Open Forum
Enfield's BOE now requires testing students for alcohol.
The artificial turf is making headlines again, but I think the BOE Planning Committee may have removed it from this year's Capital Budget just this past Wednesday night. If that's true, no one is requesting it. So the discussion would be done. (However, I wasn't at the meeting. So I'm not positive.)
Anyone have a quick recap on the difference between what the State is doing and what Cheshire's BOE recently did with soda in schools? (Channel 16 should be highlighting the schools' lunch program this week.)
$3 gas is all over the headlines. My hybrid should be coming in this week... finally! Definitely looking forward to the 45mpg.
And barite mines continue to be discussed. Based on this article, it sounds as though Diane V is going to put the mines on the agenda of the TC Planning Committee.
Titus Moss Walk Back in Time is set for a run thru this Sunday from 2-4pm on the Green.
What else is happening?
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
13 comments:
The State, once Gov Rell signs the bill, will ban soda and sports drinks from the schools (except I believe they'll be able to be sold after school and at concession stands). This bill will give 10 cents more per reimbursable lunch to school lunch programs that follow suit. I understand that it will mean approx. 40K for Cheshire schools.
The Boe has had one reading so far on the "wellness policy". So it's not written in stone yet, but it more or less will mean that the schools will have to offer 100% juice, skim and lofat milk, and water (which they already do anyway). Healthy snacks will also be part of what is offered along with fresh fruits etc. (Much of this is already happening). As far as I understand it however, principals will have the discretion of allowing exceptions to the policy on occasion (so there's the loophole). This probably means they'll be able to allow those cupcakes in classrooms for parties, etc. And teachers will be encouraged not to give out "candy" rewards for good behavior and they're not supposed to "withhold" recess as punishment. As of today, 4-28, there's still 2 more readings due on this policy so things may change a bit. I'd like to know though if the teachers will loose their soda machines out of the teacher's lounges. It would, of course, set a good example, but I doubt it will happen.
Oh and also on school lunch...for anyone interested, this coming week there should be a show airing on channel 16 highlighting the lunch program.
anon 10:17pm... is it fair to say that the Cheshire policy is already doing what the State policy is intended to do?
Brick... my point... local Boards of Ed are quite capable of doing this themselves.
I wonder how long it will be before the 10 cents extra per lunch (approx 40K) from the State will start disappearing. Will it just become another unfunded mandate.....
The barite mine issue, specifically Sheridan Drive, hit the Channel 3, 6 o'clock news on Friday 4/28 too... http://www.wfsb.com/Global/SearchResults.asp?qu=cheshire+sinkhole&search=Search
It's obvious that the media is concerned enough to have addressed the issue numerous times in the past month or so...is the town of Cheshire?
brickwall 9:47...While Cheshire already offers the lofat milk, 100% fruit juice, and water, there are certain drinks that will likely be eliminated like sports drinks, Fruit 2-0, and any water flavored w/added sugar or sweeteners. Also no drinks (exept plain water) larger than 12 oz. will be allowed to be sold. This is info from Bill 373. The State is also coming out with a 150 pg. list of food items that will be allowed to be sold as "ala-carte" items provided they meet the State's set of nutrition standards. So while Cheshire is supposedly going to receive 40K, there will be adjustments made with some of what is currently sold that could very well cause a drop in ala-carte sales initially. Ala-carte sales are what brings in the real money. Another example are those Otis Spunkmeyer cookies and muffins that the kids love - they will now have to be low-fat. While that's a good thing, the kids may not be too enthused about buying them. So there are lots of changes still ahead. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
I wish the parents would take more responsibility for what their kids eat and drink. All the pressure seems to be put on the schools to only offer drinks/foods that meet certain nutritional standards. Kids develop their eating habits way before they even enter school. It's the parents who first give them the soda or buy them those big bags of Doritos or bring them to the fast food restaurants. Don't blame the schools for childhood obesity. Schools should be allowed to offer a wide variety of food choices. They shouldn't be forced to only offer certain things.
Besides the fact that Gatorade et al are owned by those evil soda companies (now the oil and tobacco companies have compnay) was there any credible reason to ban them?
We are living in a Nanny state, all right.....in many many ways.
Glad to hear that the BOE planning committee removed the turf field from the 5 year capital budget. Hopefully they also told the super not to send letters to the State requesting funds for turf fields until at least the whole idea of a turf field is discussed and voted on by the BOE. I'd give the super an "F" in his evaluation on this item as he shouldn't try slipping turf fields in without his and the BOE's doing their homework on them first! Shame on him!
anon 6:39 - I believe the sports drinks are banned because of the amount of calories from sugar, and the sodium content.
I thought the reason was to stop obesity, I see all these anorexic guys chugging Gatorade at track meets, are the Food Police telling us they are all going to look like the Michelin Man soon?
There was less wrong when kids had more access to cookies and less access to porn. And the same sorts of people will fight for "free speech" as fight against the evil soda industry
Well, the barite mines hit the papers once again as it was on the front page of the Local section in the Register yesterday. Looks like Cheshire will be discussing this issue again this evening. This article left me a bit puzzled though...why or should I say how does the town intend to go about inspecting whether or not the home owners have filled the hole properly? Are they expected to dig it back up for the town to inspect? And if the town has refused to accept responsibility for this for so many years in the first place, why are they suddenly so concerned about what one home owner has done to fix his problem? Why are they not concerned about the numerous other homes in town that are affected by the same issue and continue to remain unstable?
And then there's Milone's quote about the inability to communicate with the home owners. As I've heard it, the Bakers invited town officials onto their property in the fall when this originally took place. Now we're supposed to believe that suddenly Mr. Baker refuses to cooperate with the town? Give me a break. Something happened in the mean time that has been conveniently unmentioned.
Somebody here needs a reality check and this article points to two sources...the town and/or the reporter himself.
Post a Comment