Hats off to Jimmy Sima and Anne Giddings!
For three years I've been the lone vote on the Council opposing the TMs contract on the basis of poor performance.* But tonight I understand the vote on the TMs contract extension passed 5 - 2. Jimmy and Anne were opposed and Steve Carroll and Patti Flynn Harris abstained.
I applaud Jimmy and Anne. I'm uncertain of their reasons, but I'm guessing that it was partly for the reasons I mentioned yesterday. In particular, it's nice to see elected officials who demand an end to the waste and mismanagement of the DPW. And as for hearing about how "hard-working" staff can be... I recall Council Chairman Slocum's recent Herald LTTE.
Just because one "works hard" doesn't mean one is effective. Someone could "work" 16 hour days. But if someone else can do the same workload in eight hours, then the 16 hour person may need to be replaced. So with regard to the whole "he works hard" argument, I dismiss it. Besides, most of the "hard work" is spent cultivating the nonsense message that he and his office are apolitical... and also simply controlling the information, reminding staff that they are not allowed to speak openly and that all information must be vetted through The Boss -- or else.
Again, I thank Jimmy Sima and Anne Giddings for their votes tonight in opposition to the Town's highly political and unnecessarily costly mismanagement.
I also understand that some sort of turf vote passed 5 - 4 with Anne Giddings, Tom Ruocco, David Schrumm and Jimmy Sima being opposed. I agree with my fellow Rs. The long-term liabilities facing the USA, the State of Connecticut and the Town of Cheshire are enormous. Cheshire has spiraling healthcare costs, an underfunded pension plan, a $30 million sewer plant coming toward us... along with about $60 million in existing debt and an annual operating budget of $100 million.
I believe we should be avoiding the addition of significant, long-term liabilities, such as the turf. And with the Washington Establishment still believing the ridiculous Keynesian economic theory that money grows on trees, I don't see America's economy improving for years. Unemployment will remain high and no elected official is going to want to see the turf replacement when it arrives in the 5-yr capital budget in only three years.
Tim White
* Two years ago, the vote was 5 - 4. But I only recall my colleagues opposing the raise... not the performance.
29 comments:
True Republican,
Many of us will not vote for anyone that did not have the guts to get rid of the TM and get some new and coservative management.
Where's the CHANGE we voted for in Nov.'09??
We didn't just vote for news faces on the council, we voted to change irresponsible spending and mismanagement.
Kudos to Anne G and Jimmy S.
The rest of you R's are enabling the TM to advocate for state-imposed regional taxes and all his other mismanagement. I can't believe you still haven't demanded replacement of the DPW director.
Regarding the turf, Slocum and Falvey should know better by now, and Steve Carroll is not off to a good start. "Needs not wants."
If you think you can get away with acting like spendaholic Dems, think again. More than a few Republicans are talking about challenging you in a PRIMARY next year. We’ll be watching on the pool.
Any furture costs involved in extending the linear trail that we just accepted more "grant" money for?
Any future costs with the W. Main St. streetscape project? ("grant' money again)
No, Steve Carroll is not off to a good start. His 'yes' vote replaced Tim White's 'no' vote and thus was the deciding vote for approving the turf. I like the idea of a primary aginst the fiscally liberal RINO's.
Kudos to Steve Carroll for having the ballz to vote yes on the Turf project. It's nice to see some common sense for a change.
"Unemployment will remain high and no elected official is going to want to see the turf replacement when it arrives in the 5-yr capital budget in only three years."
Tim, after watching and listening to Mr. Carroll I realize the difference between you and Steve is that Steve doesn't twist and cloud the facts of the turf project. You on the other hand, seem to embellish in misinformation. Good riddens to you!
Steve doesn't twist and cloud the facts of the turf project. You on the other hand, seem to embellish in misinformation
Huh? I offered an opinion. How was I embellishing misinformation or clouding the facts?
Or better, what precisely did I say that was:
1) a clouding of facts
or
2) an embellishment of misinformation?
I'm at a loss on your comment.
Did Anne Giddings know where she was during the TC meeting? It's very difficult to take her seriously when she seems lost, disgruntled and clueless at times. During the TC meeting, and in the Herald, she was quoted as saying that the BOE has no plan to fund the replacement of the turf field. HELLO?!? The BOE presented the plan 2 months ago and the TC has hard copies of it. She asked for a plan, one was created and now she believes it doesn't exist. Is she the best that the R's can do on the TC? It was a sad display.
Anne: Get a clue.
the BOE has no plan to fund the replacement of the turf field
I recall seeing a plan, but I still don't believe the notion that the turf will be self-sustaining without property tax dollars. I can't help but think about the self-sustaining pool... or the oil that would pay for the war in Iraq.
Government loves to make claims. But in the end, the reality is usually far different from the plan.
The most compelling fact of "the plan" was introduced at a recent BOE meeting when Behrer said that if his funding plan didn't fully cover the costs of replacement, then the taxpayers would foot the bill.
And with regard to the "costs," we'll obviously get a number for the capital costs to replace it. But with a 6-1 vote in favor of the turf, I find it difficult to believe that the current BOE will be demanding a full and fair cost accounting of the annual operating costs and revenues.
It's similar to what the Council did with the summer-only pool budget... just let the Administration's numbers go by without any rigorous questioning because the numbers benefit the desired outcome of the elected officials.
I think Anne Giddings has done a great job in just one year.
The BOE presented a detailed plan but it's obvious none of the TC members were present at the meeting and shunned the detailed plan document they themselves requested. What does this tell us? It tells us that this TC is hypocritical, at best.
They are upset simply because their bloated pool enclosure failed miserably. Everyone saw through that diversion-tactic of a project. In the case of turf, it bothers the town council because everything about the project has been put on the table for everyone to see. It also bothers them that there are so many in town that have donated and will continue to donate to the project to alleviate the burden of replacement costs on the taxpayers' shoulders.
Quite simply: The TC was outdone by the board of education and administration's office. And, since some of the R's on the TC are all anti-education...this project only fuels their hatred.
Can't wait for November elections.
"because the numbers benefit the desired outcome of the elected officials."
Can't this be said for Mr. Schrumm's pet project? All of that grant money and he was bursting to get that passed through. No plan for future repairs/replacements. How about the W. Main project? Any plan, sustainable in your opinion, to fund the repairs and replacements? Let's remember that your main opposition at one time to the turf was the "slush" funds that generated the grant. Until you wondered if it could be redirected to the POOL. Not being able to do that you focused on the eventual replacement cost.
You served this community and did some good things, but on this one it seems that from the onset you, and a couple of fellow R's just keep looking for whatever target to shoot this down comes up as the flavor of the month.
paid very well to hang around and watch Mexicans work......
Tim youre letting this one hang around. Seems a little stereotypical doesnt it. Can you just remove the ethnic reference
What many of you turf proponents aren't getting is that if this went to referendum, it would lose.
The track lost and that wasn't nearly as much.
I have to laugh at the newest member to the TC, Steve Carrol. He fully admitted that if this went to referendum it would lose. Then why the hell is he voting for it?
Who are these TC members representing?
I get tired of politicians who are elected or appointed and vote for their own agenda instead of what their constituents want.
When will we get people who want too truly represent the residents of this town on the TC?
The plan to fund replacement is fund raising...I dont call that a plan
"I have to laugh at the newest member to the TC, Steve Carrol. He fully admitted that if this went to referendum it would lose. Then why the hell is he voting for it?"
Let's put Steve's comment in the full context. As he was explaining the details behind the turf project, it's funding and replacement funding plan he made it clear that these details are purposely being clouded by *some* to confuse the voter. It's in that context that he made the above statement you reference.
The plan is not fundraising. But why is the TC afraid to forward the plan to the public? They all have it, including Ms. Giddings. Why are they so afraid of it? Hmm...control the agenda, control the information? That's not much of a transparency promise now is it?
Lastly, this TC was asked repeatedly to put the turf project on the November referendum but most of the R's refused simply because they were afraid that the public would vote for it.
I have to commend Tim Slocum, as well as apologize to him, for criticizing his "meet us halfway" commitment made last year to Bob Behrer. Tim S acutally kept his word and supports the project.
Thank you Tim Slocum for putting aside politics, B.S., lies and deceit and looking at the documented facts/figures of this project. You have earned my respect.
"The plan to fund replacement is fund raising...I dont call that a plan"
That's what the R's are leading you to believe but a very detailed plan was documented, discussed in public and forwarded to the TC months ago. Why haven't they made it available to you? It's very simple: control the agenda, control the information.
Whatever supposed detailed plan there is for replacement of the turf, it's obvious it is nothing more than a gestimate. You can't guarantee donations or rental income. As far as replacement costs go, that is an estimate too.
It's clear the turf heads expect the town to pay any difference when it's time to replace the field.
Mr. Daly repeatedly at said at meetings that he doesn't understand how the council could expect donations to cover the entire replacement costs when that's never been expected for any other town project.
This should have gone to referendum because I'm sure it would have failed too.
What is the turf committee going to do about the track? That failed at referendum so are they going to raise funds to redo that or will they build their fake field and hope the track isn't destroyed in the process.
11:09... you accuse of clouding the facts and embellishing with misinformation. But you don't acknowledge that you have no evidence. Frankly, I don't care. But so you know, your arguments lack credibility. I certainly hope you’re not an elected official!
Regardless, you ignore the fact that you were the one making up stories, then start talking about:
Mr. Schrumm's pet project? All of that grant money and he was bursting to get that passed through. No plan for future repairs/replacements. How about the W. Main project?
How does that have anything to do with me? No, you continue ignoring my question.
You finally start to make a relevant point when you get to:
Any plan, sustainable in your opinion, to fund the repairs and replacements?
But I didn't vote on this latest installment of sidewalk. Though I have voted on such grants in the past (my views have evolved with the tanking economy and unemployment)... but let's continue with your false arguments:
Let's remember that your main opposition at one time to the turf was the "slush" funds that generated the grant.
Huh? Granted, that was the thrust of the argument I most often discussed. That's because it gets to the heart of the problem -- corruption -- in Hartford. But to say that it was my "main opposition" is false.
I’ll explain…
The Dem Council voted in July 2008 to "accept" the $525,000 grant. But every other grant vote in my seven years was to "accept and appropriate." I believe the vote last week was to "appropriate." (I may have the two mixed up, but that's not the point.)
A critical question: Why the (probably) unprecedented two separate votes?
I believe it's because the Dems wanted to spend property tax dollars on the turf. The bifurcation of the votes was a dumb tactic they used to make that happen. They failed to realize that in 2008, the only one who made anything happen was Elizabeth Esty. And she was busy with her own campaign. Then by 2009, none of them wanted to have the turf going to referendum at the same time their name was on the ballot. They were afraid they’d lose the election. Remember, in Sept 09 they spent $250,000 on the pool. Even if the turf wasn’t going to referendum, they sensed that another $250,000 on turf would be problematic for them. So they punted until after the election, assuming that they would cruise to reelection easily.
If that wasn't the plan, then I have yet to figure out why the fundraising began in earnest after the election. If you have an explanation for why fundraising began two years after the initial turf vote, then you may change my mind. But until I hear a reasonable explanation, I assert that the Dems wanted to spend property tax dollars on the turf. And they knew it was politically foolish.
Which leads me to my main point about your assertion that the slush fund was my "main opposition."
From my perspective, spending Cheshire property tax dollars – both now and in the future – was always a bigger issue (from the perspective of sitting on the Council) than the existence / origin of Hartford slush fund money (my bigger concern as a voter). So perhaps I simply took that for granted and shouldn't have. But it made sense to me. I figured that was obvious.
Continuing on with your argument:
Until you wondered if it could be redirected to the POOL.
Fair point. My view was fairly simple and logical though. For several years I had very publicly tried to defund the bubble for two reasons: it cost too much and wasted too much energy. Unfortunately, I was unable to build a consensus with either Ds or Rs.
As a potential compromise, I thought a permanent structure could possibly reduce both costs and energy wasted. Although I didn't particularly like such a compromise, it made more sense to me than sitting on the losing end of 8-1 votes in perpetuity.
You continue:
Not being able to do that you focused on the eventual replacement cost.
Please refer back to my previous explanation.
And thank you for this:
You served this community and did some good things,
I'm glad you're now distinguishing between one particular vote on which we disagree and an entire track record.
And finally:
but on this one it seems that from the onset you, and a couple of fellow R's just keep looking for whatever target to shoot this down comes up as the flavor of the month.
From the onset, I was concerned about costs and spending.
As I said with the pool:
more services = more spending
less services = less spending
The turf will provide ten times more use than the current field. That will inevitably lead to higher costs. That's my opinion based on my knowledge of what government does. It's that simple.
And at this time -- particularly in the past year or two as the economy has tanked and unemployment has skyrocketed -- I've become increasingly concerned about spending.
That includes the turf, the pool, the linear trail, the Dodd kitchen project, the West Main sidewalks. Though I haven't voted on any of them recently (I missed the capital budget vote in August when DS rescheduled the vote and I already had plans to be out of town), I have voiced concerns.
For example, if you look at my blog you'll find me doubting the passage of the track well before the referendum. I got laughed at by several Rs (in August, before the Cap Bgt vote) when I suggested it may not pass and wondered if the track was part of a much bigger issue -- the decline of America -- coming home to roost in Cheshire. I wondered if we were looking at a future cinder track... the same track I used when I graduated in 1990.
I know none of Cheshire's elected officials wants to discuss such things, but I'm just looking toward the future and trying to address the possibilities. If the economy improves, great! But if it doesn't... should there be a Plan B? I think so.
And what exactly are we going to do now with the track? I don't know. And I'm not part of the decision-making process. But I do hope the BOE and Council finally have an honest discussion about the track... and don't simply assume all of these projects will keep passing at referendum.
The taxpayers are very supportive of education, but they can only afford so much. And given the opportunity, they've said "no" several times recently.
I hope the economy improves soon, but I don't expect that to happen. The printing presses are still running (i.e. QE2s $600B). Until that stops and our debt (gov’t and household) is significantly reduced, I don't see much of a turnaround on the horizon… though I’d love to be proven wrong.
With regard to the "plan," I posted it here:
http://timwhitelistens.blogspot.com/2010/08/behrer-on-funding-turf-replacement.html
But it leaves two outstanding issues for me:
1) Are the fundraising numbers "realistic" as Bob noted?
and
2) What are the details of the "savings in maintenance?"
I don't recall ever seeing a detailed budget of natural turf maintenance vs. artificial turf maintenance. It may very well have been discussed, but I'm fairly certain it was never discussed at a Council meeting while I was a member.
So for me, that leaves two big assumptions in the plan. Either -- or both - of which may be very realistic or pipedreams. And if one doesn't believe the assumptions, then IMO it's fair to say there's no realistic plan.
Btw, many parents may view the game fee hike as a tax increase. And that's a legitimate policy call on the part of the BOE. But I still think that Alan Sobol -- the lone dissenting vote on the turf -- is the BOE member most attuned to wishes of the general public. Election after election, he receives the most votes of any BOE member. And he's often voting in the minority.
Btw, concern with replacement costs isn’t new for me. Since my first term on the Council I’ve been publicly challenging the Council to review lifecycle costs on various projects.
It appears that town council after town council continues to renew this TM's contract.
Perhaps the TM is not performing as poorly as some will have us believe. Just because Tim White says the town manager is performing poorly doesn't make it true, apparently.
Thank you Mr. Milone for all that you for Cheshire. Merry xmas!
It appears that town council after town council continues to renew this TM's contract.
True. But as I pointed out, the Council rarely gets its contract renewed by its boss:
The voters.
Sad thing with the Council's is where they place the blame for their losses. In 2005, it was blamed on Bush. In 2009, it was blamed on Obama.
Tim I vote for you to stop blogging. Your out of the loop and irrelevant. Bye! Bye!
Post a Comment