Woodstock CT Café

from John (March 31, 2006; exactly six years ago to the hour)

The recent Proposition 46 referendum (March 2006) was likely a tactic by Mr. Wetzel and the Citizens for Prudent Spending (CPS) and possibly the Board of Selectman (BOS) to destroy the Woodstock Board of Education’s (BOE) position with its projected budget deficit.

Both former First Selectman, Ernie Wetzel, and First Selectwoman, Ms. Wholean, spoke tepidly two weeks ago in the Villager before the referendum about their hopes that 46 would be repealed. Yet neither Wetzel, nor Wholean, lifted a finger (with the possible exception of the middle finger) to help promote the repeal to the Town citizens. This was a ploy foisted upon the Town electorate to suit Wetzel and the BOS/BOF needs. It can only be concluded that this was their strategy – e.g. re-enforce Prop 46 and completely undermine the BOE’s position.

It’s as though the BOS, the BOF, and Mr. Wetzel collaborated together with the CPS, to conspire to have a referendum to repeal Prop 46 that they knew could not win. There was no 200-signature petition to have a Town referendum. The BOS cooperated with these other conspirators by deciding that there should be a Town referendum even though 200 signatures were never obtained. Thus, the BOS nailed the BOE in a coffin with the referendum. They did so knowing that it would damage the position of the BOE irreversibly in their effort to secure a budget that would adequately support the Woodstock School System. To reiterate again-and-again, the BOS jerked around the Woodstock electorate to suit the needs of CPS and Wetzel’s obsessive attacks on the BOE. I remember feeling this way as I went to the polls that night after a long day at work.

Indeed, Mr. Wetzel has spoken venomously and obsessively about the horrible things the BOE is doing to the Woodstock Academy as though the BOE had attacked him personally (Wetzel was later added to the Trustees). To make matters worse, on a weekly basis the Villager chooses to interview spokesmen from the CPS starting with Wetzel and Schultz two weeks ago, followed by Mr. McCrillis last week, and then Mr. Whitham (past President of the CPS) this week. It has been stated at this website that Wetzel has a hotline to the Villager. It now appears that CPS owns this hotline.

The BOF can now point to a failed, fraudlently conceived referendum to back their position against the BOE. The position of the Board of Finance (BOF) as described in the Villager today demonstrated that the BOE is to get absolutely no relief from the BOF. This is indicated by the BOF denying use of emergency funds ($65,000) to pay the tuition fees for the seven Woodstock Academy students that exceeded the number projected in last years BOE budget. The way this denial is presented suggests that the BOF now wishes to punish the BOE for under projecting the number of new high school students as though the BOE should be clairvoyant to predict an influx of students.

The make up of the BOE is quite different this year than last with a new Chairman, Lindsay Paul and two new Board members, Carol Andrzeicik and Kirsten Rigney. Read the rest of this entry »

“The calculation of Proposition 46 in a revaluation year has been consistent over my 30 years as Town Treasurer and the legal opinions were consistent until 2006. At that time, a new First Selectman and a new Town Attorney produced a new interpretation which allowed for adding in the other increases in revenue which would be part of the calculation in a “non-revaluation year”.

The sequence of events at that time was as follows:

#1. A petition was submitted to hold a special town meeting and referendum to repeal the Proposition 46 Ordinance. The vote to repeal was held on March 14, 2006 and was defeated 499 to 1329.

#2. A second petition was then filed to amend the ordinance to use the greater increase plus the Exceptions allowed in a non-revaluation year. That vote to amend was held on April 24, 2006 and was also defeated by a vote of 673 to 1536.

#3. At the next Board of Finance meeting (May 9, 2006) it was decided that the voters had spoken and that the Board of Finance represents the townspeople whether or not they think that Prop 46 is prudent. The motion made at that meeting reads “while it has respectfully considered the Town Attorney’s new interpretation, the Board of Finance will continue to calculate Proposition 46 as it has previously been calculated in a revaluation year”. That motion was passed 4 -2.

#4. A subcommittee of the Board of Finance was then formed at the request of the Treasurer and upon the recommendation of the Town Attorney and the Auditor to review and make recommendations as to how Prop 46 is calculated and implemented. That subcommittee met with and/or had a conference call with all former Town Attorneys and Board of Finance Chairmen who had served since Prop 46 was adopted (1979). As a result of the committee’s findings, it was agreed that the method of calculating budgets under Proposition 46 had been consistent and had stood the test of time. Their report was accepted by the full board on November 16, 2010.”

An editorial in the Norwich Bulletin (not available today) urges amendment of Prop 46 in the upcoming referendum

from John who was then one of two anonymous Admins of the Cafe (April 21, 2006)

This story of early 2006 has never been more true than today.

I took time off from work this morning (Fri, Apr 21st, 2006) to listen to Everett Shepherd on WINY talk about the amendment to Prop 46 going to referendum on Monday. I was impressed by the clarity with which Everett articulated the need to make a change in the way Prop 46 is written. I learned things also that I did not know from Mr. Shepherd’s recounting of the history of Prop 46. As a permanent citizen of Woodstock, I thank him for such a masterful presentation on the radio. I can only hope that most of the electorate was tuned into this discussion.

In advance of the talk show, my biggest concern was that the phone lines would be flooded with nay-sayers who would then be allowed to continue their shouting campaign – but this did not happen, at least, until I out-distanced the WINY signal on my way to work. I learned later that the nay-sayers had used a fair percentage of the Villager’s pages to bark out their anti-repeal opinion.

Everett Shepherd reminded us that Prop 46 had been a non-issue up until the year 2000; however, he stated clearly that Prop 46 “hasn’t worked well” over the last 5 years. He mentioned the signs in town that state “It ain’t broke” but then emphatically he stated, “It IS broke!” This comes from the former chairman of the Board of Finance and one who openly states that he has always voted against repeal of Prop 46. Nevertheless, Mr. Shepherd has been in favor of amending Prop 46 for several years.

Mr. Shepherd described how State funding of schools has diminished significantly over the last decade leading to an increase of the burden of school funding by the towns. This, of course, is why many, if not all, of the school districts of Eastern Connecticut are dealing with large deficits and unfortunate cut-backs. He also reminded us that fixed costs such as gas, heating oil, electricity, and insurance rates have increased dramatically in recent years. Finally, Mr. Shepherd pointed out that Reval years used to occur every 10 years, not every 5 years, and that this change combined with increased costs and reduced State funding have created a “perfect storm” in the form of a budgeting crisis.

Steve Adams explained clearly how Prop 46 and its amended version differ and clarified the cost impact for the citizens of the Town if the amendment is adopted.

During this discussion it came out that for many recent years, the amount of Town spending allowed under Prop 46 was greater than the amount requested in the school and town budgets. Everett also added that he can speak freely now because he is not running for office. 

It’s my impression that in recent years the Board of Finance has put undo pressure on the Board of Education to reduce its budget proposal to a bare-bones request at the onset of the process (think Anthony Walker in 2012) without taking into account hidden costs such as depreciation of fixed assets. Thanks to the short-sighted leadership of Mr. Charles Snow, former Chairman of the Board of Education, the true needs of the school system were never articulated to the Board of Finance or even realized as the budget was formulated (again think Anthony Walker in 2012). The BOF compounded the problem by making it difficult for the BOE to obtain the necessary funding in spite of the fact that Prop 46 allowed for adequate funding in those non-Reval years. The BOE, likewise, compounded the problem further by cowering to the BOF. The Board of Selectman dropped the ball in overseeing proper accounting of the true needs of the Town (the salt facility, etc) although funding could have been available to prepare for replacement of fixed assets. The direct result of this penny-pinching by the BOF, and the cowering, ineffectual leadership of the BOE and BOS, is that we now have to pay for their robbery of depreciating assets with money that is not available because of Prop 46 in a Reval year. There has been no prioritization or intelligent judgment - just irresponsible leadership by a few who have deceived themselves with self-perceived importance… and higher pay to boot (Then First Selectwoman, Ms. Wholean gave herself a 9% raise the following year and a 13.5% raise over two years stating in 2006).

Our current leaders on the Board of Education have now stood up and stated the true needs of the school system in the face of criticism that they lack credibility because of the actions of previous Boards. In my mind, the new leadership of the BOE has earned credibility with the budget that they have proposed for the coming school year. Now, the BOF has to stand up and earn their credibility also. Previous leadership on the BOE and BOS – their failure to act responsibly – has put the Town in the situation that it is in today, and divided the Town’s electorate in the process.

from John (April 2006)

Lately I have run across quips like these almost on a daily basis. They resonate in my mind for reasons that must be obvious to the readers at this site. Just drive by Petey Racine’s house on Route 169 and see the sign that essentially says, ‘Petey Racine Rules’. This sign reaffirms that ‘Right‘ has nothing to do with the real world. I’m sure that these perceptions – like ‘You can’t fix stupid!’ – are also foremost in the minds of many Iraqis. But, it would be ridiculous to compare Woodstock to Iraq in spite of shared perceptions. Woodstock is more like Bahrain as intimated previously in In Woodstockistan and the adversarial ‘clique’ is becoming better defined.

There is a swami (Ernie Wetzel) at this site who claims ‘vast knowledge. But, right has nothing to do with the real world that ‘The Swami’ and Petey live in. The Swami and Petey have a lot in common, but I won’t go into that. Just as Café visitors have the liberty to express their thoughts and biases, we would not deny The Swami or Petey the right to express their views but this doesn’t mean that we should accept them as right. The Swami and Petey are the real world that those in the right just have to deal with.

‘Stupid’ will ultimately be fixed, but perhaps not quickly, although you never know. I would like to draw some inspiration from the source of Our Vallydictorian’s graduation speech. Faulkner spoke eloquently about what we must learn and what is really important. If we learn these things, we will not just survive, we will ‘endure’ and ‘prevail’ when ‘the last ding-dong of doom has clanged.’

For the time being where do we go from here? One option is explored under the article ‘Lets Not Stop Here.’ My preference is to have an optimally functioning Town that provides the best possible services to the community – a Town that is not divided by selfish people who have some personal agenda at stake. One example of a personal agenda would be the wish to pay little or no taxes at all. This point of view is illustrated in the article, ‘Cinquanta’s revenge.’ The same point of view is also expressed on Petey Racine’s sign where not only the victory in the latest Prop 46 referendum is regaled, but the ‘Selectmen’ are blamed. Sadly, the majority point of view in Town may have the selfish wish to pay little or no taxes at all. From what I have seen and heard, I don’t think I am creating a ‘straw argument’ when I say that the majority would prefer to pay little or no taxes. There may be some level of taxation that this majority would be okay with, but taxation for what? I am not at all clear what ‘what‘ might be. Read the rest of this entry »