Search This Blog

Sunday, January 31, 2010

POLL RESULTS - Should the testimonial dinner for Mayor Dickinson continue IF it is in violation of Connecticut General Statute Sec. 9-609?

My recent poll question “Should the testimonial dinner for Mayor Dickinson continue IF it is in violation of Connecticut General Statute Sec. 9-609” is now closed.

For those of you that have made comments regarding the ability to vote more than once on a poll, I have it set so that it is very difficult for most people to do this. You have to have enough knowledge to manipulate your browser and IP address settings enough for additional votes from the same system to register more than once and actually count.

The system is not fool proof but it does prevent casual voting manipulation.

Additionally, these are not meant to be scientific polls. They are meant to gather the thoughts and opinions of the participants.

There were 50 respondents in this recent poll.

9 of them (18%) felt that the event should be allowed to continue regardless of the ruling on the statute.

28 or 56% of the folks felt that the event should only occur after and ruling and it was found that the event was not in violation of the statute

13 voters (26%) thought the event should just be cancelled regardless of which way the ruling went.

I placed my own vote in the “Yes only if it is not in violation of the Statute” with the majority of the respondents. My thoughts have been if the ruling on the statute shows that it does not apply to the event, then the supporters should be able to have their event.

I also feel that if the ruling goes the other way, the event should be canceled. For all the difficulties in having to do that and some potentially lost monies, that is the right thing to do.

I find it interesting that 9 of the respondents indicated that they were OK with folks breaking a law since the first question stipulated that the event should be allowed to regardless of the Statute or any ruling on it.

The opinion of others is always very interesting to me. I would love to hear the reasoning or the justification on their thoughts on why they would support something like that.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Dinner for Dickinson postponed

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

As published in the Record Journal Saturday January 30, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

WALLINGFORD — Organizers of a dinner to honor Mayor William W. Dick­inson Jr. say the event will be delayed at least a month, now that a complaint has been filed with the State Elections En­forcement Commission, “We’re giving the elections commission a chance to look at this,” said Craig Fish­bein, a Republican town councilor who spoke Friday on behalf of the organizers of the event but is not involved in plan­ning it.

“We don’t think we’re doing anything il­legal. We’re giving (the commission) a chance to look at this,” Fishbein said.

Democratic Town Chairman Vincent Avallone filed the complaint Tuesday be­cause he said the dinner violates a state law that bars testimonials for elected offi­cials while in office.

The organizers of the event, a handful of local Republicans, have repeatedly stated that any profits from the dinner would be donated to a local charity, but the organizers’ first choice to receive the money, the Wallingford Center for the Arts, was not registered as a nonprofit charity, complicating the issue.

“I think it’s a good idea,” Dickinson said of the postponement. “I think it’s a wise course, rather than have something occur with some cloud hanging over it.”

When informed of the postponement Friday, Avallone offered little comment.

“I did what I had to do, so I really don’t have any reaction to what they’ve done,” Avallone said. “I’m sure they felt they did what they had to do.”

The $40-a-ticket dinner was originally scheduled for Feb. 6 at Villa Capri on North Colony Road, but has now been postponed to March 13.

Fishbein said the new date was chosen because it was the first date that Villa Capri had available, but the event could be postponed again or canceled if the elec­tions commission has not ruled on the complaint.

“We don’t want to break the law, but we don’t think the event is illegal,” Fishbein said. “You allow the process to occur by law, but if they dismiss the complaint then we’re going to have a grand old time.”

Nancy Nicolescu, a spokeswoman for the elections commission, declined to dis­cuss the complaint Friday. When asked if the dinner’s outright cancellation would negate it, she said, “I don’t know what the commission would do.”

The commission investigates more than 200 complaints a year, according to its Web site, and imposes sanctions in about two thirds of those cases.

The potential fine, according to Nico­lescu, would be $2,000 per offense against any person the commission finds to be in violation, or twice the amount of any im­proper payment or political contribution, whichever is greater.

GRAND LIST - No-growth grand lists mean facing up to ‘sobering reality’

Wallingford’s inventory actually declines, a sign of hard times

WALLINGFORD — The town released its 2009 grand list Friday, showing a decrease of $1,676,759, or about 0.04 percent, in the value of the town’s taxable property and real estate.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. termed the surprising drop a “sobering reality” of the tough economic times the town, state and nation are facing.

“It’s the first time I’ve ever seen this,” said Dickinson, who has held office since 1984. “I would say it’s a more troubled fiscal situation for the town go­ing into the 2011 budget than it was for the 2010 budget.”

The town’s current budget of $140.3 million grew by less than half a percent from the previous year, but from 2007 to 2008 the grand list grew 1.02 percent, giv­ing the town with an additional $1 million in tax revenue.

Dickinson said the new grand list, at $4.3 billion, means the town will enter the next budget year about $300,000 short in tax revenue, making an already tight budget even tighter.

“The bottom line is there will not be revenues generated beyond what we received in the current year for budget purposes,” Dickinson said. “So every budget that requests an increase, there is no new money generated to cover that increase ... there is no new money except for asking for higher taxes.”

Two of the list’s three categories, real estate and motor vehicles, actu­ally increased, at 0.62 percent and 0.95 percent, respectively; but per­sonal or business property saw a sharp decrease, of almost 8 percent. Assessor Shelby Jackson attributed the drop in personal property to two major factors: more businesses al­lowing equipment to depreciate without replacing it, and a new state law that exempts some machinery and equipment that had previously been taxable.

“It’s sort of like getting hit dou­ble,” Jackson said. “The assets are going down and we’re exempting more of what we would normally tax.”

Among the town’s top 10 taxpay­ers there was little movement, with Bristol-Myers Squibb far outpacing the other nine on the list with $126.95 million in taxable property and real estate.

The town’s seventh-highest taxpayer, Work­stage Connecti­cut, owners of the 325,000­ square foot Campus at Greenhill on Leigus Road, owes more than $750,000 in back taxes and is be­ing foreclosed on by the town. Comptroller James Bowes said it was wrong to as­sume that the town would not recoup that money. “The law office is all over it,” he said. Dickinson called the grand list a “critical tool” in fashioning the town’s annual budget, which by Town Charter he must complete by April 1.

“This is one of those indicators that really tells you what is going on with the economy and what will have a direct effect on our delivery of serv­ices,” Dickinson said, adding that it appears the town will have to face “a lot of tough decisions” in the coming months.

The grand list is not officially ac­cepted by the state until May 1. Be­fore that, the town’s Board of As­sessment Appeals will consider appeals from property owners who want to dispute assessments. The grand list will affect tax bills due in July 2010 and January 2011.


FROM WALLINGFORD - A cavalier attitude

JASON ZANDRI – FROM WALLINGFORD

Clearly, quite a bit of interest has spun up over the supporters of Mayor Bill Dickinson, wanting to honor his service to the town.

People that know me well enough know that I give the mayor his credit where it's due and have gone after him on issues where I feel he is not being open, objective and proactive with respect to our fine town.

It's also fair to say I do more of the latter than the former.

If the mayor's supporters wish to collectively pull together their own resources in order to have a testimonial for him and to celebrate his 25 years of service to the town, they should be allowed to do so - provided it is kept above board and does not consume tax dollars, I see no issue.

There is of course the matter of statute 9-609(b) that needs to be ruled on. (It can be found on my blog as cross-posted from the Connecticut General Assembly website.)

One lawyer has viewed it as not applicable to this testimonial and another has. As you can imagine, these views are not without the possibility of bias as one came from the Republican camp and one came from the Democrats.

Personal opinions on this abound, so we'll need an actual, legal ruling to be definitive.

My biggest concern comes from Robert Prentice, the chairman of the Republican Town Committee and his comments as quoted from the Record-Journal regarding cancelling the event:

"It would be very difficult to do that. Plus, the money we put out to Villa Capri already for down payments, that's money out of our own personal pockets," he said. "We got 200-plus tickets sold. You know what? We'll go through with it because what are they going to do to us, fine us?"

It concerns me when anyone is so full of bravado that they might willing disobey a law/statute/ordinance and boast of it in the newspaper.

To be fair, this hasn't been ruled on yet, so he may not be in violation of anything. If you read the quote, it certainly comes across as if it doesn't matter which side the ruling falls on. He's willing to move ahead, regardless.

People in a the place of public view such as celebrities, sports figures, politicians and so forth should understand that every-day Joe and Jane will hold them to at least an equal, if not higher, standard than themselves.

When they see this kind of cavalier attitude, how do you think they are going to respond? "If the law/statute/ordinance doesn't apply to them, why should it apply to me?"

Why should someone shovel their walk? "All they can do is fine me."

Why should they clean up their property? "The town doesn't self-police on the blight rules."

Why should they mind the parking regulations? "There are town cars illegally parked; they don't get ticketed so I don't expect to either."

I could go on, but my point is made.

You can't expect every-day people to follow laws/ordinances if public figures can't be bothered and are brazen enough to be quoted in the newspaper to that effect.

Laws, statutes and ordinances need apply to everyone equally.

There are two weeks to the testimonial; I would think a ruling could be had by then.

If the ruling on the statute shows that it does not apply, then the supporters should be able to have their event. If the ruling goes the other way, the event should be canceled. For all the difficulties in having to do that and some potentially lost monies, that is the right thing to do.

The mayor has been quoted as saying he is a reluctant participant to this event. I hope he doesn't end up in the category of "guilt by association."

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Avallone files complaint against Dickinson's dinner

Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:05 am | Updated: 1:19 pm, Thu Jan 28, 2010

Avallone files complaint against Dickinson's dinner @ MyRecordJournal.com

The chairman of the Democratic Town Committee, Vincent Avallone, filed a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) with respect to the testimonial dinner that is being put together by the supporters of Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.

The dinner is scheduled for Feb. 6 at the Villa Capri.

Avallone and others have reviewed Connecticut General Statute Sec. 9-609 and feel the dinner violates a state law that bars holding testimonials for elected officials while they are still in office.

Avallone was quoted in the paper as saying "If this isn't challenged, then friends and political supporters of the mayor must feel that he gets special consideration when it comes to compliance with the law."

The article indicated that Robert Prentice was made aware of the complaint and that the dinner would go on as scheduled.

Robert Prentice is one of the supporters that is working on the dinner is also the chairman of the Republican Town Committee.

In prior comments he was quoted saying in response to a question regarding the cancelling the event “We got 200-plus tickets sold. You know what? We’ll go through with it be­cause what are they going to do to us, fine us?”

I am authoring the topic for this week’s FROM WALLINGFORD and I will be offering my thoughts on the subject on Sunday.

I also have an opinion poll on the same here on the blog as well.

Please feel free to offer your thoughts.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Some doubt legality but fete for mayor is still on schedule

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

As published in the Record Journal Wednesday January 27, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

WALLINGFORD — De­spite being advised that the celebration could violate a state law, organizers of a dinner in honor of Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s 26 years of serv­ice say the event will go on as planned. A retired lawyer for the State Elections Enforce­ment Commission says the le­gality of the event should be in­vestigated.

A handful of supporters of Dickinson, a Republican first elected in 1983, have organized a dinner in his honor to be held Feb. 6 at Villa Capri on North Colony Road. Tickets cost $40 and include a buffet dinner, music from the Johnny Bass Band, speeches and danc­ing. The organizers, all Repub­licans, have said that any prof­its would be donated to the Wallingford Center for the Arts.

Upon learning of the dinner, however, Vincent Avallone, the Democratic town chairman, sent a letter last week to Robert Prentice, the Republican town chairman, advising him that the event appeared to violate a state law that prohibits testi­monials for elected officials while they hold office.

On Tuesday, Prentice said that after consulting several lawyers about the issue, the dinner would go on as planned and he was confident that it would not violate any laws.

“We’ve done some research and there’s no issue here,” he said. “Even though we don’t have it in writing from people on the state level, I’m 99 per­cent sure that we’ve done everything that we’re supposed to do. I’m pretty happy with what I’ve heard and I’m pretty confident that even if there is a complaint against us it’s not go­ing to go anywhere.”

But Ronald Gregory, a Wallingford resident who was a lawyer for the SEEC for more than 20 years, said he was trou­bled about the dinner after reading a news story about it. He said it raises a number of potentially troubling questions. “I just think somebody’s go­ing to have to file a complaint, because it deserves it. I think there’s too much confusion when there shouldn’t be,” he said. “The whole situation de­serves some scrutiny ... when it gets so muddy, I think it’s best that somebody official look into it.”

Gregory said that he called the attorney general’s office af­ter reading about the event, only to be told that the Walling­ford Center for the Arts is not registered as a charity .

An organization “duly or­ganized for charitable purpos­es” is exempt from the law and can hold testimonials for elect­ed officials to raise money, but Gregory said that he doesn’t in­tend to file a complaint with the SEEC because of his past asso­ciation with the agency.

“I’m not going to file a com­plaint,” he said. “I’d feel awk­ward because it would be be­fore my own commission.”

Mary Ellen Kingsland-Eckels, director of the Wallingford Cen­ter for the Arts, said Tuesday that organizers of the event had contacted the organization about receiving profits from the dinner, but that the organ­ization is still in the process of obtaining nonprofit status and would not be eligible to re­ceive the funds. Nancy Nicolescu, a spokes­woman for the SEEC, said Tues­day that no complaint had been filed regarding the dinner.

If a complaint were to be filed, the potential fine would be $2,000 per offense for any person found to be in violation, or twice the amount of any im­proper payment or political contribution, whichever is greater.

The law being cited is Sec­tion 9-609(b) of the Connecti­cut General Statutes.

Dickinson, a lawyer, said Tuesday he still plans to attend the event and that he believes the organizers are trying to find a charitable organization to sponsor it.

“I appreciate that people would like to do something of recognition for my time in of­fice,” he said. “But I’m not real anxious of being the center of attention.”

Sunday, January 24, 2010

MY TAKE on testimonial dinner for Mayor Dickinson; next week’s FROM WALLINGFORD

So I have posted the article from the Record Journal written by Dave Moran; the post is Statute a sticking point for Dickinson dinner

I have a POLL question up this week regarding the same here on the blog. Please consider weighing in.

Additionally, I have the actual statue - Sec. 9-609. (Formerly Sec. 9-333k). Party committees; designation as campaign treasurer. Limitation on multiple committees. Fund-raising events and testimonial affairs – posted from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap155.htm#Sec9-609.htm on the blog as well at Supporters of Mayor Dickinson are having a testimonial for him – is this in violation of Connecticut General Statutes?

I am planning to do my next FROM WALLINGFORD article on this topic as well.

Somewhere between the desire for the supporters to have a celebratory event for the Mayor, the statute itself and its interpretation, what is legally binding (or not), and political bravado, there are three simple sayings that keep going through my head:

 

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

“No one is above the law”

“No good deed goes unpunished”

 

Be sure to check out FROM WALLINGFORD next Sunday.

Statute a sticking point for Dickinson dinner

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

As published in the Record Journal Friday January 22, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

WALLINGFORD— Would a $40­per-ticket dinner to honor Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s 26 years of service violate a state law that pro­hibits testimonials for elected offi­cials while they hold office?

It depends whether you ask a De­mocrat or a Republican.

And with the two parties contest­ing the issue, it may come down to the state Elections Enforcement Commission deciding whether to levy fines if the Feb. 6 dinner is held. Democratic Town Chairman Vin­cent Avallone sent a letter to Republi­can Town Chairman Robert Prentice on Wednesday, advising him of Connecticut General Statute 9-609(b).

The statute, a copy of which was included with Avallone’s letter, says in part: “No testimonial affair shall be held for a candidate, or for an indi­vidual who holds any such office dur­ing the term of such office, except to raise funds on his behalf for purposes authorized in this chapter. A testimo­nial affair which is held by an organi­zation duly organized for charitable purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.”

Avallone, an attorney with a local practice, said his intention was not to intimidate Prentice into cancelling the event, to be held at the Villa Capri on North Colony Road, but merely to make him aware of a potential viola­tion of state law if it is held.

“I’ve made the chairman of the party aware of this statute and that, I believe, if it goes on it will be a viola­tion,” Avallone said. “There’s no threatening tone in it. It’s just a cour­tesy extended to Mr. Prentice.”

Avallone said he had spoken with state elections officials earlier in the week, and after the conversation he said he felt comfortable that his inter­pretation of the statute was correct.

“I discussed it” with the officials, he said. “I stated that I thought that this constituted a violation, and noth­ing that was said discouraged me and made me feel that my interpretation was wrong.”

Nancy Nicolescu, a spokeswoman for the commission, confirmed Thursday that Avallone did call the agency earlier in the week, but said policy prohibited her from comment­ing on specific situations.

“I can acknowledge that we re­ceived an inquiry; however, a complaint has not been filed,” Nicolescu said. “We don’t comment on third­ party activities.”

Avallone, who has served as Demo­cratic chairman since early 2008, denied having a political motive in sending the letter, but some of the event’s organizers, all of them Republicans, disagreed. Dickinson is a Republican.

“I think it’s sour grapes,” said Rosemary Rascati, a Republican town councilor and dinner or­ganizer. “I’m not happy be­cause I think this is being done deliberately. If you don’t want to come to a party, then don’t come, but to try and throw a monkey wrench into some­thing as innocent as a party” is­n’t right.

She noted that when local Democrats organized a retire­ment party for Iris Papale, a De­mocrat who left the council at the beginning of 2008 after more than 30 years, no Repub­licans kicked up a similar fuss. The statute, however, lists re­tirement dinners as an excep­tion.

Prentice, one of the organiz­ers, said Thursday he had not received Avallone’s letter and could not comment on it specifically, but that the party would likely go on because of the has­sle associated with cancelling. “It would be very difficult to do that. Plus, the money we put out to Villa Capri already for down payments, that’s money out of our own personal pock­ets,” he said. “We got 200-plus tickets sold. You know what? We’ll go through with it be­cause what are they going to do to us, fine us?”

Nicolescu said the potential fine, if a complaint were filed, would be $2,000 per offense against any person the com­mission finds to be in violation, or twice the amount of any im­proper payment or political contribution, whichever is greater.

However Craig Fishbein, a Republican councilor and local attorney, said he had reviewed Avallone’s letter Thursday and the statute and does not think the event constitutes a viola­tion. He said that since the din­ner was organized by individ­uals, it was the equivalent of throwing a birthday party.

“I feel comfortable that his in­terpretation of the statute is wrong, based upon the fact that it is my understanding that there is no money going to Bill Dickinson,” Fishbein said. “Any money left over from this din­ner is going to the Wallingford Foundation for the Arts, so that totally exempts it from the statute. ... Let’s say the Walling­ford Foundation for the Arts has a fundraiser and he was their guest of honor. Is that any dif­ferent?”

The event organizers, about a half dozen local Republicans, have said that any profits left af­ter all costs are paid will be do­nated to the arts group.

But Avallone is sticking to his guns.

“This is the situation: If it’s against the law, they shouldn’t do it. Whether he’s been there for 25 years — people may think he’s the greatest guy in the world — the mayor’s sub­ject to the law just like everyone else,” Avallone said.

Dickinson was sworn in for his 14th consecutive term ear­lier this month and is the sec­ond longest-serving mayor in the state, behind only Prospect’s Robert Chatfield.

A copy of Avallone’s letter was faxed to his office Thurs­day afternoon by a reporter, but by the close of the business day Dickinson, who is an attorney, said he had not had time to re­view it, was unfamiliar with the situation and could not comment.

Dickinson said last week that he was not too enthusiastic about the dinner.

“I guess I’m a reluctant par­ticipant,” he said.

VIDEO – Wallingford Town Council Meeting - January 12, 2010

Since the mayor has given the order to stop providing the Town Council and other meetings online, I have decided that in light of fact that there are other towns coming online to do this that I will provide the meetings as I am able to.

It’s your town – get informed and get involved.

Wallingford Town Council Meeting - January 12, 2010 - PART 1

Wallingford Town Council Meeting - January 12, 2010 - PART 2

VIDEO – Wallingford Planning and Zoning - January 11, 2010

Since the mayor has given the order to stop providing the Town Council and other meetings online, I have decided that in light of fact that there are other towns coming online to do this that I will provide the meetings as I am able to.

It’s your town – get informed and get involved.

Wallingford Planning and Zoning - January 11, 2010 PART 1

Wallingford Planning and Zoning - January 11, 2010 PART 2

VIDEO – Wallingford Inland Wetlands, January 6, 2010

Since the mayor has given the order to stop providing the Town Council and other meetings online, I have decided that in light of fact that there are other towns coming online to do this that I will provide the meetings as I am able to.

It’s your town – get informed and get involved.

Inland Wetlands January 6, 2010 - PART 1

Inland Wetlands January 6, 2010 - PART 2

FROM WALLINGFORD – Process and reason

This edition of FROM WALLINGFORD is written by my counterpart on the column, Stephen Knight

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in mo­tion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbal­anced force.” Newton’s First Law of Mo­tion.

Congress shall make no law . . . abridg­ing . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment 1, U.S. Constitution.

Please keep these two concepts in mind as you read how Wallingford School Su­perintendent deals with the reaction to his proposed 2010-2011 Education budget. Dr. Menzo came to Wallingford a few months ago. Surely he liked what he saw — a successful school system in a suc­cessful community. The temptation to continue with business as usual must have been strong. But Dr. Menzo also saw that his administration could not kick the financial can down the road any longer. The severe fiscal constraints at hand fi­nally had to be dealt with. There is a po­litical version of Newton’s First Law of Motion, and the resulting proposal is at­tempting to overcome it, and I applaud him for his effort.

As a consequence, he is now dealing with the inevitable pushback by all those whose lives will be affected by these changes. We read about the various meet­ings and forums and workshops being held to discuss how these changes would be implemented. This is all good, and is in recognition of the bedrock American tra­dition spelled out in the First Amendment quoted above. I truly believe that the re­sult of all of this will be a school budget in line with today’s financial reality paired with a constituency (parents, students, teachers, administrators, employees) that will have impacted the final design and implementation of these changes.

There are those, including my counter­part Jason Zandri, that hold that the process should have been reversed; that the administration should have convened a series of focus groups and workshops that included all the “stakeholders,” out of which proposals would have been devel­oped. Hence the process would have been a more transparent and cooperative one and thus easier for people to accept.

With all due respect, does anyone think that such a process would have resulted in anything other than protecting the status quo (See Newton’s Law above)? Would recognition of the fiscal corner we are painted into triumph over the under­standably limited albeit legitimate aim of preserving the existing jobs, programs and school system structure? Who would have developed any proposal to honestly confront the serious budget shortfall the town faces if they had no real responsibil­ity for mitigating it? Only Dr. Menzo and the BOE do, and we have to accord them the authority to carry out that responsi­bility. In exercising that authority, he has brought forth a proposal. Now it is being vetted by the public.

That is at the heart of a representative democracy. We elect people, therefore handing over power to do the govern­ment’s business. We do so recognizing that a municipal government of 43,000 people would devolve into anarchy if we all demanded input on every matter com­ing before it. We expect them to act, but if we take issue with those actions, the First Amendment empowers us to confront those public servants. That is the purpose of all the meetings. The result will never satisfy everyone, but it is the correct process being carried out in the correct order.

To quote Winston Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Our oftentimes messy, noisy chaotic political system has at its foundation a constant search for that perfect definition of “consent of the gov­erned.” That is what is playing itself out in Wallingford with regard to the BOE budget. The process will not have been easy or pain-free, but it will have been fair.

Testimonial tussle

As published in the Record Journal Sunday January 24, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

Editorial

Wallingford Republicans are holding a $40-a-ticket testimonial dinner for Mayor Bill Dickinson on February 6.

Some 200 tickets have been sold to date, yielding $8,000. The money will cover the cost of dinner and anything left over, accord­ing to Republican town Councilor Craig Fishbein, will go to the Wallingford Foundation for the Arts. None will go to Dickinson, who, in his characteristic way, has said he is a “reluc­tant participant.”

This is all well and good, but there happens to be a state law, General Statutes sec. 9-609(b). It defines a “testimonial” as being “an affair held in honor of an in­dividual who holds . . . an office subject to this chap­ter.” Then the section adds [with some significance given Dickinson’s “reluc­tance”] “No testimonial af­fair shall be held without the consent of such per­son.”

The section then forbids testimonials for anyone during the term of his or her office, except to raise funds as defined in the rest of the chapter.

What is a testimonial din­ner, anyway? It may mean merely a dinner at which tribute is paid to someone. More likely, especially in sports, it’s a fund-raiser. Hence, in the chapter of state law applying to elec­tion campaigns and ex­penses, it comes as no big surprise to find testimonial dinners regulated.

On the other hand, if no funds are to be given to Mayor Dickinson but will go instead to the Arts Foun­dation, a bona fide charity, is there any reason for a prohibition? There would seem not to be.

But there is a statute. The law is the law. Democratic Town Chairman Vincent Avallone, an attorney, has sent a letter to his counter­part, Republican Chairman Robert Prentice, referenc­ing the law in question. He has also been in touch with the State Elections Enforce­ment Commission, but has not filed any complaint.

Councilor Fishbein, who is also an attorney, has said he doesn’t think the dinner constitutes a violation of the law any more than a birthday party would. A birthday party could actu­ally be more of an issue since it results in gifts which are not condoned under the ethics rules.

So it boils down to con­flicting legal views of the situation, and that’s why our society has attorneys. Most laws and rules are ca­pable of multiple interpre­tations, and it is tough to be sure all the time. Perhaps the SEEC will be asked to rule, perhaps not.

One cannot live in the shadows of possible viola­tions, and one can only ad­mire Chairman Prentice’s approach: “You know what? We’ll go through with it be­cause what are they going to do to us, fine us?”

Exactly.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Supporters of Mayor Dickinson are having a testimonial for him – is this in violation of Connecticut General Statutes?

You decide.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap155.htm#Sec9-609.htm

Sec. 9-609. (Formerly Sec. 9-333k). Party committees; designation as campaign treasurer. Limitation on multiple committees. Fund-raising events and testimonial affairs.

(a) The chairman of each party committee shall designate a campaign treasurer and may designate a deputy campaign treasurer, or in the case of a state central committee, not more than two deputy campaign treasurers. The campaign treasurer and any deputy campaign treasurers so designated shall sign a statement accepting the designation, which shall be filed with the proper authority with the statement of designation required under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 9-602. No state central committee or town committee shall establish a committee other than a single party committee for purposes of this chapter. A party committee or a political committee organized for ongoing political activities shall form no other political committees, except that two or more such committees may join to form a political committee for the purpose of a single fund-raising event.

(b) As used in this subsection, "testimonial affair" means an affair held in honor of an individual who holds, or who is or was a candidate for nomination or election to, an office subject to this chapter. No testimonial affair shall be held without the consent of such person. No testimonial affair shall be held for a candidate, or for an individual who holds any such office during the term of such office, except to raise funds on his behalf for purposes authorized in this chapter. A testimonial affair which is held by an organization duly organized for charitable purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. A testimonial affair which is held for an individual upon his retirement from public office shall also be exempt from the provisions of this chapter unless a deficit exists from any such individual's campaigns for election or nomination to an office subject to this chapter. Any fund-raising affair for any candidate or individual who holds any such office for any purposes other than those authorized in this chapter shall be prohibited. Any person who organizes such a fund-raising affair shall be in violation of this section.

(P.A. 86-99, S. 12, 34; 86-240, S. 5, 12; P.A. 95-144, S. 8; P.A. 96-119, S. 9, 14.)

History: P.A. 86-240 amended Subsec. (a) to permit chairman of state central committee to appoint two deputy campaign treasurers; P.A. 95-144 amended Subsec. (a) by deleting provision that deputy campaign treasurer or treasurers serve only in event that campaign treasurer unable to perform his duties; P.A. 96-119 added provisions in Subsec. (a) to require the designated campaign treasurer and deputy campaign treasurer to sign and file a statement accepting designation, effective January 1, 1997; Sec. 9-333k transferred to Sec. 9-609 in 2007.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Wallingford vs. AG’s Office trial delayed

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

As published in the Record Journal Thursday January 21, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

WALLINGFORD— Since they waited eight years to try the case, both sides decided they could wait a little longer.

No sooner had the trial between the town and the state Attorney General’s Office gotten under way Wednesday in New Haven Supe­rior Court, than both sides agreed to table the matter for at least an­other week while the judge re­views the facts. “All this preparation for a delay,” Town Attorney Janis Small said af­ter the proceedings had concluded for the day, a little less than an hour after they began.

Shortly after Alan N. Ponanski, the attorney representing Richard Blumenthal’s office, delivered his opening arguments, he asked that Judge Robert Berdon allow for a le­gal process known as stipulation to agreed facts.

The process lets the disputing parties come to an agreement about the facts in a case and pres­ent them to the judge for review. Ponanski said his intention was to streamline the proceedings and save both parties time and re­sources.

Berdon and Small agreed to the request, and Berdon told the two sides to contact him Jan. 27 so they could discuss a date to continue the trial.

“In trials where you both can agree on the facts, you submit them to the judge for review,” Small said. “It’s meant to save time.”

Resolving the fate of the 41 S. Main St. structure, however, has been anything but expedient.

The town purchased the build­ing — which is next to Town Hall and listed on the National Register of Historic Places — in 1994 from American Legion Shaw-Sinon Post 73 for $194,000.

At the time, Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said the intent of the purchase was to gain space for ad­ditional parking and a possible ex­pansion of Town Hall.

But when the town attempted to demolish the building in 2002, since it did not want to be respon­sible for its upkeep any longer, Blu­menthal’s office filed an injunction on behalf of the Connecticut His­torical Commission.

Since then, the edifice has dete­riorated, while the Town Council has rejected a string of inter­ested buyers for a variety of reasons.
Dickinson, a trained attor­ney, sat beside Small Wednes­day as the defendant in the case.

In his opening arguments, Ponanski said that any build­ing listed on the historic reg­istry in Connecticut is pro­tected by state law just like clean air or water, if not more so because of its historical sig­nificance and inability to be replaced. He shifted the blame to the town for knowingly purchasing a historic structure with the intent of demolishing it.

“It doesn’t matter if George Washington slept in this build­ing or not, it has the same pro­tection as Mount Vernon; it is a treasure to the United States of America,” Ponanski said. “This building was on the reg­ister and (the town) knew it and they bought it and they wanted to take it down.”

When the council discussed possibly selling the building at its Jan. 12 meeting, Small said that Wallingford Center Inc., the nonprofit organization that promotes the town’s central business district, lobbied for the structure to be placed on the historic registry in 1993.

She said the building itself was not historic, but was added because it is considered a part of what makes up the town’s parade ground.

Ponanski said his office was seeking a permanent extension of the injunction and to com­pel the town to adequately maintain the building until a buyer could be found.

“Make sure the doors are closed, the windows are shut — or if they’re broken, to be repaired — and that any water seepage is closed,” he told the judge. “We’re looking for something low cost until the building can be sold.”

Small said she would deliver her opening argument when the trial resumes and that she expects the case to take only a couple of days to argue. How­ever, it could take Berdon sev­eral months to issue his deci­sion, she said.

POLL @ MYRECORDJOURNAL.COM - Should Jerry Farrell Jr. retain his seat on the Wallingford Town Council while campaigning for secretary of the state?

Go online now to the Record Journal to voice your opinion.

MyRecordJournal.com

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Farrell to run for secretary of the state

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD - Surrounded by his family, friends and more than 100 supporters, Jerry Farrell Jr., state consumer protection commissioner and a longtime Republican town councilor, declared his candidacy for Secretary of the State Tuesday, pledging to use the office as a vehicle to promote small business growth and as an avenue toward making government more efficient and accountable.

"When someone approaches the secretary of the state about opening a new business, I want them to walk away with the knowledge they need to accomplish their goals," Farrell said during a lengthy speech. "There is so much that the secretary of the state's office, because it is that initial contact for so many new businesses, can do to get our economy going again."

A handful of prominent state Republicans, including Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, who is seeking his party's nod for governor, and Rob Simmons, a candidate for U.S. Senate, attended Farrell's press conference in the main manufacturing room of Component Engineers on North Plains Industrial Road, as did a number of prominent local Republicans, including Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. and most of the Republican town councilors.

The event was held at the local manufacturer of precision metal components because of the Farrell family's ties to the community, according to Clayton Oliver, Component's office manager.

"They wanted a manufacturing company in the area and they approached us. And we were more than happy to oblige," Oliver said.

Farrell's father, Gerald Farrell Sr., owns a law firm on Center Street and has served as assistant town attorney since 1984. Jerry Farrell serves as an officer for a number of community organizations, including the Wallingford Historic Preservation Trust, and has been on the Town Council since 1996, becoming council vice chairman this month.

"It's somewhat expected, but gratifying," Farrell Sr. said of the large turnout in his son's honor. "He's always been public-spirited. One of the first things I remember him doing is helping to clean out the vault at the old town hall when it moved over to where it is now."

Farrell was appointed consumer protection commissioner in December 2006 by Gov. M. Jodi Rell. Prior to that, he was deputy commissioner for two years and worked as an attorney in his father's firm, Farrell, Leslie & Grochowski, for 11 years.
But Farrell's announcement wasn't simply a partisan affair, as several prominent local Democrats turned out to throw their support behind his candidacy.

"I'm very excited for him," said Iris Papale, a Democrat who left the Town Council at the start of 2008 after more than 30 years. "I think he's going to be perfect. He's qualified, and what a wonderful thing for Wallingford to have someone up there in that position - forget the party line."

Several other candidates are running or considering running for secretary of the state, including Republicans Richard Abbate and Corey Brinson and Democrats Denise Merrill, Jonathan Harris and Gerry Garcia.

Only one town resident, Leverett M. Hubbard, has ever held a statewide office in Connecticut, according to a search of Connecticut State Library records. Hubbard, a Republican who died in 1906, was secretary of the state from 1887 to 1889, according to the library.

But Farrell hadn't even made his announcement official before some in the community began expressing their concerns that with a taxing full-time job, a statewide campaign on his hands and a wife and two young children at home, he might not have enough time for Town Council business.

"I just don't know how he has the time to devote to the council that should be devoted to it, if in fact he's taking on all the challenges of all the positions that he holds," said Vincent Avallone, Democratic town chairman, who did not attend Farrell's press conference. "I just don't know how there are enough hours in the day."

Farrell said he would resign his council position if he is elected secretary of the state, but that until then he does not foresee any time or scheduling conflicts with his other duties.

"I'm going to be there at every meeting this year, making sure that what people elected me for gets done," Farrell said. "I normally get up at 4 a.m. - I got up at 2 a.m. this morning - so if I need to lengthen my day to get everything done, I don't see it as a problem."

Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.

Friday, January 15, 2010

FROM WALLINGFORD - School budget: the wrong approach

JASON ZANDRI

The Superintendent and the Board of Education are proposing, in concert with the principals, to reconfigure the eight elementary schools into K-2 and 3-5 sister schools as part of the recent budget proposal.

Municipal budgets are generally based on the premise that there are unlimited resources because there is the ability to just up taxes or levy fees on a captive audience - the Wallingford business owners and the Wallingford home owners.

We can't afford to do that anymore.

Any available reserves that the town might have in the "rainy day fund" the Mayor will not leverage, for better or for worse. One could certainly argue that if it is not raining now, when is it ever?

The cost to continue business as usual at the present level of services for the school district was going to increase the budget request by about 10 percent. Historically, whatever the Board of Education asked for was effectively reduced by about half by the Council and / or the Mayor. That would still be nearly 5 percent more.

I don't believe anyone is interested in paying more taxes, especially not on the order of 5 percent, never mind 10. There will be some level of increase in our taxes - I am hoping we can minimize that increase. There is going to be some job loss - I hope that can be minimized as well. I am hoping we can stretch and find ways to NOT lose the service level for the kids with all this occurring.

I've talked to a lot of people, some parents, some teachers, and some people who don't even have kids. Most agreed that something has to be done. A lot of them can see the argument for the case being presented by the Superintendent; it was the delivery of the messaging that put many of them on the defensive.

I would hate to have found out in the newspaper that my company was restructuring and letting people go. I would like to have been notified ahead of time.

I would like to have been a part of the proposed solution by being asked for input or perhaps in helping to find ways to contribute to cutting other costs in an effort to save some jobs.

As a parent I would like to have known this was coming. I'm pretty tuned in - more than most. It's always possible I missed the announcement of meetings for input but knowing that the teachers were blindsided makes me think otherwise.

I agree with the argument that we elect our officials to represent us but I think it would have been better to include the citizens on the plans as they were being developed and solicited some input from them regardless of that supposed representation. Asking for input during the budget presentation of a fully-baked proposal almost seems futile; I find it hard to believe that anyone is accepting input and making changes now.

To me, the budget and proposal are being presented more in the fashion of "here's what we're going to do" rather than "here's our plan - what do you think."

I'll paraphrase Steve Knight from last week - there are always opportunities to build transparency and cooperation between the branches of town government, between the Mayor's Office, the Town Council and the Board of Education.

I want to know where the transparency and cooperation between the government and its people was.

Where was the call for input ahead of time for this budget proposal from those that would be affected the most - the teachers, the parents, and by proxy the students?

It seems to me that we're being told what we need rather than asked what we want.

That is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as far as I am concerned.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Farrell likely to seek Secretary of the State position

Please see Dave Moran’s full article and all the latest headlines at MyRecordJournal.com

Jerry Farrell Jr., a Republican, has served on the Wallingford Town Council since 1995. He was also appointed commissioner of the state Department of Consumer Protection by Gov. M. Jodi Rell in 2006.

Farrell has scheduled a press conference, 3 p.m., Jan. 19 at Component Engineers in Wallingford, to officially announce what position he will seek.

According to the story online at MyRecordJournal.com, a number of sources have hinted that he would announce a run at the position of Secretary of the State.

Read the full details at Farrell likely to seek Secretary of the State position

2010-2011 Budget Workshop Proposed Budget Book (PDF Files)

As provided from the Wallingford Public Schools website

2010-2011 Budget Information/Presentations (PDF Files)

As provided from the Wallingford Public Schools website

 

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

MY TAKE - Council rejects sale of Legion building

So here are the details from last night’s Town Council meeting on the subject.

The full story can be read from the article in the Record Journal.

Councilor John Le Tourneau put an item on the agenda – the proposed sale of the American Legion Building – up for another vote.

With three new members on the council there was some hope that the town could take some action on the property other than going to court.

The vote went down 5-4 to not endorse the sale of the building.

The motion was made to sell and the YES votes were

Vincent Testa
John Sullivan
John LeTourneau
Jerry Farrell, Jr.

 

The remaining councilors below voted NO

Nichnolas Economopoulos
Robert Parisi
Rosemary Rascati
Vincent Cervoni
Craig Fishbein

 

So from here we will spend time and money to fight our stance in court that we should keep the property for an expansion of Town Hall that will never happen.

The Mayor will not put any money into the building so it will slowly become more of an eyesore as it falls into further disrepair. (By the way, if you or I owned this property and allowed it to become an eyesore we’d get hit with the blight ordinance.)

We may lose the court fight after spending the time and the money and have to put money into it to do something with it.

Or we might win and then we get the benefit of the expenditure to tear it down.

We already own the parking we sought to own with the original purchase of the building.

If we could sell the building and just the footprint that it sits on why wouldn’t we want to get some badly needed money AND put a building back onto the tax rolls?

We had two interested buyers in the past 12 months with the higher of the two offers in the $60,000.00 range. It might not seem like a big offer but all they would be getting is the building; there is no real property being transferred and no parking other than shared municipal parking to the rear of the building.

Additionally, there has been no heat in the building for the better part of the last decade and a ton of weather damage. Estimates to repair the building to a useful function would be two to four times the purchase offer price. 

If we ever needed to expand Town Hall it would be backwards off the existing building into the parking area in the rear (when facing the building from the front) and not off to the right onto the American Legion property.

Well – the council is in charge of property matters and this one is now settled; we’re off to court on the 20th.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Should Wallingford consider a single high school solution?

On Sunday, the Record-Journal published an opinion column by former Board of Education member Len Suzio arguing that the city of Meriden should consider building a single high school on the vacant Hub site between Pratt and State streets downtown.

Suzio said Monday that a single high school holding the city’s 2,500 students would save money by consolidating resources and would free up the former Platt and Maloney parcels for economic development.

“I think it’s irresponsible not to take a serious look at this,” Suzio said.

So with all the discussion about the Board of Education budget in Wallingford lately I wonder what people in town think about a proposal like this?

Should we take a look at the potential savings of combining Lyman Hall and Sheehan into a single “Wallingford High School”?

It’s been discussed before and the idea dropped. I always wondered why.

Meriden is looking to potentially house  2,500 students under one roof – should Wallingford consider this too?

We have less total students in the two high schools than that. If they can come up with a plan that works we should be able to mirror that solution.

What about combining the two middle schools?

I would think that a single campus high school and a single campus middle school would save a ton of money for the town and potentially free up two pieces of property for other municipal use.

What do you think readers?

Sunday, January 10, 2010

WALLINGFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION 2010-11 PROPOSED BUDGET

The Wallingford Public Schools Board of Education 2010-11 proposed budget is now online and available for download.

WALLINGFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION 2010-11 PROPOSED BUDGET

The PDF file will require Adobe or similar application that can read the portable document format.

The file is about 130 pages long and about 7MB to download.

Elementary School Reconfiguration Plan

The Wallingford Elementary School Reconfiguration Plan is now online and available for download.

Elementary School Reconfiguration Plan

The PDF file will require Adobe or similar application that can read the portable document format.

MY TAKE – How the parents can address everything going on with the Board of Education and the School Budget

Full disclosure – My oldest son, Andrew, is in Kindergarten in Stevens School and will be affected by the proposed changes and I have three more kids yet to enter the school system.

Since the press release in the Record Journal of all the planned changes proposed as part of the budget for the Board of Education, there has been a frenzy to get more information and a rally among parents with respect to “what’s next" and "what can we do”.

I’ll probably write my next FROM WALLINGFORD article in next Sunday's Record Journal on the subject but here are some immediate thoughts.

Make sure you have all of the information that you can get your hands on with respect to this proposal; both what is being proposed by our Superintendent and the Board and what has been tried elsewhere. Not everything they are suggesting is bad or out of place especially in these tough financial times. We need to review everything and make sure we point out to them what has worked elsewhere and what didn't.

Grade Span Configuration Research Study at http://bit.ly/5VLjZq is one example; I am sure there are others.

A friend of mine recently commented “kudos to the BOE in Wallingford for trying to create a budget based on some fiscal responsibility... The budget process in government is (usually) based on the premise that there are unlimited resources.”

He’s right.

Government generally never bases its budgets on fiscal responsibility because there is the ability to just up taxes or levy fees on a captive audience - the Wallingford business owners and the Wallingford home owners.

If Main Street businesses ran their business like this, allowing their costs to spiral out of control and raised prices indiscriminately to meet these expanding costs, you the consumer would just take your dollars elsewhere and they would cease to exist. As a taxpayer to a given town and state you are captive to that environment and bound to pay the taxes and fees as levied. The only way to avoid that is to move and then you’re subject to a different set of taxes and fees.

Taxes and fees are all devised the same way from town to town and from state to state. Some may be more favorable elsewhere (better tax rate, lower fees, etc) but they all are the same – generally put together based on the premise that there are unlimited resources because of the captive audience that is the citizenry that MUST pay taxes.

Quite frankly too, it’s all our fault.

The same 12 people attend the town council meetings.

The same 30 people or so run for public office every two years. Once in a while there is a new name and a new face but they are coming out of the same pool.

The same 45% of the local registered voters turn out at local election time and the majority of them put the incumbents back into office. (One incumbent was voted out in 2009).

This last election in 2009 that registered voter turnout number was below 37% the lowest number in about twenty plus years.

Did you vote?

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You cannot put an incumbent that goes a certain way back into office and expect them to suddenly do something different for you. If they already match your line of thinking – great. If not, you need to get to know the other candidates and support them at election time. That means not only voting for them but getting your friends out to vote for them too. You don't cheer for your favorite football team alone - you want to recruit other people to do the same. You need to get jazzed up over local candidates for office in the same manner. It sounds totally off the wall but shouldn't you be as much of a cheerleader for someone running for office that has the same heart and mind as you do? Some of you have a tremendous amount of distain when someone proposes something COUNTER to the way you think; turn that into a positive in 2011 and really push for the people that will get you what you want and need.

Most people claim they can’t afford the time to get involved so the government machine churns on with no one minding the store, save the politicians elected to the offices. Everyone needs oversight or they will follow human nature and do whatever they please. How can you afford NOT to get involved? Part of the reason you're so busy is you're working extra to pay the taxes and fees that your representatives are setting.

“We the people” are supposed to be that oversight but no one volunteers for duty. Oh a few claim they do every year at election time (again - locally less than 45%) but after the vote where are they for the next two years?

So I ask all of the parents specifically – after this issue is over – favorably to what you’re looking for or not, are you going to stay engaged so that it never happens again?

The sad part of is that most of the citizens will disengage and they will not come back to fight until the next time there is a major issue to address.

That is the mistake.

This fight never ends – it is always ongoing and you must be involved as part of the process or the elected individuals will go about doing their job the way they see fit because they are not getting a whole lot of input.

Some will try to do the best job they can.

Others will do the job the best they can while having it be most self serving to their career.

Some will only do the job in a way that is most self serving to them and that is it.

What can you do?

Make it a point to stay engaged; it is a lot of work but this is not a one issue thing. We are not suddenly where we are today by a single erroneous event from the last fiscal year. Some of this is years and years of not planning correctly and being reactive to issues rather than proactive. That is what has gotten us here and has required this sudden, drastic move by the Superintendent needed to try to steer us back onto the rails.

Attend the meetings and provide your input. Enough with the "I need to be careful of my job" and "I can't speak up because of my delicate position in the town / school system / social status in the sewing circle" - I know some of you, you're not that delicate and you usually don't allow people to walk all over you. This is your town and these are your tax dollars - make sure they are both handled the way you expect them to be.

Letter writing campaigns - write the Board of Education, write the Town Council, write the Superintendent and write to the Mayor. Tell them what you like and what you don't like about the proposals. Offer other suggestions that might be used as solutions. It's fine to say "this stinks" but unless you offer an alternate consideration for them to explore what do you expect them to do? They are presenting this and they are looking at it as the best solution they can come up with to the problem. If you have a better idea to save money offer it.

Write letters to the editor at the Record Journal. As you make your thoughts known to others in town on such a wide scale with your letters in the paper you might encourage others to come out and get involved as well. Not everyone is an extrovert and not everyone feels confident to speak and be heard. Some people are slow self starters and need good peer leaders to help them find their footing to speak out. Be a leader and encourage others. It helps the cause and it helps them.

Finally, if you feel like you can't bring yourself to do these things for you then do it for your kids. They are in the school system and they will be impacted by these changes.

Some of you grew up with me; you never left town either (or you left and came back) - what are you leaving to their future if they decide to do the same and stay in Wallingford.

What is the Wallingford that you want them to inherit?

This is your town - get informed and get involved.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

FROM WALLINGFORD - Honesty and forthrightness

This edition of FROM WALLINGFORD is written by my counterpart on the column, Stephen Knight

As posted online at MyRecordJournal.com on Friday January 8, 2010 for publication in Sunday’s paper on January 10, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

"Necessity is the mother of invention." Yet another example of the accuracy of this trite phrase we all learned as children has come forth in the form of the proposed Wallingford school system budget unveiled last Tuesday night by Superintendent of Schools Sal Menzo. Another way it might be put is "innovation born of desperation."

Well, maybe desperation is too strong a word, but certainly there appears to be a realization on the part of the superintendent and his school administrators and central office staff that the state's financial problems are going to affect them - and affect them big-time. And also that this situation had to be addressed in the way that we chumps in the private sector have had to for some time - by finding new ways to do more with less - a lot less.

Now the public education bureaucracy in the United States is not exactly known for innovation. The sheer size of the bureaucracy and the machinations of the National Education Association have combined to stifle practically every innovative practice that has been attempted, from school vouchers to school choice to privatizing school administration.

So to see how creatively and substantively our school system is meeting the financial challenge is a really positive and exciting development. I am especially intrigued by two aspects of the superintendent's proposed budget: the realignment of the elementary schools and the budget process itself. Both are real departures from how business has been done here for many years.

Elementary School Realignment: in speaking with Board of Education Vice Chair Roxane McKay, I learned that having separate schools for kindergarten through second grade and third through fifth grade is not a new concept. Nevertheless, it represents new thinking here, and bringing this from just an idea to an actual plan has taken enormous effort from not only the superintendent, but also the principals of all eight schools and the central office staff. The result will not only be a saving of almost $2 million through regrettable but nonetheless necessary staff reductions, but also will markedly improve the schools themselves and the educational experience they deliver to the children. Other benefits include a better balance of class sizes between schools and more effective use of teachers in certain specialty areas.

Development of the school budget: For years and years, the budget for the school system has been built like this: A) Superintendent proposes budget with almost double-digit increase. B) Board of Education churns through massive document, nibbles around the edges and throws it to mayor still with most of huge increase intact. C) Mayor slashes proposed increase by 40 to 50 percent to an increase the town can digest. D) Town Council ruminates over it and essentially buys the mayor's number. E) Budget is adopted and school system "pre-buys" goods and services with "surplus" it has created over the previous year to offset impact of the reduction in original requested increase. Rinse. Repeat next year.

This year is radically different. The superintendent has done the heavy lifting already. The proposed increase is half what is usually requested, and his budget includes substantial reductions in staffing, not all a result of the realignment. I expect the BOE will largely agree with the proposal, and thus the mayor will receive a budget re-quest based in reality rather than one from which he must squeeze out the excess. This is a great step forward for all of town government. Sal Menzo has gone out on a limb with this and has done away with the "Hot Potato, Hot Potato" game that has characterized education budget creation for years and years.

It is hoped that the mayor and town council will show their support for his honesty and forthrightness by leaving this proposal largely intact. Thus would be born an opportunity to build the transparency and cooperation between the branches of town government that would be of lasting benefit to everyone involved.

Wallingford Public School Budget and the proposed changes – the ongoing story

I am sure everyone with a kid in the Wallingford School system is (or should be) tuned into what is going on with respect to the Wallingford Public School Budget and the proposed changes being presented for consideration.

There are meetings that started today Saturday the 9th of January and will carry on over the remainder of the month with a culmination with a meeting with the Town Council.

I have a list of recent articles published at the Record Journal on my other blog “From the Mind of Jason Zandri

I have the current budget and I will work to get this scanned and online.

If you cannot attend all the meetings they will be on public access to view at a later time and I am working to get the recorded DVDs of the meetings to get them posted online.

Your input here as part of this process, whether you are “just” a resident taxpayer or have a child or children in the school system, is critically important.

Your elected officials are here to represent you; only you can make sure they do that.

If you do not offer your constructive input to them they can only take action on the best of their own ability.

It’s your town – get informed, get involved.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Wallingford BOE Budget Meeting Schedule and PowerPoint Link

Here is a link to the BOE Budget PowerPoint as a PDF http://bit.ly/5toPpZ

 

  • 55.6 FTE Certified Staff Cuts
  • 117.1 Non-Certified Staff Cuts (Part Time/Full Time)
  • Loss of Neighborhood Based Elementary Schools
  • Pay to Play in the High Schools

Date

Time

Location

Topic

Tuesday, 1/5/10

7:00 p.m.

Sheehan Auditorium

Board of Education Operations Meeting – including2010 Budget Overview

Saturday, 1/9/10

8:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

Sheehan Auditorium

Budget Workshop #1:

Ø Food Services ( 8 – 8:30)

Ø Elementary (8:30 – 9:30)

Ø Middle School (9:30 – 10:00)

Ø High School (10:00 – 10:30)

Ø Adult Ed/ School to Career (10:30 – 11:00)

Ø Special Education (11:00 – 11:30)

Ø Maintenance (11:30 – 12:00)

Ø Lunch

Ø Information Technology (12:30 – 1:00)

Ø Central Office/Business Office (1:00 – 1:30)

Ø Final Review (1:30 – 2:00)

Tuesday, 1/12/10

6:00 p.m.

Sheehan Drama Lecture Hall

Budget Workshop #2

Wednesday, 1/13/10

6:00 p.m

Sheehan Drama Lecture Hall

Budget Workshop #3 (if necessary)

Tuesday, 1/19/10

6:00 p.m.

Sheehan Drama Lecture Hall

Budget Workshop #4 (if necessary)

Wednesday, 1/20/10

6:00 p.m.

Sheehan Drama Lecture Hall

Budget Workshop #5 (if necessary)

Monday, 1/25/10

7:00 p.m.

Sheehan Drama Lecture Hall

Monthly Board of Education Meeting – including Budget Approval

Record Journal Wallingford parents rally against school budget cuts

Facebook Event http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=235022279115&ref=nf#

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Wallingford Board of Education Workshop Session Schedule

All meetings are to be held in the Sheehan High School auditorium

Saturday January 9, 2010 from 8AM to 2PM

Tuesday January 12, 2010 beginning at 6PM

Wednesday January 13, 2010 beginning at 6PM

Tuesday January 19, 2010 beginning at 6PM (if needed)

Wednesday January 20, 2010 beginning at 6PM (if needed)

 

Meeting to approve Board of Education Budget

Monday January 25, 2010 Sheehan High School auditorium beginning at 7PM

 

All meetings are open to the public and will be recorded and shown on public access at a later date.

Monday, January 4, 2010

WALLINGFORD - Rob Simmons Says Linda McMahon Is Using Donations To Try To Buy Support

By DANIELA ALTIMARI

Courant.com

January 1, 2010

In the run-up to last fall's municipal election, Wallingford Republicans needed money for ads and all the other costs associated with a competitive campaign.

So when Linda McMahon, a multimillionaire running for U.S. Senate, came in with her checkbook, the Republican town committee didn't turn her away.

"She said 'here's some money for your candidates' and I said 'thank you very much' and that was it," said Bob Prentice, Wallingford's Republican town chairman. "It was a nice gesture on her part."

To Rob Simmons, another Republican running for Senate, that $500 donation was more than a nice gesture; it was an effort to buy support.

Prentice, the Wallingford chairman, said McMahon's unsolicited donation didn't come with any strings attached. "Five hundred bucks is certainly not going to buy our vote," he said. "If she gets our vote, it's going to be because she is the best candidate."

Read the full story at the Courant.com