Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Discussion prohibited - what's new?

Here's the resolution that seemed to stir up the most controversy tonight:
Two things that run through my mind:

1) Will we soon hear that we need to "repair" the natural turf?

2) If you saw the end of the meeting, you may have heard me voicing a concern about the stifling of open discussion.

But first some background... earlier in the meeting when we voted on the above agenda item, I quietly asked for the floor to speak. I was told "no." So I left the meeting rather disgusted, particularly since we could have done half of tonight's meeting at our usual second-meeting-of-the-month that we skipped in September.

Anyway, my point about this whole fund is simple... much of these infrastructure improvements could be funded through a performance contract. But we all know that the Council majority is effectively opposed to energy conservation... because they're so concerned about having campaigned on their vaunted bond rating... a rating which, as we heard tonight... doesn't mean squat because no bond market even exists today.

Any other comments / questions on tonight's meeting? I'll probably post a few more times on tonight's meeting.

Tim White

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Some people need to be voted out of office. They do everything for the BOE and atheletics. I'm not against either one but there are things that need the TC attention more. If they waste their time on pushing "wants" and not "needs" they have let the voters down. I believe they don't represent their constituents at all. This goes for both sides of the aisle.

Anonymous said...

This resolution looks like a new twist on one of the big generic complaints town managers are fond of making, you’ve heard it before - - it’s another unfunded government mandate to be paid for by local tax payers. In this particular case it is local officials and not the far of state in Hartford doing it to us.

The BOE in Cheshire and throughout this state are too unaccountable and powerful. An accountable, fiscally conservative BOE would not require the implementation of this resolution. The BOE should never spend tax payers money without adequate oversight and never without the direct permission of the tax paying public.

Anonymous said...

This resolution is like giving a blank check to the BOE. I see them trying to utilize it towards their turf project that's being forced through. The R's were correct in that there needed to be more restrictions written into the resolution.

The drug/alcohol survey should have made mention that the survey was incomplete and not an accurate measurement of what's really going on.

Why did we bump up the legal fees account by $61,000 to $312,000/yr when we didn't spend all of the previous years $251,000? At the most it should have increased by $48,000. Oh and btw, make sure we deduct $1500 from the next bill since the attorney was NOT present at this regular TC meeting.

When a motion is made and seconded, it is supposed to be open for discussion. Mr. Hall seems to make his own rules as he goes. Seems he is breaking Robert's Rules.
sz

Anonymous said...

This is blank check and should be stopped.

Anonymous said...

Why do some people and public workforce believe that they are special and that they should get everything that they want even thought the economy is collapsing.

Why are they exempt from the hardships that the private sector is experiencing? They are the elite that ride on the backs and sweat of the private sector.

It's time to bring the public sector in line with the private, wages, benefits and hours worked.

If poeople want artificial turf then they should fund it through staff reductions, benefit cuts and salary cuts.

Anonymous said...

Note the following parts from the resolution that allow the BOE to use this $350,000-
"Requested Capital Plan projects not funded or approved as part of the 5 year CP when it becomes necessary to address all or part of the project for various reasons."
"Funds will be considered capital non recurring and may be used in multiple fiscal years to address approved repairs and projects."

As soon as the turf committee finishes their charade of a study and gets their turf field project officially approved (rubber stamped)it will become a "project" that they can spend these funds on. When they tell the board or TC that they can't raise the balance of the funds but need to move the project along, they'll give one of those "various" reasons to use the $350,000 fund to pay for the rest of the project.

Approval of this resolution by the TC majority has made it possible for the BOE to use this account basically in any way they choose.

Anonymous said...

The sad part is that they use the money any way that they want to now and no one questions them. Thirty new teachers were hired this year, think of all the money saved in the salary account? This gets me sick because the money never is used for the good of the students. The music teacher that asked the TC not to reduce the budget still is not receiving new instruments due to all the savings in salaries I bet. I feel sorry for him and the students. The field will get replaced before the instruments. What a crazy way to run a school system. One more question nobody new that that many teachers were leaving? I bet they new exactly how many. We got burned again.

tim white said...

10:33... I asked one time for a trend analysis of how many teachers leave each year. (400 teachers / 30 yrs = 13 teacher minimum leaving annually) It was my first year on the Council.

It was the first time someone attempted to use the Jedi Mind Trick on me. Unfortunately, while the JMT didn't work... I wanted to be diplomatic and allowed the obfuscation to stand.

I've learned my lesson and am now less willing to allow the smoke n mirrors to go unquestioned.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if a line item such as salaries which is fluid due to the end of school year teacher departures (whatever the reason)should not be reviewed in June or July and ADJUSTED to reflect the true salaries etc.??