Baran informs the BOF that the Pre-K Readiness Grant has been overspent and the program has been stopped in April, not in June as the grant intends. … Brian as a committee member was not made aware of the problem until May…”
The facts:
While it is admirable for Steve to try and protect a fellow BOE member (a courtesy I wish he had extended to the rest of us), not to put too find a point on it but this was Brian’s job to know and track. I don’t think Brian has had a lot of experience with financial forecasting but this was a simple grant. When new members were added to the program or existing members’ benefits increased, one of the first questions in Brian’s mind should have been, “What is this going to do to my new burn rate?”, followed by, “Will I burn out too early?” and “What excess capacity, if any, will I have after these changes have been made?” It’s his job to make sure he knows the answers to those questions. I’m sure Brian won’t make the same mistake again.

Mr. Rosendahl states:
“I have not mentioned the time and money spent by the BOE in trying to repeal Proposition 46, …”
The facts:
While my personal feelings toward this ordinance are known, there has been no board action in this direction since I’ve been on the board. So the answer to that since I’ve been on the board is $0. I can’t say what may or may not have happened before but based on the claims I do know about I’m a bit dubious.

Mr. Rosendahl states:
“…we were told at last year’s budget meetings that we only had one spare bus, as it turns out we have four or more.”
The facts:
After one of the incidents where a bus was hit in front of my house there was a question on how many spare busses were still available for use. A point in time answer that didn’t include busses that were hit in an accident or in form maintenance. A very different question than how many we have in total. Maybe Becki can chime in on this one.

He rambles on a bit about advocacy and the press release, grudgingly admitting that we had a legal right to do a press release and given his signature on this petition has the audacity to claim *we* are using “one of the law’s loopholes. Read the rest of this entry »

by Frank Corden 

With respect to asking teachers to defer their raises, you (to ‘Ty’) may not be aware that the contract we negotiated with them last fall includes an increase in the school day as well as an increase in the number of days in their school year. In total, these increases offset the general wage increase in the contract. Also, keep in mind that other unions at the state level that have agreed to forego raises have done so with a guarantee of no lay-offs. Certainly, Woodstock isn’t in a position to offer such a guarantee.

In part the issue with the petition is one of playing by the rules. Mr. Rosendahl’s statements and your comment both point to a desire to remove the current BoE. That is a recall. If you advocate for a recall vote, let’s follow the recall process. If you prevail, fine. If not, we serve out our terms. However, jiggering with the structure and term of the BoE as a back door method for a recall isn’t appropriate.

I believe that every one of the 9 current members of the BoE act in what they believe is in the best interest of the school system and it’s students. I can’t say the same for all of the members of the BoE I’ve served with in the past nor do I believe that many of the petitioners have an interest in the quality of education in Woodstock.

The problems with education funding in Woodstock and the problems with the relationship with Woodstock Academy didn’t start with this BoE. These issues have been around for decades. What has happened in the last 6 years is that the BoE has made these issues public, front and center. And you can’t solve a problem you don’t acknowledge or debate. Electing 7 or 9 new members won’t address the funding issues or encourage Woodstock Academy to share information with it’s sending towns.

But what may happen is that the community will stop hearing about the issues and working toward a solution. And not debating the issues isn’t in the best interest of those 1200+ citizen’s of Woodstock that I represent, especially since they are too young to vote.

by Lucida

I’m really trying to understand this whole replace the Board of Education idea. I don’t think I like the idea, but I’m trying to be open-minded about it. So, this is how my thought process has evolved.

I looked at it from the perspective that ‘laws’ and ‘ordinances’ end up having unintended consequences on a pretty regular basis. For this reason alone, I started at the point that IF anything needs changing, it needs to be quite obvious. And then, what ever action taken to rectify the ‘needed change’ itself, needs to be the least intrusive it can be.

So what is the glaring lack in the current constitution of the Board of Education that requires the proposed action called for?

The petitioners claim the need to reduce the number of seats on the board and reduce also the number of years for each term is based on the current configuration making it hard to find people to run for the positions. I’ve not lived in town forever, but I don’t recall unfilled seats on the three main boards. There are plenty of vacancies on the smaller boards/commissions, but that would argue the case for changing the member and term configurations of those boards/commissions. It certainly doesn’t make the argument in the case of the Board of Education. Read the rest of this entry »

I assume that the UnTruth petitioners will show up at the Town Meeting on May 26th with the hope of having a vote on their petition at that town meeting rather than sending the vote to a referendum on June 9th.

Section 7-7 of the State statutes says in the last sentence: “The vote on any item on the call (agenda) of a town…shall be taken by paper ballot if so voted at the meeting, if no petition has been filed under this section with reference to such item.”

One can debate about what this means and that’s the problem. Having gone toe-to-toe with the IRS over the meaning of a simple sentence, I learned that the law can be interpreted more than one way (I won that one).

It’s a little known fact that Allan Walker mentioned to me that “Craig” had told him that he (the UnTruth petitioners) intended to petition the Town to send the vote to referendum. Well, 3PM today was the deadline for the UnTruth to submit this second petition but strangely no second petition was delivered (What is the meaning of untruth?).

The reason Allan Walker mentioned this to me was because I was in his office to let him know that a group of us intended to produce that second 200+ signature petition to ensure that the question to the voters would go to the referendum. At the Special Selectmen’s meeting on May 11th, where I heard the town lawyer describe his view of the UnTruth petition to the three Selectmen, I was joined by Mr. Powers and Mr. Shultz. At the end of the meeting, Powers asked if a 200 signature petition was needed to ensure that the vote would go to referendum, and Allan Walker said no. I had the feeling that Powers already knew the answer to that question by the way he asked it; I suggest that the question was only asked so that I would learn that there was no need for a 200 signature petition.

I trust Allan Walker in his stated intent to send the vote to a referendum on June 9th; however, in the second Special Selectmen’s meeting held on May 13th, Mitch Eaffy voiced concern about incurring the cost of a referendum without having a petition in favor of a referendum. It was already apparent to me after hearing the town lawyer explaining the novelty of the UnTruth petition that the cost of the lawyer’s review of the Untruth petition may have already exceeded the cost of having a referendum. On this same concern about cost, the Untruth representative to the BOE, Messier Rosendahl, has been accusing the BOE of spending money by consulting the BOE lawyer about anything (is he stupid or what?).

Section 7-7 further states as follows: “The Selectmen of the town may, not less than five days prior to the day of any such town meeting, on their own initiative, remove any item on the call (agenda) of such meeting (in this case the May 26th Town meeting) for submission to the voters in the manner provided by this section (a vote by voting machine) …”

This is what I have been told has been done. But, if you read the rest of this sentence, which is almost impossible to decypher, one is left in a state of confusion.

Just two weeks earlier on April 28th the Board of Finance illegally re-voted on the Town budget rejecting the budget that had been legally approved a week earlier. This hanky-pank deserves another article to explain why the reversal of the adopted budget was illegal. The take-home from this underhanded action by certain members of the BOF tells me that anything can happen in these meetings, even illegal actions…and the perps get away with it.

Statute 7-7 states “Two hundred or more persons…may petition the clerk…in writing, at least twenty-four hours prior to any such meeting, requesting that any item… on the call (agenda) of such meeting be submitted” to a referendum. This, to me, seems to be the only way one can guarrantee (and I use that word loosely) that a referendum will be held in spite of the good intentions of Allan Walker. I praise Allan’s stated belief that this is too important an issue to be decided in a shouting match (my characterization, not Allan’s) at the Town Hall on May 26th.

What do you think would have happened if Ms. Wholean, who signed the UnTruth petition, was in this situation as First Selectman? Duh…

Given the account of this story above, a group of Woodstock voters, called “Advocates for Support of the Duly Elected” (ASDE) collected 200+ signatures and registered this petition at the Town Hall this morning. I told Allan that our purpose in doing this was to back him up and give to the Selectman a petition that supported their decision to send this issue to referendum.

During this process I gained some respect for Allan, Mitch, and Chan…and Joe Klusek too.

Viva la ASDE!

John

At least you are not paying $15,600.00 per regular ed student like we are in Winsted to the Gilbert School. That figure does not include transportation and or special education.

http://www.woodstockctcafe.com/2008/01/16/nfa-gives-norwich-a-break/

by Joe Klusek

I’ll be candid with you on your question even though my answer may irritate some on both sides of the issue. The petitioners may have some good reasons for wanting removal of the current BOE and a replacement with others who are more compatible with their thinking. However, I am a bit uncomfortable with yanking any elected official out of office prematurely unless he has commited a gross violation of the law

The petitioners believe this to be the case, but I don’t think it can be proven, unconditionally, without a terrible amount of hassle; in addition, the job can be accomplished in the voting booth soon enough.

The BOE was put in position by the electorate and should serve out their terms. A vigorous campaign mounted before the next election to get them out of there seems, to me, a more appropriate way to go.

 by John

This is a response to Joe Klusek’s comment to Kevin suggesting that CPS is not involved with the Shultz/Powers petition dated May 5th. Under “Letter endorsed…” see comment “I don’t remember either Shultz or Powers referring to CPS in connection with their recent petition concerning the BOE. Get your facts straight. It’s irritating to a lot of voters when you lump them together in situations that you’re not comfortable with….My guess is that many CPS supporters would like to clean out some of the BOE members; however, at this time there’s no reason for you to keep berating a significant number of conscientious voters from all walks of life, who, like you, want Woodstock to remain a great place in which to live.”

Joe, Here is an earlier Comings & Goings (Oct. 2005) where Preston Shultz describes his attacks on the BOE in a featured article in C&G and his use of FOIA in these attacks.”

http://www.prudentspending.org/publications/cg14_6.pdf

Every FOIA complaint by Shultz against the BOE that I have seen over the last few years lists the CPS as the plaintive organization. Shultz must be having CPS meetings behind your back. You might want to tell some of the other CPS members.

Note who the plaintive is:

All along it has been CPS that has been litigating these FOIA complaints including the one for which I attended the hearing in June 2008. In that hearing CPS was represented by Shultz. The enlightening subject of that hearing, CPS’s ‘smoking gun’, was supposedly missing information uncovered by Ms. Wholean (when she was First Selectman) and handed over to Shultz to be used in his continuing attacks against the school system. Don’t tell me that the anti-BOE FOIA attacks and the petition are not connected to CPS. Whether you like it or not, CPS is collaborating with the mob at the UnTruth website. This association makes CPS look worse than it has in the past. Would CPS like to denounce the Petition or at least clarify its relationship with the petitioners and the UnTruth? The Cafe would be willing to publish any such clarification.

Here are two past Cafe articles on Shultz’ CPS activities leading up to the May 5th petition:

http://www.woodstockctcafe.com/2009/02/14/preston-shultz-and-his-foi-caper/

http://www.woodstockctcafe.com/2008/06/05/shultz-hearing-with-the-foi-commission-didnt-go-wellfor-shultz/

by Con 

Once again, I got the dodge & brush off. I don’t know why.

Unfortunately, whenever I raise valid challenges and follow up with valid and challenging questions at woodstocktruth.com, these questions are either dodged outright or I get the ‘brush off’. When you peel back the basis of their position by one layer you expose a lot of flawed assumptions. It’s not that hard.

I’d heard that ‘they’ were hostile when challenged or when a comment doesn’t contribute in the ‘mutual admiration society’ atmosphere that permeates wt.com, but I still gave the benefit of the doubt and tried to ask politely without kissing butt or apologizing (they like it when you apologize). In addition to the dodge, I also faced a couple of ‘polite’ insults regarding honesty and integrity – for challenging assumptions and assertions that are flawed (like this false claim to know the ‘legislative intent’ which, when challenged, turns out to be a complete guess based on thin air). The comments speak for themselves on both parts.

I think the comments are worth reading, though, because they give insight into the kind of ‘Sophistry 101’ used to form the basis for most of their positions. It appears that all are welcome to comment there, but only if you agree and stroke egos and not if you dare challenge basic assumptions. Challenges get shut down like when a shock-jock radio host just hangs up on a caller…

I’m still hoping for answers to all my questions.