tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21123853.post9145494993307491908..comments2024-02-12T04:30:53.556-05:00Comments on Tim White Listens: Subverting the Charter is unacceptableTim Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16588518063096822071noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21123853.post-70949075826491442272011-03-19T21:13:01.071-04:002011-03-19T21:13:01.071-04:00Oh... and I forgot. I think it's largely the ...Oh... and I forgot. I think it's largely the budget chair who wants to give this money to the BOE... but by couching this in legal terms, it maintains his "untarnished credentials" as being a fiscal conservative with the education budget.<br /><br />Again, I could be wrong. But I worked with him for five years. I know David's M.O. pretty well. But even this Charter issue surprised me. I thought he'd at least respect the Charter. Apparently, I was wrong.<br /><br />But maybe he'll prove me wrong. Maybe "new information" will come to light that changes his mind? Of course that new information will have "nothing" to do with the blog post... it'll be purely "coincidental"... haha... but frankly, that'd be fine with me. <br /><br />I just don't want the Charter getting subverted. The mere thought of it reminds me of King Obama as He "declares" war on Libya and effectively says that Congress' Constitutional authority to declare war is irrelevant.<br /><br />"What's that? The US Constitution? Never heard of it. It means nothing to me. Let's go bomb somebody!"<br /><br />Constitution? Charter? They only apply when necessary!<br /><br />Again Anne, thank you!Tim Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16588518063096822071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21123853.post-66079921298982653232011-03-19T20:58:39.988-04:002011-03-19T20:58:39.988-04:00I think you went a little overboard here
haha... ...<i>I think you went a little overboard here</i><br /><br />haha... well, I'm sitting in Haiti and wanted to make sure I got everyone's attention!<br /><br />And yes, I did paint with broad strokes. And frankly, I don't think 9 Council members are collaborating on this. But I've worked with the Budget Chair for five years on the Council. It's not uncommon for his "interpretations" to "conveniently" achieve his goals.<br /><br />Look no further than the $30 million sewer upgrade. Last year he told me that it wouldn't matter if the upgrade referendum failed because state law mandated the upgrade. Yet this appropriation doesn't require a referendum? So for one issue the referendum is required, but for this issue a referendum is not required. <br /><br />Anyway, sounds like we're on the same page on this Charter issue. I can now rest much more comfortably knowing that you're on the case! I should've known that though.<br /><br />Anne Giddings 2011 !!!Tim Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16588518063096822071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21123853.post-30430257961525756542011-03-19T17:24:24.110-04:002011-03-19T17:24:24.110-04:00Tim--
I think you went a little overboard here, b...Tim--<br /><br />I think you went a little overboard here, but I certainly would NOT want to subvert the Charter.<br /><br />1. What the Town Council Budget Committee may or may not support does not mean that the entire Council supports. 2 or 3 members of the Council (depending upon how many Budget Committee members made a decision) can not speak for the 9 on the Council. <br /><br />2. R.e. the question of whether or not the Council is required to turn these funds over to the BOE, no Town Attorney is needed. The Council is NOT. In other years the Council did not do so, because it is not required to do so, and presumably, those Councils did not feel that the BOE had a need for these funds. I hope that was the basis for the Council decisions.<br /><br />3. Any additional appropriation(s) to the BOE or any other department, must be based on whether or not the appropriation is needed, not whether or not the department spent funds or not. Although the budget is the best estimate of what each department will need for the next year (budget adopted in April, almost 3 months before the new fiscal year starts), circumstances change during the year. (Think of the amount the town has had to spend this year on snow removal!) Supplemental amounts may be needed, but they may not. Other costs to the departments may turn out to be less than anticipated, just as some are more than anticipated.<br /><br />I should remind your readers that I am a retired educator and could be perceived as having a bias here. As an assistant superintendent and acting superintendent in a very different district from Cheshire, I had the experience of having special education costs, including those for which the district had no input, rise well beyond what had been budgeted, and facing a dire need for the "excess special education" funds. <br /><br />But, NEED is the relevant word. The Council should give serious consideration to the need of the BOE for these funds, or some of them, rather than rejecting the BOE's request out of hand, or immediately making the supplemental appropriation just because the BOE asked for it.Anne Giddingsnoreply@blogger.com