This is the first BOE Planning meeting for the 2011-2012 school year. Will post details for each item on the agenda after the meeting. If you cannot make this meeting and have questions for the committee, please send them to me and I will present them at the meeting.
25 comments:
Has redistricting been officially shelved? Or is it just not being discussed at this particular meeting?
Considering the discussions that were happening last year, I suggest it get officially shelved if that's what's happening.
It's a big issue. BOE members should be on the record as to where they stand IMHO.
And with regard to your idea of consolidating the BOE Maintenance Dept and the Town DPW field crew, where does that stand?
On Feb 5, you mentioned that Milone had put your idea "on the back burner to handle other priorities." Further down in the same post, I elaborated on my thoughts.
I mentioned my concern again this summer.
Any status update on the consolidation of facilities crews?
Or does the TM still have "other priorities?" And if so, what are they? Perhaps the Council is on the record saying that this is a bad idea or a low priority? If the Council considers this a low priority, then what are the higher priorities... and how were those priorities judged against each other?
This certainly seems like a BOE planning committee issue. So if you don't have clear answers, I strongly request that you include this under "other" and ask for an official response from either the TM or Council.
Mr. White,
Shared services will be fully discussed and planned for this council term where savings can be verified. Council leadership develops the priorty list and a few unexpected issues (pool bubble collapse, etc played a hand in pushing this out a year.
We have to seriously look at this but not as a way to shift costs townside to appear like an ed budget cost savings.
With almost no growth in the grand list, half a million in stimulous money gone from the ed revenue side there are many challenges for this coming budget cycle that cannot be erased with a mill rate increase. Sounds like the same old story but the same old story won't change until this rudderless economy gets back on track.
In case you missed this, Michael Milone got a unanimous vote of confidence this month from the Town Council and his contract was renewed. No one is perfect but your constant clang on the TM is very tired. Regardless of who controls the council the town is and has been well served by Michael Milone.
Tim Slocum
Tim S...
I mentioned the TM because he was originally mentioned by Tony -- not by me -- back in January. Eight months later, I'm wondering if there's a status update.
And you've given me the status update that I requested. You've been busy... with the pool, etc.
As for the TM, I'm a voter. I have no obvious relationship with the TM. I have a relationship with the Council. That's why I redirected the questions toward the Council.
Btw, I do appreciate that you changed your words about him from "great manager" to "well-served." That's an important and notable shift in your stance.
Sounds like the same old story
If your concerns are budgetary, then I have to partly disagree.
Budgetary constraints wouldn't be quite as bad if the Council acted differently. There is spending that could've been avoided this year:
1) track -- rejected by the voters
2) turf -- Who will control the donations? There will not only be replacement costs. Based on comments on this blog, there is every reason to believe there will be increased operating costs. What other hidden costs are there that may increase annual operating costs?
3) pool -- I *suspect* if the bubble went to referendum, it wouldn't have passed.
4) linear trail -- how many man hours were logged in town hall for this project? Is there an opportunity cost there? Were there legal fees?
5) waste & mismanagement -- What demonstrable steps have been taken by your Council to reduce the waste & mismanagement in Town Hall? Did we settle the Norton boiler lawsuit? How much did that cost? Was it $40,000? Was there any accountability (besides forcing the costs on the taxpayers)? If so, what was it?
Of course, the big numbers are labor costs. And I'm not addressing that here. But I do think that this Council has acted in a way to increase costs, where the Council could have acted differently (and reduced / minimized spending) and had the "consent of the governed."
Instead, your Council chose more services and more spending. That's your right. But I think that characterizing your Council's budgetary concerns as "the same old story" is missing some notable history of the 20th Council.
Tim
It's hot in the tropics.
Track needed to be fixed. No question about it. We could suspend use of the track or wait for injuries but that seemed dumb.
Voters rejected a track for $425.000. The cost is 335,000.
Turf - controversial yes. Donors and state money paid for the project. Town will bear future costs. Doing both at same time saved money.
Pool...turning down insurance money to replace the bubble and other damages would have been dumb. We still have an energy user situation but a new blower will reduce that consumption along with a pool cover. Voters rejected our permenant structure referendum 18 months ago.
Linear trail...not happening for now. Should happen if feds and state pays for it. Not sure I follow your question regarding town staff.
Norton boiler suit has been settled. This screw up blew up with the last Council. This council had clean up duty.
Not certain what measures we added that increased town services.
We transferred bulky waste at dump to AJ's facility saving town payroll money. We consolidated Senior and Human services saving money. We prevailed in three labor arbitration cases to the town's advantage. We cut some positions in town hall.
We closed out defined benefit plans, we got concessions from the teachers.
We increased taxes minimmaly over the past two years while maintaining services. We paved more roads in the last two years than the previous two. We put a new roof on part of CHS, finished a few bridge projects and continue to fix what we have to.
Problems in the police dept. have evaporated under the steady leadership of a new chief.
We will be instituting a program to qualify bidders for services that are now currently done by the Town and Education district by calling on the usual vendors. While this has not been a problem the new approach will broaden the list and identify service providor rates for services before they're required enabling the town to better set the terms through the competitive process.
The "same old story" is that the economy is still a big problem stressing households and compelling the council to consider even more cost cutting measures next term. No one likes that but this council does not fear that. We will do what is necessary.
As for the consent of the governed I hope I have achieved that yet I fully understand that is in their hands Nov. 8th. Lets hope more than 38% of them dain to show up at the polls.
The town voted for Obama last time. I don't think anyone will be confusing me with him and I rather doubt they will vote for Obama again. "Hope and Change" really stinks for all.
Tim S
Turf - controversial yes. Donors and state money paid for the project. Town will bear future costs. Doing both at same time saved money.
Tim - what happened to the future costs being handled by the donations? What is the update on the current cost if you will please?
Breachway,
There is no way to compel donors to contribute towards the replacement costs for anything. The BOE has talked about a "sinking fund" but I'm not certain where that is at this point. They have talked about setting aside a portion of the ticket reciepts, etc and Tony can be more informing on this topic but budgets are made on an annual basis as are capital budgets for infra-structure improvement by the elected officials serving at the time in town.
The current crop of donors will have passed that baton along to future parents in the 10 to 12 years before a new turf field comes up. Perhaps by then taxpayers will replace or we'll be back to grass, or donors will step in and help. The Education dept insists the savings maintaining a grass field will make a difference.
This is the largest donor project I am aware of in Cheshire but there are other examples, including Playground in the Park, which was replaced a few years back replaced with a newer and more expensive version that is well used but was only partially funded by donations. The food stand at Bartlem was paid for by donors and turned over to the town last year. Ultimately taxpayers take on the full responsibilty in one form or another.
The town has many competing special interests and donors recognize they have to play a part. Some think that is not right since donors pay taxes along with the rest us but Cheshire has folks that do this. With the graying of the Connecticut populous I suspect the days are numbered for a lot of this.
Tim
Breachway,
I didn't answer all of your question...the cost of the turf hasn't changed to my knowledge. It should be completed by the end of October. Turf fabric is being installed soon. The track cost is 342,000 based on new numbers on the asphalt repairs needed . Those costs were more fully understood after the synthetic surface was stripped off the asphalt according to Milone and MacBroome.
We awarded a bid, we got "solid" numbers from Milone & MacBroome, which is now higher. Bidders have room in their estimates and I think the education dept. should play hardball.
Tim S
Tim S…
First, I applaud your willingness to engage in Cheshire’s blogosphere. While I know some of our elected officials are too busy to engage here, others are known lurkers who have time available to engage… but they are unwilling. They have no interest in facing real questions. You are willing and I appreciate that.
Second, I also applaud your Council for tackling some serious issues, such as the move from DB to DC pension plans, teachers’ union concessions and (as I understand it, the Council is still moving forward on) the townwide energy conservation plan. The 20th Council is making substantive progress on some very serious issues.
Third, I realize that my previous comment was long with multiple questions. So I didn’t really expect all of my concerns to be fully addressed. But along with all the good done by this Council, I need to revisit one of my concerns.
As I stated:
waste & mismanagement -- What demonstrable steps have been taken by your Council to reduce the waste & mismanagement in Town Hall? Did we settle the Norton boiler lawsuit? How much did that cost? Was it $40,000? Was there any accountability (besides forcing the costs on the taxpayers)? If so, what was it?
To which you responded:
Norton boiler suit has been settled. This screw up blew up with the last Council. This council had clean up duty.
I feel this answer is insufficient.
Let’s keep in mind this initial screwup forced taxpayers to ante up an additional $80,000. Tack on a settlement of $40,000 (is that the right number?) and legal fees (of which I’m sure there were a lot)… and the taxpayers have probably been fleeced for $150,000!
So I repeat, “this Council had clean up duty” is an insufficient answer for me. So I’ll try to restate my concern.
My two questions are:
1) What measures were taken by this Council to avoid another similar mess? Keep in mind that the prior Council was tossed out rather unceremoniously. I suspect that was partly due to an inadequate response by the prior Council to this mess. In other words, while the prior Council spent $3,000 to “fix” the problem with new software, that was an inadequate / inappropriate response. And more demonstrable actions were expected by the voters on the part of the current Council.
2) What accountability has there been?
I think those are fair and necessary questions that should be answered by you, the Council Chairman.
Also keep in mind that since this has been settled, (although I’m not a lawyer) I see no reason for any of the executive session conversations to be still covered by the secrecy rules. So anything that was said in executive session is now open for public scrutiny.
I said:
4) linear trail -- how many man hours were logged in town hall for this project? Is there an opportunity cost there? Were there legal fees?
Tim S said:
Linear trail...not happening for now. Should happen if feds and state pays for it. Not sure I follow your question regarding town staff.
I’ll try to explain. “Opportunity cost” is a phrase that describes the “cost” of a choice that takes action in one area, while leaving the other area untouched.
In other words, if town staff spent one hour investigating the linear trail expansion… that’s an hour that could’ve been spent on something else.
With all the Council discussion & votes, as well as the news print, dedicated to this topic, I *suspect* that town staff spent at least a few work days – if not much more – on this. They could’ve used that time to do other work. From that perspective, I see this as an increase in services, particularly if there was OT pay involved.
Breach...
Tim S said:
The BOE has talked about a "sinking fund" but I'm not certain where that is at this point.
FWIW, this gets to the heart of my point about the turf having not only replacement costs, but annual operating costs.
If this is a special fund, like the pool, it may require special attention by the auditors. Is there an annual operating cost there?
And what about the town finance staff? What about their time? Time is money. Even if no OT is incurred, this presents a choice between controlling the turf fund and performing other financial department activities. I see the potential for increased annual operating costs there.
And come to think of it... if the turf is nearly complete, then ticket revenues should soon be generated. Have advertising revenues already been generated?
This process should already be known... and if it includes some sort of special fund, the auditor probably should have already given some sort of signoff (not formal, but s/he probably should be in the loop for a special fund).
Anyone happen to know when the turf is supposed to be complete and in use? If the funding process (and controls) isn't yet known for this... that's a real problem IMO.
Just speculating here, but it seems to me like the BOE does not want ownership of the financial processes (perhaps for good reasons, such as laws? I don't know.) Yet the town probably doesn't want to take ownership for various reasons, such as increased labor costs.
Maybe this is all sorted out already by staff, but has not yet been communicated to our elected officials? I certainly hope that's the case. If not, this is just asking for a problem.
Well now that I have such a concise answer for what an opportunity cost is I will use my free time in more judicious ways next time I blog. But I will answer your queries as best I can for now.
Regarding the executive sessions...those discussions are privileged. Outside of the session the council voted to settle for 40K. I forget the vote tally but it was not unanimous. No one liked the idea but legal costs were only going up. In my opinion the complaint was specious, and the design consultant for the town was out of control. Settling the suit couldn't change that but I hope his services are never deployed by the town again.
If there was any benefit I would have to say the current chairman of the PBC, John Purtill is an absolute breath of fresh air, serving the town and leading an important commission in a calm, competent,efficient, and with a Cheshire first approach.
Your concern about town staff engaging in exploritory talks about the linear trail vs. other items of interest to the TC and public is subjective. We have fed. grant money that we are trying to preserve. The state has expressed great interest in the project and has committed to designing much of it and building more too but we are still left with an town expense we are not yet ready to commit to and certain the public would not support now. Delay may benefit the town. Hopefully the feds and the state can get it done without more Cheshire taxpayer support. That explains the "back burner" statement. The existing 2.8 miles will be repaved next year. It has condition problems that have to be addressed so we are maintaining what we have since it is used heavily by the public.
The turf field will be completed by the end of October and the track will be started then. I can't add much more on the Ed. depts handling of revenues and maintenance fund for the turf. I'm sure Tony can. They have discussed the mechanics of setting up a special fund account and collecting ticket revenue isn't exactly new to the athletic dept. either.
Regarding turf.
Last November, the BOE voted to send the turf field project and two other requests to the Town Council for consideration.
Two of the three requests were heard by the Town Council. One involved accepting the grant for the turf field and other for the turf field project itself.
The third request was never put on a town council agenda. The third request entailed establishing a town account to capture future turf field replacement funds. Any ticket surcharges, field banner sales, field rental revenue, donations, etc. related to the turf would be desposited there. The goal of this fund is to minimize the impact of future replacement costs to the Cheshire taxpayers.
It's almost a year later and the town council has not discussed the account. I don't know why. I assume it's because the town council doesn't need to intervene in establishing an account of this manner? It's probably something that can be done by the town manager? Not sure.
The BOE policy committee is close to submitting policies around capturing and reporting on turf-field replacement revenue (All revenue for that matter) to the BOE. The BOE wants to make certain that whatever funds are generated by the turf replacement plan are deposited into a town account for future use. I expect to see these policies put forth to the BOE in October.
Recently, I asked a town council member if the TC was ever going to discuss this particular account. The response I received was this: "Tony, the field is a town-owned facility. As such, the town council will decide how to best plan for it."
I believe the BOE could work directly with the town manager in setting up this account but I'm not a fan of doing so. I'd much rather see it discussed in this town council and put into place with proper accounting procedures and transparency reporting.
Tim S…
In relation to the Norton boiler fiasco that fleeced the taxpayers for probably $150,000, I asked two questions:
1) What measures were taken by this Council to avoid another similar mess? Keep in mind that the prior Council was tossed out rather unceremoniously. I suspect that was partly due to an inadequate response by the prior Council to this mess. In other words, while the prior Council spent $3,000 to “fix” the problem with new software, that was an inadequate / inappropriate response. And more demonstrable actions were expected by the voters on the part of the current Council.
2) What accountability has there been?
To which you replied:
Regarding the executive sessions...those discussions are privileged.
You have got to be kidding me, right?!
I know that executive session is privileged. But there are also rules regarding what can be discussed in those secret executive sessions. I don’t see how the answers to either of my two questions could possibly fall within the scope of a discussion regarding a legal settlement.
Frankly, your assertion of “state secrets” sounds absurd! I mean, think about it. I ask about what this Council has done to ensure this does not happen again… and you invoke state secrets?! It’s so ridiculous, I’m laughing out loud!
Anyway, you obviously refuse to answer my questions. So I guess there’s no point in me asking again.
But I also offer that there’s an election approaching. I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody else asks these same questions at the October regular Council meeting during public communications.
I want to be blunt. If someone clearly articulates these questions during the October meeting and you try to claim “state secrets,” I think 90% of the town is going to be left scratching their heads wondering what you’re smokin'! Haha… j/k. Seriously though, you’re argument won’t pass the smell test of the general electorate IMO.
Furthermore, if:
1) these good government questions are asked; and
2) you don’t provide transparent, detailed explanations; and
3) you reiterate your claim of “state secrets”…
It’ll play right into the narrative that the Dems are offering. Witness this excerpt from a Luther Turmelle piece following the July Dem nomination caucus:
Democrats charging that the Republican-controlled council was not open and transparent in its dealings
But maybe you subscribe to the notion “look forward, not backward.” If so, I guess that’s a legitimate policy call as you are an elected official. But when given the choice between:
1) someone who demands accountability for this $150,000 fleecing of the taxpayers… and
2) someone who says “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for, move along…”
well… I have a pretty good idea of what most voters will be thinking. Lol.
All kidding aside, I encourage you to simply answer my questions here at TPL not because of politics, but because answering these questions is the right thing to do.
Tony said:
I'd much rather see it discussed in this town council and put into place with proper accounting procedures and transparency reporting.
I definitely think you're on the right track here Tony. And since you sent this to the Council a year ago, it's not on your plate.
The BOE deserves a response... and so do the voters.
This is a very high visibility and contentious issue. Communication of the funding process to the voters is important.
I don't see this as a problem at the moment, but if the funding process isn't in place prior to the first game... everyone will look bad to some extent. And frankly, this (a funding process) could very quickly become a huge campaign issue considering the underlying topic (turf).
Tim,
Discussions that take place in executive sessions are germain to the topic that is announced before the session begins. When discussing legal matters the town atty is briefing the parties responsible for making decisons. Minutes are not taken. In this case the TC members present discussed the topic of a settlement. Once everyone was satisfied the session is closed. The vote on settling the suit was then done in public.
I never used the words "state secrets". Those are your words. I welcome all queries from the public including you on this topic and any others but your sense of proportion is getting way out of whack lately.
Tim S
Tim W, on redistricting, this won't solve the issue with enrollment at Doolittle. Enrollment across the school district is up 7 students over 2010-2011. Once the October enrollment report is posted we'll confirm this number. However, the state projection was indeed off.
Doolittle's issue was the later-than-normal enrollments. Dr. Florio addressed a packed room of Doolittle parents during a PTA meeting 2 weeks ago about this. With sufficient notice, he could've added an additional Grade 1 classroom to bring down the class size. I believe this is the first school year where the projection was off particularly at Doolittle.
I personally believe we'll see similar surprises with enrollment over the next few years. I think that the weak economy has made homes more affordable for some that are willing to move to Cheshire and we've seen parents move their children from private schools to Cheshire public schools this year.
If anything, the administration should make room in the next budget and allocate 1-3 teaching positions in case we have surprise enrollments next year. With the retirements that were negotiated with the concession deal, we should be able to use some of that savings for this purpose.
Redistricting is not off the table. It will come up for discussion again for the upcoming budget process.
Tim white called the owners of Conn Comb and had communication with them-said so in public when when he should have kept his mouth shut
Tim white is the main reason why there was a lawsuit
Tim white is not to be trusted
Tim S...
You're right. You never did use the phrase "state secrets." Those were my words. Sorry about that. It was unintentionally misleading. I should have been more clear.
Frankly though I am still baffled. But I'll let my comments / questions stand here in the court of public opinion.
Regardless, thank you for your efforts. I know it's volunteer.
7:08...
April 7, 2008 -- The TM is sent a formal memo in which corruption in town hall is alleged. Apparently, the same day the TM notifies the TA and Council Chair of these allegations, but not the full Council. Why?
April 8, 2008 -- A meeting of the full Council occurs. The Council Chair apparently alludes to the memo, but gives no indication of the allegations of corruption. Why?
April 18, 2008 -- The Council is sent a stack of papers, probably more than half an inch thick. The corruption memo is included in the stack of papers. The TM does absolutely nothing to highlight these allegations. Why? Also, the memo is buried inside the stack.
April 22, 2008 -- I'm quite comfortable telling the Council that I had contacted the company alleging corruption.
Why?
Simple. Good judgment dictates that if one faces allegations of corruption, you would immediately bring this to the attention of your boss and simply say "I don't have my hands around this yet. I will investigate this and update you as quickly as possible."
Instead, there was a coverup. I documented all of this very clearly on my blog. And frankly, based on the 2009 election results... I think the voters agreed with me that the failure to immediately bring this to the attention of all Council members was a big mistake.
Furthermore, I seem to recall that their lawsuit was already in motion before I ever spoke one word with them. In which case your accusation is obviously nonsense.
Regardless, my concern was simple. Following the coverup, it was clear that the aforementioned parties could not be trusted. So I attempted to understand the situation in the most logical fashion. If the TM had immediately brought this to the attention of all Council members, I seriously doubt I would've called anyone as I would've had reason to trust that everyone was working in the interest of the town... not their own personal interest, such as protecting their reputation.
My only goal was to represent the voters of the 4th district the best I could. I believe that's exactly what I did.
Tony, thanks. I completely see your point about the economy and class sizes. It's still good though to either formally conclude or continue the discussions.
Stay where you are you need to get a little more grown up before you come back
Still at the little kids table
I think it's comical that someone can blame tim white for the CT Combustion scandal when the town clearly, and admittedly, dropped the ball on the bid(s). Yet, the town manager behind it all is still here and just received a nice raise from this town council.
Tim Slocum nickname-sneaky
He goes to one coffee shop and says one thing and then other and says opposite
Often says he does not remember what he said as a def
Very sneaky
Not honest
Post a Comment