Woodstock CT Café

‘Someone who sounded like Richardson (but not sure; maybe Ralston), called Coutu at WINY and was blasting John, Becki, and Kevin. This person was essentially laying out all the BOF candidates and criticized the BOE, and it just seemed like more of the same complaints. I would seek out anyone on your site who heard it today. The call came in just before 10:30am.’

Did anyone hear this attack? Of course, we all have a life and work for a living. So we weren’t listening to WINY.

Sounds like we are having an impact .

Anyone need a Cass (D) sign?

Admin

by Wayne Durst

Off-year elections are usually of lower voter interest.  Governed as we are, though, every election counts equally.  This year few seats are contested, but the elections to the Woodstock Board of Finance cause concern.  Do we think that it is in our best interest to elect the two individuals who have a historical agenda of opposition to the Board of Ed? If elected, will their actions individually or together use our BOF to continue their personal convictions which have already been legally reviewed?  If we do not like the way that our BOE operates, shouldn’t correction be by public comment and election to that board rather than turning one board against another?  Does a narrow interpretation of Prop 46 actually endanger it more than the direct legal assault of a few years ago?

At our last election voters correctly rejected not ideas, but tactics unworthy of Woodstock: end-runs around the public, personal agendas, the harmful practice of attempting to build voting blocs within boards, and a disrespect of the public, evident through the use of blogs and at public meetings.  The problem of narrow personal agenda displacing the better motives to serve is a continuing problem and will be in the future, but we have the advantage of knowing this and acting in prevention.  There is a vast difference between being a persistent vocal critic as opposed to the profound damage that can be wreaked from the inside.  In boxing, the fight is more tactical when both are at arm’s reach; an inside fight is just a brawl. Read the rest of this entry »

“We can quibble about the definition of extreme. What is clear is his interpretation is far different than the interpretation that has been used by the BoF since the late 70’s when prop 46 came about. It is far different than the 1/4″ stack of legal opinions I have on it. His interpretation adds new language and ideas such as recalculating the cap based on actual spending. When compared to the current and longstanding practice, I think it is fair to classify Mr. Richardson’s interpretation as extreme.If Mr. Richardson wants to change prop 46, then there is a proper method through referendum. It shouldn’t be done through a threat of legal action and other forms of intimidation as he has done.”

see comment 1 below

by Wanna Know

The one thing that I take issue with in the above statement (below) is the calling of Mr. Richardson’s interepretation of Prop 46 “extreme”. It may be right, it may be wrong, it may be good, it may be bad…but I do not believe it to be extreme. In fact, I think that it is a very valid question and one in which should be asked and one in which should be vetted. In fact, I am personally very surprised that it has never been raised before.

Before calling someone’s position extreme, I think it is first worth a reasonable and fair discussion, not only to help decide its level of extremity, but to debate it and to help deconstruct it (if we can). Note that while we may be tempted to use Shipman’s statement to make the verdict, we need to be honest with ourselves on its strength and its bias. A true vetting, of course, would have to come from a court of law, but for now we’ll have to settle for our own personal verdict based on a fair argument. Simply calling a position extreme, without a supporting verdict, is not enough for the curious voter.

Further, I would not only argue that Mr. Richardson’s concerns do hold some validity but, in fact, I would suggest that his interpretation would provide the underpinning necessary to unveil the failure of Prop 46 and lead it to its demise. By blanketing the issue and avoiding the inevitable, we are simply prolonging the agony. So, would those who truly support Proposition 46 truly be wise in voting for MR. Richardson? I wanna know.

What do the Cafe reader’s think about this?

Is it enough to simply argue in support of a position or should we, the voters, expect an argument that deconstructs an opposing view on Prop 46 and the implications of acting or not acting on legitimately clarifying, for the record, once and for all, the process the town takes in applying Prop 46.

by teachref09

Mr. Richardson, in my opinion has not shown credibility when it comes to questioning the education budget. Dr. Charles Snow, who headed the Accounting Department at Rhode Island College, poured over the BOE budgets for 12 years. And while Dr. Snow was a stickler for all things financial, he could not find anything wrong with the way the BOE/and Superintendent expended funds throughout the school year. Dr. Snow often would question the wisdom of delaying or foregoing certain expenses and would insist the Superintendent show justification for his decisions. I haven’t seen any difference over the past couple of years. The BOE continues to act prudently when it comes to expending taxpayer dollars. Mr. Richardson obviously isn’t looking at where Woodstock stands in the state as far as spending on education is concerned. If he could justify his attacks on the BOE and the way they are conducting business then his points could be taken seriously. Up to this point I don’t think Mr. Richardson has presented sufficient evidence to warrant a place at the Board of Finance table. I will be voting for Mr. George McCoy for Board of Finance without reservation.

If we took Mr. Richardson’s comments out of the context of what he has been doing in town (to Observer), then yes is would explain nothing about his views on education (more on that later). It isn’t this one observation that is problematic it is his continuing pattern of activity. Filing paperwork threatening to sue the town, harassing the BOF for his extreme interpretation of prop 46, going after how spending is done on the BoE, complaining about the BoE’s statutory protections on fiscal discretion, publishing growth rate charts based on some rather questionable assumptions, etc.

When you read his writings and listen to him, he is very consistent in this; he wants the town to spend as little money as possible (i.e. to keep taxes low). In this he is the perfect CPS representative. I can respect that, I don’t agree with it, but I can respect it. It isn’t that he is anti-education; from everything he has said it just isn’t a primary concern for him. All of his actions show his overriding concern is to cut taxes as much as possible. If I were to take an educated guess he is a firm believer in “starving the beast”.

Why many people see him as anti-education probably has more to do with who he has chosen to align himself with than anything else. This probably led him to sign a very ill advised petition to try and unseat the BoE. That petition ended up going against his own interests and reportedly cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Of course a concern about the people who he associates with and who is able to influence him is valid. If he is able to be convinced to sign a petition like that, what else can he be convinced to do by a group that is very much trying to hurt WPS?

As for the transfers, if I recall correctly, Mr. Richardson was at least year’s meeting with these transfers were discussed. He knows that quite a bit of the money came from windfalls that happened after the budget was constructed. Remember that was for the execution of the budget that was voted on in 2008, not the 2009 budget that we just voted on. I just wanted to make that clear because many people unconsciously link the budget they most recently voted on with the one that is currently being executed when in actuality there is a one year gap.

What we are currently working on with Dr. Baran is to give us earlier visibility into such windfalls so we are not making comments about next year’s budget that could come back and bite us. If Mr. Richardson was at that meeting he knows several of us, myself included, were quite upset at the size of the windfall and the fact that we didn’t hear about it until the end of the year.

But the manner of the execution of the budget is a very different issue. By deferring these expenses until the end of the year, Dr. Baran is minimizing the chance that some unexpected expense will eat through the WPS budget. If that happens we will have to go back to the taxpayers with our hand out. Plainly none of us want to be in that situation so prudently Dr. Baran will continue to defer as many of the expenses until the end of the year as he can and then spend the balance of the money at that time on whatever is most needed for education. Read the rest of this entry »

… with no apparent interest in education. 

Mr. Richardson, candidate for the Woodstock Board of Finance, had some interesting things to say about the Board of Education and how its budget is executed. I think it is important to realize where Mr. Richardson is coming from when considering who to vote for. Mr. Richardson complained about the fact that most discretional spending happens at the end of the school year. There is a very good reason for this as has been previously explained to him.

Through the school year, Dr. Baran pinches his pennies knowing that if unexpected extraordinary expenses happen he will need money to cover them or else he will have to go back to the town for more money. He tries to spend the bare minimum in case anything does come up. At the end of the year if the school system has money left over then it is then used for things such as the school buses, musical instruments, laptop carts, smart boards, updating the heat control system and returning the money we charged parents to participate in sports. This is how the money that was not spent earlier in the year was utilized.

Last June we had more money at the end of the year than normal because of unforeseen events such as the drop in the price of diesel. As a result, more than a full year after the budget was approved, we reprioritized our spending and executed parts of our capital plan that the schools have been needing for a long time or will need in the near future.

This is all interesting because Mr. Richardson has stated in several town meetings that the next budget season is sure to be very tough and the town boards should prepare for it. In this, I agree with Mr. Richardson. That is why we used some of the left over money to pre-purchase some of the items, such as busses and new computers, which we will need over the next few years. The BoE has acted proactively in this regard yet Mr. Richardson still complains.

I read through Mr. Richardson’s letter and I heard a lot of complaining. He complains about how the BoE spends money. He complains that when we make the budget we don’t know exactly how much things will cost next year. He complains that we don’t know if priorities will change over the next year after the budget was approved. He complains about how much he pays in taxes. Read the rest of this entry »

submitted by CPWF

A political action committee (PAC) has been registered with the Woodstock Town Hall and with the IRS by a group of citizens who are concerned about the political future of Woodstock.  The name of this PAC is “Community Partners for Woodstock’s Future” or CPWF. This PAC will be ongoing.

The Mission of CPWF is to promote the following:

1) Open local government representation that is for all citizens;

2) Smart investment in our nation’s future through support of education;

3) A responsible balance between financial conservatism and our citizens’ needs for basic town services;

4) Thoughtful long range planning for Woodstock’s growth and development; and

5) A long range perspective in the allocation of town resources.

CPWF will support candidates for election to Woodstock’s Boards and Commissions who will strive to achieve the goals outlined in this mission statement.

Paid for by the Community Partners for Woodstock’s Future (CPWF).
John Leavitt, Treasurer

dbrownie reports “There will be a firemans “boot drive” soon collecting money for fuel assistance for needy Woodstock residents.

firefighter says “Saturday, 10/17, we’ll be collecting for fuel assistance for those that need it at Roseland Cottage, the academy football game and at the transfer station. Neighbors helping neighbors.”

Click to enlarge.

These stats for yesterday are measured directly off of our server. We expect visitation to increase leading up to the election. Admin

by George McCoy

Dear Parents,

My name is George McCoy and I am the incumbent Republican candidate for the Woodstock Board of Finance. I am circulating this letter through a grassroots effort of parents who successfully fought and stopped the attempted overhaul of the Woodstock Board of Education earlier this year. I am writing to ask that you get the word out among your friends and colleagues who voted to stop the overhaul of the BOE and to let them know that the SAME people who fought you in June are back at it as you read this letter!

The new tactic is to get Dave Richardson and Craig Powers elected to the Board of Finance this November 3rd, only a few weeks from now.  Mr. Powers is running unopposed for an alternate seat and is guaranteed to be elected.  The key seat in question here is the full member seat with voting rights that I currently fill.  Dave Richardson, another member of the Power’s group (CPS-Citizens for Prudent Spending) is running for the same seat!

You defeated them at the front door in June – now they are trying to get in the back door in November! They are counting on a LOW VOTER TURNOUT to get in. CPS typically gets 450 – 500 of their voters to every election. We need to get the word out to all parents to please get out and vote on Tuesday November 3rd!

I was the ONLY elected member of the Board of Finance to stand with you at town hall on that June election day. I was the ONLY elected member of the Board of Finance to stand up and denounce this attempted recall of your duly elected Board of Education.  Now I need your help to ensure that we continue to have a FAIR and IMPARTIAL budgeting process within the BOF.

Please vote for the following pro-education candidates for Board of Finance:

George McCoy (Republican)  (for Regular member, BOF)
Richard Cass (Democrat) (for Regular member, BOF)
Mike Dougherty (Republican) (for Alternate member, BOF)

Please feel free to contact me if you would like more information about my campaign.

Thank you!

George McCoy

from Jeff Gordon

I hope that everyone is doing well.

Bill, I appreciate your leadership efforts on the WRTC Platform. I enjoyed working with you and others on developing the Platform. I was involved with the WRTC Platform 2 years prior. I would not have put my time and effort into the WRTC Platform if I didn’t believe in what was written. My own public actions as a member of the PZC (and prior to that, as a member of the MFATF) are consistent with what I have said I would do: work with others as a team (regardless of their political affiliations), act independently when neded, think carefully, be available to people when they ask questions or address concerns, give honest answers, behave ethically, and do what I think is best for our community. I do know that others with whom I have worked and do now work have conducted themselves the same way. I cannot speak for everyone in public office and it is not my place to do that.

John and Becki, thank you for keeping the Cafe going. Given some of the prior problematic posts by certain people, I am glad to see that some time ago you posted “rules of engagement” that people are expected to follow.

Kevin, thanks for your service on the BOE.

Ken, thank you for reminding people about the MFATF recommendations. I have not forgotten them and do bring them up when applicable in the work I do on the PZC or in other venues. Some of the recommendatiosn have been followed up on. It would be good to remind our hard working Selectmen about the MFATF. Recently, when the PZC had the land use fee ordninance updated (it hadn’t been updated in ~17 years), that was part of following through on one of the MFATF recommendations. I see the BOS expressed interest in looking at the other ordninaces and fee schedules in town to keep them current. Read the rest of this entry »

from the Woodstock Board of Education

The WBOE focused on our students’ CMT performance at its Sept. 24th meeting. The Board listened to analysis, identification of trends, and targeted strategies for improvement from Dr. Baran and from our Math Coordinator Mike Casey and Language Arts Coordinator John Mayer. Key points include:

• Our regular education students’ average scores continue to improve and comfortably exceed federally mandated Adequate Yearly Progress targets as required by No Child Left Behind.
• Our special education student progress improved but remains in “Safe Harbor.”
• In general, our students’ scores compare very favorably with state averages. A higher percentage of Woodstock students demonstrated “Proficiency” in all grades, in math, reading, writing, and science, with the one exception of Grade 4 Writing.
• In Math, the overwhelming majority of our students are demonstrating “Proficiency” (ranging from 89.3% in Grade 4 to 97.9% in Grade 7). The higher standard of “Goal” was reached by 63.1% of students in Grade 4, and ranged up to 85.6% of student in Grade 7.
• In Reading, the overwhelming majority of our students are demonstrating “Proficiency” (ranging from 74.4% in Grade 4 to 93.8% in Grade 7). “Goal” was reached by 61% of students in Grade 4 ranging up to 97.6% in Grade 7.
• In Writing, the overwhelming majority of our students are demonstrating “Proficiency” (ranging from 82.4% in Grade 4 to 93.5% in Grade 8). “Goal” was reached by 56.3% of our students in Grade 6, ranging up to 79.4% in Grade 7.
• Two classes took the new Science CMT tests. In Grade 8, 93.5% of students demonstrated Proficiency, and 77.8% reached Goal. In Grade 5, 98.9% demonstrated Proficiency and 82.8% reached Goal.

To identify areas for improvement, our administrators evaluate the performance of a given class, compared to this same class’s performance in prior years, within each tested subject (math, reading, and writing).  They further break down the trended scores by different strands, or skill areas.  Read the rest of this entry »

George was a volunteer Firefighter II and EMT1-A in California before moving to Woodstock four years ago. The photo below is circa 1990 when he was 29 years old and in good shape (we’ll take your word for it, George ). His firehouse was at the Riverside County/California Dept. of Forestry Fire Station in Anza, CA.

He tells us that the best experience he had during his years as a firefighter was delivering his son Nick with his own rescue squad. He said that this event was the one and only time he had to put his emergency obstetrics training to work and it was with his own wife.

George was also a Red Cross instructor and served with the hurricane Katrina aftermath training haz mat clean up personnel.

We talked about the other BOF candidates and George asked us “What has Powers and Richardson done for their community?” …. We drew a blank .

Don’t hesitate to let us know if there are any mistakes. Admin

from Another PTO Mom 

The PTO cannot work to back candidates in elections. It is against the SEEC rules. We will be silent in the upcoming elction. There will be no discussions at our meetings, no reminders to vote, no lawn signs.

Members of this community, however, should not ignore their civic duty and responsibilty to vote. I hope their are enough people willing to pay attention, to take time out of their busy schedules and get out there and VOTE!

by Working Together

Republicans, Democrats and Independents,

The Woodstock Republicans need your support in order to elect their BOF candidates who are fiscally conservative, but fair, able to work with others, value the maintainence of infrastructure, and support our fine schools-all in order to preserve their value and provide a community that is healthy and vibrant. The candidates believe in smart spending and are against a penny-wise pound foolish mentality that would lead our town down a dangerous path.

Below is the WRTC Platform. Please note our emphasis on leadership, fiscal planning, education, and environmental concerns. I think that readers, whether conservative or independent, will find our objectives fair, considerate, pertinent, and valuable in meeting the demands that our town will face in the coming years.

WOODSTOCK REPUBLICAN TOWN COMMITTEE PLATFORM

MISSION: The mission of the WRTC is to incorporate the objectives of our platform into an efficient, transparent, and accountable government that serves the town of Woodstock with honesty, pragmatism, and a spirit of cooperation, and that seeks to unite all townspeople with a clear vision for creating a healthy, safe, and prosperous community.

Our platform values are organized into four areas which provide a comprehensive approach towards meeting our mission. These areas include Leadership, Fiscal Responsibility, Education, and Environment. It is our belief that these values will be upheld with pride and courage by our members and our endorsed candidates. It is our hope that they will guide us and protect the community with a consistent conservative perspective during times of earned prosperity and in times of economic hardship.

Leadership:

1- Our leaders will uphold and defend the values of the WRTC platform
2- Our leaders will implement policies and practices in a manner that is fair.
3- Our leaders will be open to the ideas of all community members regardless of party affiliation.
4- Our leaders will communicate with the community on a regular basis with honesty and transparency.
5- Our leaders will encourage, recruit, and endorse the participation of all citizens in their government.
6- Our leaders will uphold the Town of Woodstock’s Code of Ethics.
7- Our leaders will enhance and encourage coordination and communication between all boards, town employees, and citizen committees so as to unify and to promote a common vision in a productive and efficient manner. Read the rest of this entry »