Woodstock CT Café

Page 544 (http://sunshinereview.org/images/8/8c/Woodstock.pdf )
181 Conn. 544 (Conn. 1980)
436 A.2d 266

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WOODSTOCK ACADEMY et al.
v.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.Supreme Court of Connecticut.
July 22, 1980
Argued May 13, 1980.

Constance L. Chambers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Meriden, with whom, on the brief, was [436 A.2d 267]
Mitchell W. Pearlman, Gen. Counsel, Hartford, for appellee (named defendant).
Martha Stone, West Hartford, with whom was Donna D. Morris, for appellees (defendants Ernest M. St. Jean et al.).

[This suggests that CPS filed the original complaint with the FOI Commission]

Before COTTER, C. J., and BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY and PARSKEY, JJ. COTTER, Chief Justice.

Exerpts: “Since Woodstock Academy performs a basic governmental function in providing public education at a secondary school level, is nearly entirely (over ninety-five percent) publicly financed, has its operations examined and certified by the state board of education so as to be eligible for reimbursement for tuition fees by local towns and for other statutory benefits, and is an entity created by statute for the sole purpose of maintaining a public school for the benefit of the inhabitants of Woodstock and other towns in the vicinity, it must be considered a public agency for purposes of this state’s FOIA.” AND “It would be anomalous if Woodstock Academy could avoid the requirements of the FOIA and not disclose its financial records to those persons who fund its operation in light of its extensive involvement with state and town government.”

Page 545
The plaintiffs Woodstock Academy, its board of trustees and its officers appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Bernstein, J., sustaining a decision of the defendant freedom of information commission that Woodstock Academy was a “public agency” within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act (hereafter the FOIA). Since the FOIA subjects only public agencies to its disclosure requirements; General Statutes § 1-19(a); this case presents, as a matter of first impression, the significant question of what may constitute a “public agency” for purposes of the FOIA.

The defendants Ernest St. Jean, Vernon Fuerst and Robert Peabody, in their private capacities as public taxpayers in the town of Woodstock and as representatives of the Woodstock taxpayers association, filed a complaint with the freedom of information commission after the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the defendants’ request for the present

Page 546
and past financial operating records of Woodstock Academy. After a series of hearings the commission determined that the Woodstock Academy was subject to its jurisdiction because it was a public agency within the meaning of the FOIA and that the information sought by the defendant citizen group constituted public records. The commission then directed the plaintiffs to comply with defendants’ request. Upon appeal from these rulings, the trial court affirmed the decision of the commission.

The sole issue raised by the plaintiffs on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding that the defendant freedom of information commission acted legally in determining that Woodstock Academy is a “public agency” within the meaning of General Statutes § 1-18a(a).

The trial court’s finding, read in the light of the memorandum of decision, reveals the following:

Woodstock Academy, which is located in the town of Woodstock, was established by special corporate charter of the Connecticut state legislature in 1802. The charter, as amended by the legislature in 1933, provides that the academy’s sole purpose is to operate a school for the inhabitants of the town and the vicinity. [1; see footnotes] Since Woodstock has no public high school of its own, the town’s board of education, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-33, [2] designates, Read the rest of this entry »

The Woodstock Historical Society presents Z FLIX
Movies from Z’s “must see list”Featuring nature and outdoor themes Every Friday evening in JulyJuly 9, 16, 23, 30 at 7:30 p.m. Special family movies Sunday July 18 and 25 at 2 p.m. at Palmer Memorial Hall, 523 Route 169, Woodstock, CT In honor of the life of Douglas Craig Zimmerman (Z) 1957-2010 Admission is FREE Refreshments for sale.  Donations welcome. BYOSC  (Bring your own seat cushion) More info & directions:  www.woodstockhistoricalsociety.org

Powers’ began taking their case to the Villager in July 2006
First Hearing was held on July 17th 2006 (it was public at the Powers’ request)
Fall 2006 – Hearing Officer’s Final Decision and Offer ruled in favor of the Woodstock Board of Education on all issues.
Complaint about this decision filed in the US District Court - 5/25/2007
Judgement in the US District Court in favor of the School System -8/20/2008
Plaintiffs Appeal filed – 9/17/2008
Appeal failed – 4/30/2010

Ruling dated April 30, 2010

“Upon due consideration, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.” (in favor of the Woodstock Board of Education)

“…our review of the oral argument transcript and the court’s written opinion reveals that the court conducted a careful and independent review of the record.”

“…it (the court) carefully considered the Appellants’ (Powers) claims on appeal, and referred to facts outside of those found in the Hearing Officer’s Final Decision and Order where necessary.”

“The district court was correct to defer to the Hearing Officer’s determination that Ms. Fulco (subject’s fourth grade teacher) was credible and rejected the Appellants’ contention that the school thwarted Ms. Fulco’s efforts…”

“…the school made additional efforts to help…”

“Ms. Manning (SPED teacher) volunteered to help…”

“In light of (the) evidence, the Board’s (BOE) actions did not constitute a material failure of implementing the IEP.”

“We have considered the Appellants’ remaining arguments and find them without merit…”

An informal Sewer Report from Nary

At last night’s WPCA meeting, Joe Campbell reported the following. The Academy and the town are currently working on an agreement regarding payment of the sewer extension to the WA. This will be an audited agreement that will address the town’s concern over the school’s ability to pay the cost of the sewer extension in full.

There will be a public hearing followed by referendum because the town must be the owner of the project in order to receive the $1.4 million of USDA money. Only 45% of the $1.4 million ($630,000) is (free) grant money with the remaining $770,000 received as a 3.25% loan over 40 years. This offer was made approximately 6 years ago but wasn’t acted upon.

As an aside, the money loaned to the WA for the Events Complex comes out of stimulus program so can be loaned directly to the school.

If the town votes the transference of ownership down in referendum, the Academy will proceed with development of the sewer line anyway according to Campbell but the school (and town) will not receive the 45% in grant money only receiving the loan portion. After a period of one year, the line will revert to town ownership.

At this time, the developer’s agreement is not drawn up. The $1.4 million estimate was cited by CME Associates as the cost of the sewer project.

I knew someone (an elder child) who was completely dependent on elderly parents for support. The parents were not wealthy and would soon run out of money. The car that the parents bought this elder child stopped working. So the elder child begged and persuaded an elder brother to ‘loan’ money to buy a new second hand car. The money came from the elder brother’s meager savings. Once this car was purchased other unforseen expenses were incurred because of the car. So the elder child asked for more money from the parents. But the parents could only help with a little bit extra cash for two months which did not cover half of the debt that the elder child had incurred. Since the elder child had no income and could not hold a job, what is the solution. There is none given the track record and future prospects for the elder child.

One article on this subject:

In September 2006, an artificial turf field was unveiled to a packed house under the Friday night lights at Wisconsin’s Brookfield Central High School (BCHS).  In addition to a state-of-the-art field for football, soccer, track and the band, the synthetic turf brought the field utilization from 9% to 87%, with the largest benefactor being the school’s physical education program.

But if you broach the subject of the field in 2009, the widespread smiles seen at the unveiling have turned to sour faces by the community, school board, coaches and faculty. How did a beautiful 120 yards of green carpet come to be viewed instead as a political quagmire that left egg on the face of many?

It wasn’t the field, it was the funding …. (see the rest of this article here)

Also see a thorough article on “The spending spiral…” But in this case, USAToday is talking about big time HS football in places like Valdosta GA, and Denton and Odessa TX. The concept here is that these schools are competing for students from surrounding schools and systems and every student that leaves costs a loss of $8,000-$12,000 in tuition. With the new Killingly HS and school in Union, the Academy probably feels that they can reduce attrition and reverse the trend with Friday Night Lights. But this is an ever spiraling competion. It might be a better strategy to focus on academic programs.

If there are any handouts or if anyone wishes to summarized this presentation, we would be happy to publish these proceedings.

from Newcomer

For parents of children currently attending WES and WMS, you probably already know this from yesterday’s robo call. But as a reminder to anyone who is interested, a bullying and sexting forum is being held at WA in Bates auditorium on Monday evening, June 21st from 7-9pm. I believe WA is sponsoring this forum and I think the robo call message stated that Rep. Alberts and someone from the CT State police will be there. The message also asked that only children in grades 7 and up be brought along if a parent plans to bring a child with them. The message didn’t say why there’s an age limit but I’ll assume it’s because explicit language could possibly be used when discussing the sexting.

I’m glad WA is hosting this forum and unless something unexpected comes up at the last minute, I plan to attend. We haven’t dealt with sexting yet in our family and hopefully won’t have to, but the bullying has been an issue for a few years now. I’m glad to see both being taken seriously in a public forum.

from Anon

The Academy doesn’t need to spend the money on this project. Remember these layoffs are not for real they are forcing good local people to resign in some cases, under the claim of decreased enrollment. With less kids, why do they need more fields? I would really wonder if they will do this right.

It appears that the sprinkler system they have now is very questionable. It looks like they pump run off water from Route 169 and the poop fertilized hay field on the field and the well just fills the pond if it doesn’t rain enough . Is this what we want for our kids who would be getting skinned up knees and elbows on their fields?

The Café strongly urges our readers to support this recycling drive. The following is taken directly from the town website – Admin

NEWS RELEASE

Contact: Judy Walberg, Woodstock Town Clerk (860) 928-6595 x320 townclerk@woodstockCT.gov

 Town of Woodstock and Pomfret CT

Hold Electronics Recycling Drive

—Residents invited to recycle unwanted electronics

Woodstock, CT (April 22, 2010) – The Town of Woodstock & the Woodstock CT Green Energy Committee in partnership with the Town of Pomfret, & the Pomfret Green Team and Smart Technology Management, will hold an electronic recycling drive on Saturday, June 19, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Woodstock Town Hall, 415 Route 169 in Woodstock.  

Residents are encouraged to recycle the following items: CPU/computers, monitors, servers, keyboards, mice, inkjet or laser printers, VCRs, DVD players, stereo equipment, spare computer parts, laptops, network equipment, scanners, fax machines, cables and wires, aluminum, copper, rechargeable nickel cadmium batteries, cell phones or telephones. No alkaline batteries will be accepted.

 ”We also want to encourage households to bring their current CL&P statements with them to sign-up and start saving on their utility costs.  Our team will be there to show you how you can purchase 100% clean renewable energy and SAVE MONEY every month at the same time. It doesn’t cost your more – we SAVE you more money.  Join Woodstock in providing a cleaner, healthier environment for our future generations,” explains Jim Stratos, chairman of the Green Energy Team in Woodstock.

The following items are assigned a disposal fee: TVs, Vacuum Cleaners and intact air conditioners machines. Donations benefit Four Corners Community Chapel.  For more information, call 860-928-6595 x 320.

Smart Technology Management, a Lincoln-based company, recycles the electronic items. Their zero-waste policy means that everything is reused, resold, reclaimed or recycled.

Click to enlarge each page

Left is the full layout, center is the new football field with all of the accoutrements, right is the new baseball field.
Click each figure to enlarge

Con’s cryptic statement alluding to the possibility of a negative experience in Taxpayer’s early schooling prompted me to re-post this article which was first published on March 26, 2008.

A comment left today under “Outrage” struck a nerve with me. The comment described a teacher in the elementary school who is “emotionally cruel” to young students. The comment went on to say that other teachers who are aware of the abuses by this teacher have taken some action to bring this to the attention of the administration. But I have no other knowledge of this other than an understanding of the impact of such behavior, if it indeed exists.

There is only one teacher in my experience that fits the description of “emotionally cruel.” I have had many fine and supportive teachers and mentors from day-one in elementary school through college and graduate school during my 23 year-stint in formal education. These teachers have given me wonderful gifts. Yet this one teacher, my 2nd grade teacher Mrs. Golding, stands out in my memory for the negative impact she had on my life – manifest mainly in my attitude and confidence as a student. The last time that the attitude surfaced was in my senior year in college. I was attending Psychology 101 in early October because I was required to take a ‘Biology’ course to graduate. I was repelled by the treatment of another student in the class by this aberrant professor. I was so bothered by this ‘psycho’ that I did not return to the class until I received a mid-term F in March in the final months of my senior year. I then became brutally aware that, if I did not pass Psychology, I would not graduate from college; nor would I be able to accept the full fellowship to graduate school that I had been offered. During later reflection on this situation, l recognized that my behavior was linked to a deep-seated hatred for that rare teacher that practiced “emotional cruelty” with students – the male professor was the resurrection of my 1st grade teacher Mrs. Golding. The class was a large class of over 100 students. In spite of the skeptical chiding of fraternity brothers, I took the only remaining opportunity I had to pass the course by aceing the final with the second highest score in the class. For years after this, I had a reoccurring nightmare that I had failed the course and had not graduated. Read the rest of this entry »

from Taxpayer

See reference in comment. Admin

Below is an interesting correspondence from the DC school system. The new DC teachers contract demonstrates good compensation in exchange for accountability. See, it can be done-for the benefit of all!

June 2, 2010

Dear DCPS Community,

I’m very pleased to inform you that DC Public Schools teachers have ratified the WTU-DCPS teachers’ contract. With this contract we can reward teachers for a job well done, and empower and challenge teachers to succeed at the most important work in the country. The contract will also better enable us to support teachers who need help, and to easily separate teachers who are not effective in the classroom despite these added supports.

Here are a few highlights of this groundbreaking collective bargaining agreement:

Retroactive pay raises across the board: The contract will include a 20 percent pay increase over 5 years, beginning in 2007. This means that DC teachers will be among the highest-paid teachers in the country.

Individual Performance Pay: The contract will establish a voluntary pay system of individual pay for performance. Teachers must qualify into it, and teachers who perform well can earn significant bonuses each year.

Mutual Consent: Both the teacher and school must agree in order for a teacher to work in a school in the system.

Accountability: Teacher performance rather than seniority will drive decisions on staff changes resulting from fluctuations in programs or enrollment.

Due Process: If a teacher is separated for being ineffective but does not feel the decision was fair, they will have the right to grieve the termination if they feel the evaluation process was not followed.
Few pursuits are more important than teaching, and there is no job more challenging or valuable than teaching in an urban school system. I cannot overstate how pleased I am that we have reached this point. This contract is our honest and best effort to recognize the power of teachers to shape the lives of our city’s children.

Michelle Rhee
Chancellor

Are you in favor of the Proposed Budget shown in the post below?

YES = 342

NO = 152

9.8% of the voting population cast votes (494 votes).