Only in the Mind of a Lawyer
The two passages from the last two BOE meeting minutes below are self-explanatory. The real nuance to pay attention to here is in the attendees for each of these meetings and how the dynamic of this Board is influenced depending on who shows up. Considering Mrs. Paul’s personal diatribes and clear vendetta against anything Academy, she didn’t fare so well without her minions. I am advised that directly after the 9/25 meeting she buttonholed the Superintendent into a side room where it’s a good bet that the “letter of support” turned into something a bit different.
In the second passage below the Superintendent “indicated that it was his intent to send to them the Board’s motion. He felt it was the clearest message that could be sent and allowed for no other interpretation.”
So, it appears that whatever the Board’s intent might have been in this endeavor, the intent of Mrs. Paul and the Superintendent is the only one that really counts.
What follows is the lawyerly explanation on 10/23: Mr. Loftus “indicated that he does not find any confusion with the letter of support that was sent. It is his feeling that what the Superintendent did was in compliance with the motion of this Board. He finds no confusion what so ever in the actions that ensued following the motion…”
Well Bill, I think you might be the only one.
From the 9/25/08 BOE Meeting Minutes
PRESENT:
BOARD: Mrs. Paul, Mr. Rosendahl, Mrs. Rigney, Mr. Musumeci, Mrs. Andrzeicik (arrived at
7:33 PM), Mrs. Swenson.
Excused Absence: Mr. Corden, Mr. Ford, Mr. Loftus.
C. Discussion of Board's Position Regarding the Fields at the Academy
Much discussion was held regarding what the Board's position should be regarding the fields at the Academy. It was noted that these fields would benefit students K through 12 and should not be considered just for the Academy but for the community. Mrs. Paul noted three concerns: 1) There is no budget for expansion and no disclosure on estimates to build or maintain, though the Board has registered a desire to understand what the projected costs would be. 2) The Academy has several major capital projects of priority they are pursuing including sewer and the expansion of classrooms and a science facility. 3) Environmental concerns regarding the development of that property should be kept in mind. Mrs. Paul noted that it was her feeling that the Board lacked information in order to take a position, however would not want that concern to be categorized in any way as being against the Academy field. Mrs. Swenson indicated that she is in favor of the fields for the Academy however agrees that there is not enough information available to this Board at this time to take a position. Mr. Rosendahl noted the importance of the fields to the School and community and discussed the engineers' response to the environmental concerns. Mrs. Swenson discussed some of the concerns raised by Mrs. Paul from the Trustee's perspective. She felt it is premature to provide an estimate for the cost of expansion in that they do not have a permit to expand. At this point it is a plan on the table for that purpose. With regard to the sewer, the necessary easements have not been obtained for that. The current system
is functional for the time being and there has not been a mandate by the State to change it. With regard to a science building that is just in the concept stage. Further discussion held.
19335 MOTION
Amendment (Rosendahl, Musumeci)
To send a letter of support to the Planning and Zoning and the Academy to state that in concept we are in support of the Athletic Fields as the Woodstock Board of Education.
(Rigney, Musumeci)
While there remain several unknowns in terms of cost and financial impact, we do support in concept the athletic fields.
Voting Yes: Mrs. Swenson, Mrs. Andrzeicik, Mr. Rosendahl, Mrs.
Rigney, Mr. Musumeci.
Voting No: None.
Abstaining: Mrs. Paul.
Final Motion:
To send a letter of support to the Planning and Zoning and the
Academy to state that, while there remain several unknowns in terms
of cost and financial impact, we support, in concept, the athletic fields.
Voting Yes: Mr. Musumeci; Mr. Rosendahl, Mrs. Rigney, Mrs. Andrzeicik, Mrs. Swenson.
Voting No: None
Abstaining: Mrs. Paul
____________________________________________________________________
From the 10/23/08 BOE Meeting Minutes
PRESENT:
BOARD: Mrs. Paul, Mr. Rosendahl, Mr. Musumeci, Mr. Ford, Mr. Corden, Mrs. Swenson, Mr. Loftus.
ABSENT: Mrs. Rigney, Mrs. Andrzeicik.
C. Committee Reports
…Mr. Musumeci noted the letter sent to Woodstock Academy Trustees and Woodstock Planning and Zoning regarding the Board’s motion at last meeting to send a letter of support for the concept of the Academy athletic fields. He felt there was some confusion as to the format of sending them the motion verbatim versus a letter of support. It was also suggested that the letter be made part of the Board packet. Dr. Baran indicated that it was his intent to send to them the Board’s motion. He felt it was the clearest message that could be sent and allowed for no other interpretation. Some discussion held. It was suggested that the Board be more specific in a motion of this nature in the future. Mr. Loftus indicated that he does not find any confusion with the letter of support that was sent. It is his feeling that what the Superintendent did was in compliance with the motion of this Board. He finds no confusion what so ever in the actions that ensued following the motion…
What should be clear is that Mrs. Paul can abstain since she has a shot with the aid of the Superintendent to make the intent of the letter have the softest landing by not following the spirit nor the intent of the BOE that voted on the motion.
So here is the moral of this story, if you make a motion that needs a letter written you had better write the letter yourself and the have those voting in favor of the motion all sign the letter. Never ever trust a Chairman that doesn't not have the personal intestinal fortitude to vote the way she has stated in many letters to the editor and to Board of Trustees.
It is becoming fairly apparent that when Ford and Paul write their little disclaimer after what they just said, " does not represent the BOE", they can fix the letter so it does match what they think and not match what the BOE voted to send. This is just another case where the Superintendent and the BOE Chairwoman hammer to fit and paint to match.
Come on. Whatever Mrs. Paul's intentions are, the substance of her concerns are right on. Someone has to be looking out for the taxpayer. If, as Mrs. Swenson suggests, "there is not enough information available" and it is "premature to provide an estimate for the cost" then I believe it IS, then, too premature to be writing a letter of support.
So yes while it is all well and good to say that the BOE supports the concept of field expansion, what purpose does it really achieve to simply provide lip service to the Academy. What is the BOE trying to achieve by prematurely writing this letter? To show the Academy that they are not really the bad guys? What a bunch of cr*p. Shouldn't the Academy be trying to sell the project to the taxpayers/BOE instead of the other way around?
I'm reminded of the liberals who cry for universal healthcare, expansion of entitlement programs, larger governement projects, a new New Deal, and yet never ask the simple question of "How can we afford it?"
We are in the middle of an unprecedented economic downturn that has largely resulted from a credit crisis due to irresponsible lending, borrowing, and spending. As a result the weight of this bailout will be felt by all of us taxpayers.
Locally, the DEP has mandated that the Town of Woodstock needs to replace the Salt shed and the town garage. We have negligently put this important and dire situation off for over 10 years at the expense of the health of our neighbor and yet, without any questions we are to simply accept the Academy's plan carte blanc without the bat of an eyelash??
My point is this. YES, the concept of Academy fields expansion is a great one. No one could or should deny this concept and the need for it. But so also is a host of other spending initiatives. But can we afford it? In light of the deep and dark recession we are facing, in light of the taxpayer burden that bailout will cost us, in light of the fact that at a local level we will have to bond for the salt shed, one must ask the difficult question, is this really the time to expand athletic fields?? Simply supporting the concept and wasting the time to write a letter confirming this is ridiculous and doesn't get to the heart of the matter.
Whether or not Mrs. Paul's personal intentions are true to the taxpayers interests or not we will never know for sure, but substantively and at face value, she is right in asking the difficult questions and right in abstaining her support. At least we have one Republican that's demostrating some common sense. Its about time.
This town has Prop 46 for a reason...to prevent overspending, now let's put our money where our mouth is...behind a set of pit bull teeth.
Tax, the overall point of the article isn't about 'why' it's about 'how' which has been a theme of this blog since its inception. The "lip service" that you speak of appears to me to be similar to the Academy endorsing the ridiculous budget from the BOE last season which is nothing more than professional courtesy. It is my opinion that trying to "sell" this project to anyone in this enviroment would be folly at best and I think they are aware of that fact. Do you expect the parade of earth moving equipment to roll in next week? I don't...and no, obviously we can't afford it.
I believe Mrs. Paul's intentions are clear after following her personal crusade against even the concept of this project and anything Academy over the course of her tenure. As to your description of her "common sense", this made me laugh out loud. With the K-8 CAGR in the range of 9% over the last number of years with dismal results, this doesn't equate to common sense while the Academy in the same vien is in the range of 4% while producing results that most are happy with, which apparently includes all of the other sending towns.
I am in no way saying that the Academy is without its faults...and to answer those at Aljazeera about citizen audits, the Academy is on the list, however, it seems logical to start with the largest pile first especially considering what has been uncovered already.
Hard questions need to be answered on a plethora of subjects around here and I don't really see anyone with the intestinal fortitude to address them head on and in the light of day except for maybe Dave Richardson, unless of course they have some ulterior motive as Mrs. Paul obviously does in the senseless BOE crusades.
Along those lines, how about the BOF which has made a complete mockery of Prop 46 while chugging the BOE Kool-Aid of being "starved for funds" as we watch them spend wildly on the empire, having nothing to do with core educational issues and needs. During the budget dance I don't recall ONE intelligent question from any of them.
On the Salt Shed issue you are absolutely correct, but will we see a bond proposal that doesn't include all sorts of other toys? I for one doubt it. We'll see.
Why doesn't Mrs. Paul have the same concerns and ask the hard questions of the Superintendent about what goes on in her own house? (I think we all know the answer to that one).
Ultimately it is the citizenry that is going to have to grow some teeth to put a stop to this "bunch of cr*p" as you so eloquently put it.
But your response to me is overrreaching the statements made in your article and, frankly, changing the subject and the course of the discussion by diverting attention away from the substance YOU initially provided to newer allegations that you now believe are relevent to forming an opinion against Mrs. Paul. But I don't believe that they are relevant to the subject at hand, which is her stand on the Academy fields.
In fact, you seem agree that this project will unlikely be moved on anytime soon, trying to sell this project "would be folly" in this economic environment, and you question, as well, whether or not we can afford it. So, can you not, then, at least in principle and based on the information provided, support Mrs. Paul? You must. All speculation aside. You must.
I mean come on. You voted for Obama. His message and the voters response was clear. He and they want a change. A more peaceful discourse, a government that can compromise, become less partisan, work together for the common good, in order to move the country forward. Well can't this and shouldn't this start at the local level as well? Didn't the Academy statement to support the K-8, which you denounce, help work towards this end? You see it as a professional courtesy. I see it as a start.
You stated above, "hard questions need to be answered on a plethora of subjects". Isn't that what Mrs. Paul is doing in regards to the Academy? You go on to say, " I don't see anyone with any intestinal fortitude addressing them in the light of day" but isn't that what Mrs. Paul is doing as well? But instead of giving her credit where credit is due, you simply spin it to make her look like the bad guy while failing to acknowldge that Muscemeci and Rosendahl are not taking any true stand but are simply providing a "professional courtesy" to the Academy, which you just got through denouncing the Academy for doing a few sentences earlier! This is simply a Joe Breen style double standard! While a letter is nice and it may be a start, it is substantively silly (as you suggested the Academy was guilty of in supporting the BOE budget). Mrs. Paul is right. Then you merely argue my point on terms that have nothing to do with the article and are based on what she has not done...as if that should discredit what SHE HAS done! Its not fair. All I am saying is that I am judging Mrs. Paul based on the information contained in your article and based on this article, she seems to be the only Republican with any sense.
No, I "musn't". The allegations aren't newer, actually they are older and still unanswered. My opinion of Mrs. Paul has been formed over a long period of time. To the subject at hand, if she feels so strongly about the Academy fields, then why didn't she vote her conscience and apparent public stand on the issue- political expedience?
We both seem to agree that the concept of the project is laudable. As to the costs and where the money will come from, the impression that I have is that the money will be raised privately, if that is in fact the case, then godspeed. Where did all of the rhetoric from Joe Breen and the sock puppets come from that this project will be foisted onto the taxpayers? I have yet to see any evidence of that. If I do, I will scream the loudest.
I invite a more peaceful discourse right after the players come clean on where we've been and they stop hiding behind the lawyers. Just like I feel that Bush/Cheney/Gonzales should hang for their misdeeds. (Go Texas!)
I didn't "denounce" what Mrs. Fredrickson did and I wasn't shocked by it at all- after all they know where their money comes from too, don't they?
For you to compare me to Joe Breen is truly laughable, while he is obviously bright as is Mrs. Paul, the dark side has prevailed and there is no return. You continue to miss the point of the article in that while abstaining in the vote, it is apparent to me that whatever Musumeci and Rosendahl were trying to accomplish, she wasn't going to let it stand- by hook or crook as usual. Sense? Not by my standards.
They call it PASSIVE aggressive. Mrs. Paul that is.
Yes. You are right (I hope), If the funds can be raised privately then this becomes a moot issue. As far as hidden agendas and the esoteric points of Mrs.Paul's true intentions, that you insist I miss, well, maybe I'm just naive, but I become myopic when trying to work from that angle.
I have had a lot of trouble with the position that was taken by Lindsay Paul in the whole fields project application process. I think it did much to 'poison the well' in terms of the task now ahead of us who will be taking on the challenge of the upcoming capital campaign to raise the $$.
The other component that is lost in the context of the fear mongering by Joe Breen et al regarding ongoing expenses to the Town once the fields are built out... whatever that expense is.... the share of Woodstock tax dollars (incrementally factored into the WA tuition charge) we in Woodstock get a pretty good deal in that the sending Towns, in effect bear 60-70% of that 'burden' via total tuition dollars while we get the benefit of having the expanded 'public park' readily available to us with others paying 60-70% of the overhead costs.
Also Lindsay Paul advocating for the inclusion of a laundry list of conditions to the permits that were granted (in my mind reflecting regulatory overkill in an effort to placate the vocal objections of the NIMBY neighbors who vocally opposed) have effectively added perhaps $100-$150,000 to the costs of the project.... but heck... it’s only money right? Most of which supporters will be having to work hard to raise, but if the goal was/is to make it all economically undoable...to them it equals "mission accomplished".
Hopefully sanity will prevail to the benefit of future students who will benefit from a lot of hard work that is about to be embarked upon.
Maybe to cut maintenance costs the BOE will volunteer the new $13K lawnmower to mow the fields ;0)
They could raffle it off, proceeds to go to education, Ha that would be a switch!
What ever happened to education ? The only thing BOE seems to be interested in is money and how to spend more of it. Shame they don't get to watch CNN and CNBC they would see we are entering a world depression greater than 1929...Wake up BOE and smell the poverty.