Energy conservation plan: initial proposer walkthru

It’s taken years to get here. But with gasoline inching toward $4 / gallon, the time couldn’t be better for the Council and BOE to be moving forward with their town wide energy conservation plan.

The next step in the long process to overhaul potentially dozens of buildings is scheduled for Tuesday at 9am in Town Hall. All proposers for the energy conservation RFP are to attend a walkthrough that will include staff from both the Town (esp. Town Hall and PD) and BOE (esp. CHS and Dodd).

Including CHS is particularly helpful. You may recall that the August 2009 capital budget saw the electric retrofit for (the back 1/3 of) CHS balloon from $1.9 million to $4 million... and get indefinitely delayed. But this project is intended to cover CHS. So hopefully the two will dovetail with the lifetime savings of the improvements offsetting the capital costs of the project.

But beyond the initial four buildings, if things move forward as anticipated, the town could eventually expand the scope of the work to include all town buildings and schools. However, it was decided that a more limited group of buildings was the best approach to begin the energy conservation plan.

H/t to Councilman Steve Carroll for the head’s up!

Tim White

Pension reform with town unions

Although I haven't seen it mentioned online, I understand that at last week's Council meeting the new Library Union contract was adopted. Included in the contract was the elimination of defined benefit pension plans (DB) for new union employees. Going forward, new library employees who are union members will only be offered defined contribution pension plans (DC).

DB plans are a traditional pension. DC plans are similar to a 401(k).

Contrary to what I've heard from many candidates for office, ending DB plans and moving to DC plans does not necessarily save money now or in the future. A DC plan may cost more or less than a DB plan, either now or in the future. It's really a tossup. But there is a huge benefit.

DC plans allow organizations to properly match taxes with services. DB plans do not allow that because you never know what the future cost will be for a DB plan. It's all just based on actuarial assumptions that are, IMHO, pie in the sky since they're predicated on Keynesian economic theory. And Keynesians, such as Governor Malloy, believe that money grows on trees. Money doesn't grow on trees. Everyone -- except a few policymakers -- knows that.

Anyway, the Council -- particularly David Schrumm -- and the TM deserve credit for making this happen. It certainly took a while. The library union had been operating under a contract that expired on June 30, 2009... and this new contract probably expires by June 30, 2012. Regardless, it's done.

Looking forward, the Council will need to ink deals with both the Town Hall and PW unions soon. I believe their contracts are also long overdue. But there is an upside to the long outstanding negotiation process.

A town's history is part of the overall view taken by the arbitrators. So when you consider that the Town has eliminated DB plans for future union hires for both the Dispatchers and Library unions, as well as non-union employees, there's a distinct possibility that the arbitrator will reach the same conclusion for both the PW and TH unions.

And if both of those unions reach agreement with the town to eliminate their DB plans for future union members, then the only remaining DB plans on the town side will be the Police Union and volunteer firefighters. So to recap where DB plans are headed for future town employees / volunteers:

1) Dispatchers union -- ended June 30, 2006

2) Non-union employees -- ended June 30, 2008

3) Library union -- ended January 11, 2010

4) Public Works union -- under negotiation

5) Town Hall union -- under negotiation

6) Police union -- continuing, current contract expires June 30, 2012

7) Firefighters -- no contract negotiation, but when I asked a few years ago it was suggested to me that the issue be raised after no one else has a DB plan.

So in terms of future town employees, that's where our DB plans stand now. Slowly, but surely, the Town is making real progress on this.

Tim White

RIP: The pool bubble

Most importantly, no one was injured... which brings me to the memorial service...

Via referendum in 1996, the white elephant was born. As with many government projects, it contained two critical issues:

1) the capital budget; and
2) the operating budget.

First, we had the $2.9 million capital costs. But by the time the capital costs stopped being recorded, it was already in excess of $4.0 million.* And while Council after Council have been fired by the voters every two years since 1999, in part because of the pool, the voters were never really given an honest take on whether the additional $1.1 million was legal. Instead, Council's simply skirted the rules by spending less than the $330,000** referendum limit.

Second, we had the annual operating subsidy of $400,000. With the explanatory text of the referendum suggesting both a year-round and self-sustaining facility, the pols who brought forward the pool in 1996 were lacking:

1) intellectual honesty;
2) the ability or willingness to critically analyze the proposal; or
3) the means to tell the future of energy costs.

I think the biggest problem was #3. Though I think all three issues played some role to varying extents.

And of course, Council after Council refused to address the problems of the pool directly. Instead, the M.O. was to throw more good money after bad. It wasn't until 2010 that a Council accepted the need to tackle the pool head-on.

The $7 million referendum failed, but it was the first time that a Council acted responsibly. And the PBCs work is still outstanding. I expect they'll soon return to the Council with a plan for the bubble. But I also expect the proposal could exceed $1,000,000. If so, it'll probably be sunk even before a Council vote. In other words, my feeling is that the PBC work is an exercise in futility... other than showing the voters that it's not viable... at least in this economic climate.

So my guess is that although the Council will continue to have discussions regarding a year-round pool into the 2011 fall election, the pool has finally met it's match... a combination of:

1) Father Time;
2) New England's winter snows; and
3) the voters.

Yup. Between the seven million dollar pool structure and the half million dollar track, the voters have made it clear to the Town's elected officials that there's a difference between necessities and niceties.

Looking forward to the immediate consequences of the bubble collapse, what will happen with pool programs? I'm sure some will be cancelled, but others will be relocated. One thing to keep in mind -- not for this year, but next -- is that if the pool structure passed, it was stated that it would've been possible to relocate swim programs. So programming would have continued without a great deal of interruption.

Looking farther into the future, this raises a question about the scope of an agreement between the Town and Yankee Gas. The pool would've been profitable for Yankee in the short-term. But laying pipeline extensions to Norton and Doolittle may have a 30-year payback. Combining the two would've been beneficial to the town and, perhaps, acceptable to Yankee. But the lack of the pool will certainly be taken into consideration by Yankee as the DPUC requires their projects to have timelines for their projected ROI.

And looking to our spring ritual, I expect the PBC to complete their bubble study prior to the adoption of the Town's operating budget. It'd certainly make the budget process easier having a sense of whether there could be another $400,000 subsidy for a year-round pool... or if that subsidy may be reduced for a summer-only pool. My guess is that the Council will adopt a budget with a $50,000 to $100,000 subsidy for a summer-only pool.

As for how that $300,000 savings plays out politically... I venture that if you ignore all the moving pieces of the budget, there will be a Democratic proposal to increase the education budget by the amount reduced in the pool subsidy. If that happens, most eyes will be on the annual debate of the school budget... not on the pool. That would signal the planting of flowers on the bubble's grave... with the year-round pool being unceremoniously walked into the sunset.

Or maybe the Y will lease the facility for $1 / year?

Tim White

* This does not include all capital improvements to the pool, such as the $250,000 wasted on mold remediation in September 2009.

** The threshold is now $350k, but it was raised after the pool construction was supposedly completed in 2003.

Christie challenges the NJ teachers' unions

The NYTimes' Richard Perez Pena reports on the anticipated State of the State address by NJs Governor Christie:

“I propose that we reward the best teachers, based on merit, at the individual teacher level,” the text of Mr. Christie’s speech reads. “I demand that layoffs, when they occur, be based on a merit system and not merely of seniority.”

“And perhaps the most important step,” it says, “is to give schools more power to remove underperforming teachers.”

I fully agree with him, but am uncertain about one thing. How do you measure merit? I believe anything is possible, but this has been the tricky negotiating point that has been a legitimate concern of teachers' unions across the country.

Also, though he will likely address spending elsewhere in his comments, moving to a merit system does not necessarily reduce spending. A merit system is about improving schools and student achievement. And while that's important, addressing spending is also important.

Tim White

GOP promises: Will they cut $100 billion?

No, I doubt it. But can they? Yes, they can.

Fiscally conservative members of Congress simply need to understand the tricks used by The Big Spenders. One such trick is an encumbrance.

Let me explain using an example of the now extinct balanced budget:

Federal budget = $3 trillion
Money spent or cash out-the-door = $2.9 trillion
Money encumbered = $100 billion

In this case, the $100 billion of encumbered money is related to various programs or projects.

Some is likely encumbered on a department's electric bill. And some is probably encumbered on rail trail money. Yes, the rail trail.

Didn't you notice that the $560,000 has been available for ten years now? Well, encumbering money is a typical way for The Big Spenders to hide the money hoping that people forget. But money can be encumbered on anything. Electric bills and rail trails are just two examples of federal encumbrances.

And if my understanding is correct, then the $525,000 state grant for turf could be characterized as encumbered money.

Continuing to the local level, who can forget the 2009 publicity regarding the $900,000 Public Works garage slush fund? That money was encumbered back in the 1990s.

So it happens at all levels of government: federal, state and local. And the Board of Ed encumbers money annually.

To be clear though, not all encumbrances are bad. I think it makes sense to accrue for your monthly telephone or electric bill.

But the bottom line to me is that there is a lot of encumbered pork that could -- and should -- be cut by the various governing bodies. Unfortunately, the collective mindset of most legislative bodies is spend, spend, spend! And of course The Big Spenders view the money as "already spent." So it doesn't even cross their mind that this is an area where taxpayers could save money.

If you have the time and inclination, I encourage you to call some elected officials and ask them if they would consider defunding some encumbrances. At the town level, you could follow the lead of Councilman Jimmy Sima and request the encumbrance list to begin looking for spending reductions.

Tim White

2010: Looking back, including an untold story

While the Herald takes a look back on 2010, I want to highlight another story of 2010. I'm fairly certain I never blogged about it, but it needs to be mentioned.

If you're concerned about taxes and spending, you can thank the Council -- led by Councilman Jimmy Sima -- for fighting wasteful spending and saving the taxpayers $10,000. That's the money that was saved when he demanded an explanation for the TMs unnecessary request for a new pickup truck that included an extended cab pickup. The pickup was needed. The extended cab was not.

The reality is that the $10,000 for an extended cab was simply another request for wasteful spending. It was typical of Town Hall's wasteful spending that consistently benefits the members of The Inner Circle... at the same time the taxpayers get fleeced.

Anyway, there are many stories that are left untold. But I thought this one was important... not as a story of an elected official saving the taxpayers $10,000, but as part of the much larger story of elected officials who are more concerned with fighting bureaucrats ever-growing call for more taxing and spending, than with attempting to satiate their thirst for benefiting their cronies.

And before we look forward to 2011, I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas, good holiday season and a Happy New Year!

Tim White

Linear trail funding: private is better than public

The Council is again moving forward with the linear trail. I understand the December Council meeting made two things happen:

1) $812,000 in federal and state grants was reallocated to the West Main Street to Jarvis Street section; and

2) the state DOT was asked to design the entire West Main to Southington trail.

The NHRs Luther Turmelle explains that the tradeoff in getting the DOT to do this work was a Council promise to move forward with the trail in next August's capital budget.

the funding is contingent on the town making a good faith effort to include the project in the 2011-12 capital budget and to get voters to approve the expenditure in November.

And since this stretch of trail is estimated to cost more than $2,000,000, we should probably expect to see more than a million property tax dollars included in the November 2011 referenda for this stretch of trail.

Although I don't support the idea of borrowing and spending more money on expanded services until we -- Cheshire, Hartford & Washington -- get our financial house in order, the Council does. As such, I have a suggestion:

Follow the lead of the turf supporters and fundraise to complete this project.

There's even some big funding available from non-government sources. American Express recently donated $200,000 for rails-to-trails. With some effort -- besides forced taxation at the local, state and federal levels of future taxpayers -- maybe Cheshire could score a trail grant?

Tim White

Same old, same old legal corruption

In October, Rep. Vickie Nardello explained the funding of Mary Fritz' beloved slush funds to me:

The contingency funds account existed in the years 06-09. In those four years 26 million dollars was spent. It was funded from surplus dollars in the annual budget. The expenditure of the money was determined by the Governor, Speaker of the House, and Senate President.

She continued by noting that Fritz' slush funds no longer exist:

There is no longer any money in the account and it did not receive funding in FY 10 or 11.

And she concluded by assuring me that:

I would not support funding this account in the future.

Well Rep. Nardello, the future is here.

According to CT Capitol Report, here are just a few of the places where the current slush fund will be directed on December 10 when The Rubber Stamp Bonding Commission members earns their salary by robbing the taxpayers blind spending money we don't have:

CPTV to get $1 million check from state..
Williams gets $3.75 million for Putnam YMCA...
$275,000 for fence in Hartford...
$950,000 for New Haven...
$500,000 for ski resort...
$350,000 for Hartford Regional Farmer's market...
$100,000 for Norwich museum; 'beautiful Romanesque Revival home'...
$700,000 for Montville police station...

If I were in CT, rest assured I'd be at that Bonding Commission meeting and personally questioning Governor Rell about the benefit to society for all these projects. I mean, how ridiculous is this? No, no, I'm sure this has "nothing" to do with a few last minute favors being paid back on the way out the door. Right?

But in fairness to The Loved One, Williams and Donovan are complicit in this scheme to cheat the taxpayers.

Donovan, Rell and Williams are obnoxious. Their blatant disrespect for the taxpayers, as they thumb their noses at us, is despicable. They know the budget is in horrendous shape, yet they continue trying to buy votes and popularity.

Have they no shame?

And considering that Rep. Nardello said she wouldn't support these funds, I wonder if she'll be attending the December 10 Bonding Commission meeting to fight this pilfering of the treasury? Ha. She's a player, just like Fritz and Gaffey. They all need to go.

Tim White

Performance contracting in Cheshire?

The MRJs Jesse Buchanan reports:

The town will soon release a request for energy-saving proposals as part of a performance-based contract, something the Energy Commission and former Town Councilor Tim White have pushed for years.

I thank the Council for seriously considering this as an option for engaging in a town wide infrastructure improvement and energy conservation plan.

Further into the article, Jesse had a line that suggests if you knock loud enough and long enough... they'll eventually consider what you're saying...

“Maybe people just got tired of Tim yacking about it and just did the thing,” Ogurick said. “We’ve been advocating for it for seven to eight years.”

Haha... I got a chuckle out of that line. Thanks Rich! But seriously...

Engaging in a town wide plan makes good financial sense. But besides conserving energy and saving money... if the initially planned four buildings is expanded to cover more of the towns 24 primary buildings (about 1,000,000 sq ft; 800k schools & 200k town), then this could eventually be a textbook case study in reducing the overall size and scope of government with a commensurate reduction in headcount... which would have a positive impact on our defined benefit pension plan.*

So this could have a lot of positives from the perspective of the taxpayer.

Tim White

* By "positive impact," I mean it may initially add beneficiaries to the plan. But ultimately, the first thing we need to do is get all eligible employees to close their plans. Then we can measure the liability. Then we can start paying it and reducing the liability.

2010 Referenda results

$425,000 Fire Dept breathing apparatus
YES 8800 73.99%
NO 3094 26.01%
Total votes 11894

$1.5m Road Repavement
YES 7196 62.48%
NO 4321 37.52%
Total votes 11517

$1m roof replacement
YES 6279 54.90%
NO 5159 45.10%
Total votes 11438

$570,000 Dodd kitchen renovations
YES 5960 51.84%
NO 5538 48.16%
Total votes 11498

$475,000 CHS track replacement
YES 4542 39.48%
NO 6962 60.52%
Total votes 11504

Here's a ten year history of Cheshire referenda results. And see here for a trend analysis of certain referenda.

I'm guessing the recent history of rejected recreation-related projects (2005 linear trail, 2010 pool, 2010 track) will be taken into consideration by the Council when the turf comes to a vote.

With regard to the track, I'm uncertain what will happen with the $150,000 previously appropriated. My guess is that it'll be used to perform ongoing maintenance... or the Council could probably defund all or some of the appropriation... before it gets used on other projects "related to the track." Wouldn't be surprised if David Schrumm already knows the answer to that.

It's also notable that the Dodd kitchen renovations weren't given any sort of massive support, while roads were given pretty strong support.

Tim White

BOE sends turf to Council; 6-1, Sobol opposed

The MRJs Jesse Buchanan reported:

The Board of Education approved three motions which support the Cheshire High School artificial turf project Thursday night and forward it to the Town Council.

The motions were approved in a six to one vote with Republican Alan Sobol the lone dissenter.

Thank you Alan. This will be another long-term liability given to the taxpayers. And we need to reduce those liabilities, not increase them.

While some argue that the Town must replace the turf -- either with artificial turf or natural turf -- I suggest waiting to see the results of the $475,000 track referendum on November 2. If that fails -- and I think it may* -- then the taxpayers will have spoken loud'n'clear.

Tim White

* Recent recreation projects, such as the pool and linear trail, failed. And roads and energy improvements have seen support decreasing significantly in recent years.

Brown / Nardello: slush funds & turf

At last night's debate, Vickie Nardello (D) and Kathy Brown (R) were told and asked:

The August 3, 2008 Waterbury Republican American editorial described the “discretionary funds” in Hartford as “slush funds.” Cheshire’s $525,000 turf originated from these “discretionary funds.” Since this money has not yet been spent, do you support or oppose defunding the turf project in an effort to balance the state budget?

Here is their response:



After years of seeing it, I've gotten tired of Vickie spewing facts to divert attention without ever actually answering a question. Which in this case was:

In an effort to balance the budget, would you defund the turf?

Instead we get the runaround... like when she started defending her opposition to the death penalty in all instances because an innocent person may be put to death... huh?... news to Rep. Nardello... those two predators are NOT innocent! Yet in her heart of hearts, she wants to protect the lives of those two murderers!

Agree with her or not -- and I agree with her -- at least Kathy Brown was direct in her answer.

Tim White

Fritz / Abbate: slush funds & turf

When asked if -- in an effort to balance the budget -- she would defund the turf grant, Mary Fritz explains that we just don't understand... the $525,000 isn't really in the budget! It's really just a debt service line item in a future budget... NBD!

Thanks Mary for letting us know just how stupid we are!

Kinda reminds me of the September 2005 LTTE from Steve Carroll explaining the difference between the operating costs of the school budget and the capital costs of the linear trail... a letter which was soon followed by a resident chastising Steve for his letter. And in the audience tonight I already had one unaffiliated voter tell me "spending is spending... what doesn't she understand?"

Thank you Mary for putting the 90th district in play! She's so arrogant and she doesn't even know it.



And here's Richard Abbate's response... which I think may have been his best comments of the night...



I thank you Richard for standing up to Mary.

UPDATE: Here's the question I posed... The August 3, 2008 Waterbury Republican American editorial described the “discretionary funds” in Hartford as “slush funds.” Cheshire’s $525,000 turf originated from these “discretionary funds.” Since this money has not yet been spent, do you support or oppose defunding the turf project in an effort to balance the state budget?

Tim White

Ending Town Hall's waste and mismanagement

I've been following the Rosemary Lane reconstruction lately. And though I'm leaving, the waste and mismanagement in Town Hall has not yet stopped. I doubt it would ever end completely, but the Council needs to take measures to reduce it.

Step one is recognizing where it has already happened.

Step two is taking measures to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.

For that reason, I'm still asking:

Why was Rosemary Lane repaved in 2008, but storm drains were constructed in 2010?



And also... what are the Public Works "best practices" that led to this mess?

I've already spoken with the Planning Committee Chairman, Jimmy Sima. He will be following up on this.

Tim White

Turf: the original Council motion

As you might expect, I'm cleaning house and tossing a bunch of old papers. In the process, I came across the original Council motion regarding the turf:Some have wondered if the Turf Committee was created by way of a Council motion.

It was not.

Frankly though, I still feel that the Turf Committee is an integral part of the process and do appreciate the work they've done. Regardless, if I were voting... I don't see how I'd support increasing services,* if I felt the long-term liabilities related to replacing the field would be borne by the local taxpayers.

Tim White

* from 30 two-hour uses per year to 300 two-hour uses per year.

P&R fees: symbolic votes should not be represented as votes with actual authority

In a recent post on the Council voting to raise Parks & Rec fees I wrote:

My concern was not only increasing fees in this economy, it was also the process.

The process concerns me because I don't want residents to believe that a Council vote has real legislative authority, unless that is true. And based on previous TM explanations I've been given, I understand that the Council has no actual authority over P&R fees.

So why did we vote?

I'm not entirely sure. But the TM wasn't there and my process concern was relatively minor in the bigger picture. Nonetheless...

Going forward, I hope that when the Council votes on P&R and pool fees it is made clear to the voters that the vote is symbolic only. And I also hope the TM -- the paid, full-time staff -- stops failing to disclose relevant facts when the Council votes. But then, the TM has always had a preference for omitting -- rather than disclosing -- relevant information.

I think it's important that the voters be given an accurate understanding of Council actions. And I've felt this way for years. For example, in June 2007 the TM had the authority to work with the Friends of Boulder Knoll, yet he refused to act. But the former Council majority refused to publicly chastise the TM. So they kowtowed to his wishes and knowingly misled the voters by voting to authorize and direct the TM to act.

I'm leaving the Council now. But I hope that when issues regarding the authority of the Council vs. the authority of the TM arise, the Council makes clear to the voters if the vote has legal standing or is simply symbolic. Symbolic votes have value, but the voters should know if a vote is symbolic or legal.

For more on the Council vote on P&R fees, you can see the Herald article here and the MRJ article here.

And here are my comments regarding the relevance of a Council vote on P&R fees:



Tim White

Bulky waste: a cost-effective alternative?

I consistently hear from residents who are disappointed that there is no longer a bulky waste pickup in town. And since a pickup today would likely cost in the $150,000 to $200,000 range, I offer an idea for a cost-effective alternative.

No, I'm not talking about opening the transfer station for several days per year, free-of-charge to residents. Instead...

We could have a townwide tag sale.

Sure some people have no interest in sitting in their driveway / garage for six hours on a Saturday and / or Sunday. But...

If it's town wide, it would attract large numbers of people from neighboring towns and people could simply move their stuff to the curb sometime before the townwide tag sale... then people would be coming around to collect stuff that interests them... no different than bulky waste.

My idea for Cheshire originated with Prospect. Mayor Bob Chatfield helps organize two townwide tag sales per year. I understand their most recent one included about 80 households and he provides a list of all participating households in town hall.

If someone created a map on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of a paper with dots for each participating household and / or a list of all their street addresses, I bet we could tackle a large part of the call for bulky waste... by spending $150 to $200, instead of spending 1,000 times that.

It would take some effort to organize, but I think it could work. Plus... it's a great excuse to shoot the breeze with your neighbors! Haha...

Tim White

Fee increase for Parks & Rec

At Tuesday's meeting, the Council voted to increase fees at the Parks & Recreation Department, including at the pool. Both the Herald's Josh Morgan and the MRJs Jesse Buchanan reported on it.

Here is the resolution, along with the fee schedule:Councilman Ecke and I opposed the motion. Here are my comments prior to the vote:



My concern was not only increasing fees in this economy, it was also the process. I'm running out the door now, but will hopefully find some time this weekend to give some more background on my "process" concern.

Tim White

Long-term planning: WPCA reviews sewer plant improvements

I've spoken with the WPCAs Chairman, John Atwood, a couple times about the status of the tentatively proposed $30 million sewer plant improvement project. Here's a synopsis of the most recent status update he's given me:

The WPCA put an extensive amount of time developing a facility plan that took a 20 year forward look – these included many special meetings focused exclusively on the facility plan, where the WPCA invited everyone one to participate and assist them in making the correct decisions. Similar to the improvements with the plant (the $30million plus project) the WPCA has done the same following the facility plan. The treatment plant improvement plan, has taken a short term, long term, and an economic view on the plant as a whole; furthermore the members have further broken down (what ever can be broken down) into discrete sections and done a further analysis.

Right now there are two moving variables that are major impactors:

1) What rules are the WPCA working under? Specifically what are the phosphor limits to be maintained in 2011, 2012, 2015, and moving forward? What other limits if any will be changed by the State or EPA that the WPCA will have to meet and adhere to?

2) How will this be financed? Specifically what rules will be in place that will decide on what municipal waste water projects will receive financial support from the State and/or Federal government?

I appreciate the efforts of the entire WPCA. It's quite likely the Council will soon be asking the taxpayers for $30,000,000 for plant improvements. The Council is going to need to know this project has been well vetted, including both a review of anticipated initial and long-term costs.

Tim White

Brown / Nardello: How bout the discretionary funds?

I just emailed the following to the two candidates for the 89th House district:

To: kathy at brownforct2010.com
vnardello at aol.com
vickie.nardello at cga.ct.gov

Dear Ms. Brown and Ms. Nardello:

The August 3, 2008 editorial in the Waterbury Republican American clearly explains the existence of an annual $36,000,000 discretionary fund in the state budget. You can find the editorial here.

Do you support or oppose the existence (continuance) of these discretionary funds?

Furthermore, while the Bond Commission has already voted in favor of discretionary funds over the past few years, not all of these discretionary funds have actually been spent. In relation to balancing the state budget, do you support or oppose a “clawback” of unexpended discretionary funds? (This question is related to both the $10m x 3 people that goes through the Bond Commission and the $2m x 3 people that does not go through the Bond Commission.)

Regards,
Tim White
Cheshire

(P.S. Vickie... I wasn't sure if the state address was appropriate for an election question, but also wasn't sure if you still used your AOL address. And I really am hoping for an answer on this. I've repeatedly asked the same question of Foley and Malloy and neither of them have answered yet.)

It's the same question for which I've been chasing Foley & Malloy. And neither of them will answer. Now it's time to start asking our legislators.

Tim White