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
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.
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.
You decide.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap155.htm#Sec9-609.htm
(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.
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.
Go online now to the Record Journal to voice your opinion.
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.
Hi all – I have the first three videos of the Wallingford Board of Education meetings posted on my other blog - http://zandri.net/Blog/
The direct links are below.
VIDEO – Board of Education Budget Meetings – January 9, 2010
VIDEO – Board of Education Budget Meetings – January 12, 2010
VIDEO – Board of Education Budget Meetings – January 13, 2010
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.
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
As provided from the Wallingford Public Schools website
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
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.
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?
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.
The Wallingford Elementary School Reconfiguration Plan is now online and available for download.
The PDF file will require Adobe or similar application that can read the portable document format.
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.
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.
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.
Here is a link to the BOE Budget PowerPoint as a PDF http://bit.ly/5toPpZ
| 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#
