The Question at Hand...
Shall the Town of Woodstock adopt an ordinance in accordance with Sections 9-203 and 9-205 of the General Statutes of Connecticut to reduce the Board of Education from its present nine members to seven, thereby causing the terms of all present members to terminate on November 2, 2009 and seven members of the Board shall be elected; four members to hold office for two years and three members to hold office for four years, each from the date of election, and, at each town election thereafter, shall elect members of such board in place of the members whose terms expire, each for a term of four years from the date of election.
A petition bearing this question and 20+ signatures was presented to the Town Clerk this morning. Once those signatures are verified as Electors as defined in the Connecticut General Statutes as ‘Any registered voter in Woodstock or a U.S. citizen over the age of 18 whose name appears on the last completed Grand List of Taxable Property and whose assessment is over $1,000.00’, this will cause the BOS to set a Town Meeting based on the petitioner’s request which must be held within 21 days of the request being submitted to the Town Clerk.
It is the intent of the petitioners to present a second petition to the Town Clerk bearing the same question and 200+ signatures at least 24 hours prior to the Town Meeting set by the BOS, thereby causing that meeting to be adjourned to a machine vote, hopefully to be combined with the upcoming budget referendum in the interest of cost and convenience.
If you have interest in signing and/or circulating the petition requiring the 200+ signatures, please email woodstocktruth@charter.net or call 860.974.3022 and arrangements will be made to have the petition delivered to you after the BOS has set the date for the meeting as prescribed in the petition process.
Why the Petitioners Feel this Initiative is Necessary
Reduction of Term: The current six year term required for BOE candidates causes the inability of the political committees to attract appropriate candidates. If the initiative is successful, terms will be reduced to 2 and 4 years initially and 4 years thereafter.
Reduction of Number: The inability of the respective political committees to attract the appropriate number of candidates to serve.
Smaller committees tend to accomplish more than larger ones.
Promotes more ownership by parents and citizens; It is the hope of the petitioners that the newly elected BOE will welcome more productive involvement by those who would like to help shape our school system through positive engagement and service on subcommittees.
Ceasing the current atmosphere of divisiveness with the Academy, parents, citizenry and other elected Boards; this is the first step in restoring an education agenda to serve the children of Woodstock.
You are invited to ask questions by posting to the article, emailing or calling the number above. Thank you.
Reference: Connecticut General Statutes
Petition Image PDF
The petition has been certified as valid as of 9:43am 5/6/09.
I think a change would be beneficial.
I truly believe that you would have far more individuals interested in participating on the BOE if they did not have to commit to 6 YEARS. 6 YEARS is too long in my opinion.
I mean, come on...even the POTUS only gets 4 years.
The Article states that this will cause "...that meeting to be adjourned to a machine vote, hopefully to be combined with the upcoming budget referendum in the interest of cost and convenience." What if it's NOT to be combined with the budget referendum? Is there a legitimate URGENCY which would justify the cost to Taxpayers of a stand-alone referendum? Please be specific and detailed – regardless of the merits or subject matter, WHY must this be done on an ASAP Basis? Is forcing the vote ASAP worth the cost?
Hello Con,
I just returned from the Special Selectman's meeting that was held today at 4:00 wherein the Special Town Meeting and referendum was to be set. The Leavitt's were also in attendance.
The town attorney explained by conference call, his delay in getting his paperwork back to the Selectmen, therefore action was tabled until Wednesday May 12th at 4:00pm.
With regard to your question, many timelines must be met regarding publishing of notices, etc. and I will do my best to lay it out for you-
First let me say that unfortunately, getting this combined with the budget referendum is off the table due to these other timelines that must be adhered to. Currently it is envisioned by the Selectmen to 'Warn the Special Town Meeting' for May 26th and to set the referendum date for June 9th. If the referendum is successful, the new ordinance must take effect and be published prior to June 15, 2009, in order for both political caucuses to be advised prior to July 15, 2009, (30 days), therefore the ordinance if adopted will need to be published on or before June 14.
As far as your characterization of an 'ASAP' basis, it was the consensus of the group that supports this initiative that it needed to be done prior to the summer break in order to have a chance and to be in effect prior to the November election where it will have its impact.
The other item of note is that it appears that the Selectmen are going to waive the requirment for the 200+ signatures and set the machine vote for June 9th. I will publish the entirety of the town attorney's material and the outcome of the Selectman's meeting on Wednesday evening after it is received. Let me know if you have other questions. Thanks. (BTW, just got your other post and it's been a long day, but I will get to it).
Admin,
You mentioned that you've read what others are saying at the Cafe so I'd like to ask you about it. Others are assuming that the purpose behind this initiative is to attempt to unseat current BOE members that the people behind this initiative are unhappy with. So rather than speculate or make assumptions, I prefer to ask you directly: is this true? If this was strictly a matter of taking issue with the length of service on the board, I would be inclined to say that you have reasonable points worth debating. But I would also echo what some others have said. Namely, why not introduce a referendum to change the time of service for a BOE member to take effect when the current terms expire? Also echoing what some others have mentioned, are you only concerned about the length of service for BOE terms or for other boards like the BOF that also currently have a six year term? Does the group behind this initiative have plans to petition for change of terms of service for BOF members as well? If not, why? If so, will the petition call for a new election for BOF members as well? Does the same apply to the PZC also?
Some of these candidates just ran in an election and haven't even completed their initial year of service yet. Now they will be forced to re-run a new campaign if they wish to continue the service they were just elected to render, all at additional expense to the taxpayers. Given this, I feel rather unsettled about this initiative. I do not intend my questions here to be an interrogation but rather an interview. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt so I prefer to ask you these questions directly and offer an opportunity to address what's on the minds of more people than just myself. The way this has been undertaken seems to cast a shadow over the purpose of it all. I mean, what happens if some of the currently serving BOE members choose not to re-campaign for their seat and not enough new candidates come forward to run? Could we potentially go from having a fully elected and seated BOE to one with vacancies? If so, and if this situation is done at additional taxpayer expense, do you feel that such a situation truly serves our students?
I hope you don't object to my questions because I feel that your honest answers are important. Thank you.
Newcomer,
I’m a little surprised that you feel the need to ask in this way considering all of the material presented and our prior conversations. The length of service issue is the main purpose of the initiative as well as number of members. If you dug in at all on the ‘Role of School Boards’ article you will find that the majority of Boards are seven members and the higher numbers are normally for larger districts and this has been confirmed through other research as well.. Specifically see- http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/atf/cf/%7B13A13846-1CA6-4F8A-B52E-2A88576B84EF%7D/GoodladCh9forNSBA.pdf
Lest anyone forget, we are a small district with ~900 kids and declining but it would be hard to tell that by reviewing the legal billing.
In discussions with the leadership of both parties, it was confirmed that the BOE candidates are the toughest to find and I would speculate that this is due to more than one reason, but length of term is at the top of the list. If the initiative is successful and the vision and execution of the Board is improved, I personally see this as a bonus in favor of the kids and parents of Woodstock.
You ask why not introduce such an initiative to coincide with expiration of terms- the answer is if it was done that way we would adopt such an initiative and then wait two years for effect, I see that as fairly pointless in trying to raise the level of awareness to engage more participation from potential candidates as well as citizens and parents.
To your question about this group initiating a change on BOF, I can say that this is not currently an issue for this group; however, I would invite those who feel strongly about it to investigate their options. If you check CGS 7-340, 7-341 and 9-202, you will have your answers. The statutes regarding PZC also have specific guidelines I believe. Somebody would need to do the homework.
Don’t you find it a bit ironic that two of the candidates you speak of are strongly behind the initiative? (Rosendahl & Musumeci) If you check the 2007 election results you will find that Mr. Ford was seated by default over Mr. Leavitt due to the minority representation rules- the vote totals for both gentlemen were pathetic mainly due to their connection to Mr. Breen I suspect.
I personally don’t see the ‘shadow over the purpose of it all’. Rather, I see the light at the end of the tunnel. This wasn’t decided in a day. This was fully vetted during the Coalition initiative and the discussions have been ongoing since then. If you recall, the level of engagement was stunning against the Breen and 9th grade proposals- those of us with hopes for a progressive vision for our district would love to see that kind of involvement more regularly for more positive reasons. From a strategy perspective, if in fact the Board was trying to raise awareness and engage citizens and parents to participate, you have to wonder what on earth they were thinking.
As far as the possibility of having vacancies, I suppose anything is possible. I can tell you that people have already stepped forward and are planning to run, Steve and Brian have also pledged to run again; therefore, I don’t see that scenario playing out.
As far as costs, I am a bit disappointed that we were unable to combine this with the budget referendum; however, it is my opinion that a couple of thousand dollars pales in comparison to the inefficiencies that we are currently experiencing with the status quo. I think Mr. Rosendahl said it best in the BOF public hearing last year (paraphrasing) “A quality district can be identified by the vision of its board and the quality of the administration.” This speaks to the “elements” I feel are needed to have a quality district that serves the children that you and I discussed in a prior conversation.
I don’t in any way object to your questions- I would think by now you would have learned that while not everyone will like the answer, you will get a straight one…don’t worry, I can take it.
Admin: In your response to Newcomer you state more than one main reason for this Action (and thereby further raised my suspicion that this seems to be more about Politics than anything else). Are all of these reasons stated publicly? Does the voting public understand that these reasons are the motivation behind the Petition and the Action for which it calls?
If I have this right, in the comment to Newcomer you have stated 3 main reasons for this Action: 1) To ‘correct’ the length of Service/Number of Members, which is currently inappropriate and harmful (the purported reason); 2) To raise the level of awareness and to engage more participation; and 3) To ‘correct’ the current BOE inefficiencies. (How? By replacing or eliminating certain members and bringing in certain members? How could the Action possibly correct inefficiencies in any other way?)
Regarding my earlier questions on whether this Action justifies the Cost of a Vote and WHY must this be scheduled as though it involves some pressing new matter or discovery and is extremely urgent, can you verify approximately how much a Vote will actually cost Taxpayers? In your response you suggest that it’s ‘a couple of thousand dollars’ – is this accurate or is it a guess? I would certainly hope that the group, before moving forward, would have researched this Cost to Taxpayers, have an accurate estimate and have consensus that the Action justifies the cost to Taxpayers (as a purely practical matter, I think the Action would have faced much less opposition if it had been worked so that the Vote coincided with the Budget vote).
By my lights, it seems quite wasteful to force a costly, stand-alone vote rather than wait patiently while working to bring about change in other ways. After all, if we circulate a successful Petition every time we have the ‘critical mass’ to support it, we would be having Forced Votes every quarter or more. I think there is good reason there seems to be no precedent for this Action - merely because CT Statutes allow a given course of action does not mean it’s the most prudent or advisable action to take. The more I examine this thing critically, I move inexorably toward the position that ‘This seems like an inappropriate end-run on Woodstock’s legitimate election process.’
It does seem impossible to defend the urgency given this Action without admitting straight up that it’s really about changing the current membership of the BOE, not about merely changing the number of members or their length of tenure. Also, I do not see any logical connection between the Action and reasons number 2 and 3; can someone lay this out for us? Is the logical connection that Petitioners believe that the current board is doing a terrible job and must be replaced ASAP – and this Action is their method of replacing existing BOE members? I hope not, because we already have a legitimate process in place for such action – ELECTIONS
Con,
I am not going to continue to repeat my prior answers for you. If you are looking for different answers from me to the same questions posed in a different way, you are wasting your time.
Sorry Con, it is the view of many that what was an inappropriate end-run was for the BOE to spend taxpayer dollars in creating the Breen proposal with Shipman- the most visible end-run of all of their schemes and MANY thousands of dollars might I add- See: http://216.93.241.136/Docs/WBOE_Legal_Crusade.pdf, and yes, I am fully aware of the continued denials. I can also read legal bills and the quotes from Mr. Breen himself- See http://woodstocktruth.com/2008/11/24/current-woodstock-boe-terrorism-threat-level-hysterical.aspx
As I said in my response to Newcomer, I personally see the desired outcome as a bonus on top of the other points. I don’t know how many times I must say it, but we did the best we could in trying to combine the two. Once the petition was presented, like anything else of this nature, it takes on a life of its own. I personally made the appropriate calls to the Selectmen, the Town Clerk, etc, to have it go as easily as possible and it didn’t line up quite right- not the intent or fault of anyone involved. Moreover, I stand by what I said to Newcomer on this point as well; a couple of thousand dollars pales in comparison to addressing the problem(s). This is not a guess, but is second hand information from someone familiar with the process and the costs thereof. I would have to say however, that this amount probably does not include the consultation with the town attorney- which begs the question: Is the BOE already consulting with Shipman to challenge the initiative? I guess that remains to be seen, but wouldn’t surprise me in any way since Frank & Lindsay appear to be on the phone with them nearly every day…I assume you’ve gotten a look at the legal bills, and this doesn’t concern you as a taxpayer?
Sorry if you don’t like my answer but it is what it is, you are free to analyze and spin this any way you’d like of course, but I have to ask- how is an openly conceived petition, vote and outcome different than an ‘ELECTION’ and how is this an affront to you considering that you have said that you are an outsider?
It appears to me that this has the potential to end the Woodstock civil war once and for at least awhile- See http://woodstocktruth.com/2008/02/03/the-futility-of-woodstocks-civil-war.aspx It is my strong view that a successful outcome is a win for the entire town- the alternative is a vote to stay mired in the muck as we have been for many years now- simple as that. You seem to take issue with this initiative but I hear nothing from you about any of the other issues which have been presented on the Coalition site or here over the past number of years, but yet you are rightiously indignant on this...Hmmmmm.
On another note, as mentioned above you have repeatedly represented here in the past that you are an outsider and not in/from Woodstock, did you move into town recently or were you just lying? Not that it matters, but I am curious.
Above all, my comment was asking about Correctness of Process – I said the Action appears to be an inappropriate End-Run on the legal Election Process and the explanation seems to be that ‘they do it too’. What does anyone else’s wrong action have to do with whether THIS measure usurps a Voter’s franchise? Current Board members have been duly elected; this Action seeks to unseat them –where’s the ‘spin’? Town residents seem divided on this Action – so how can it be (‘spin’ it) a ‘win for the entire Town’? Specifically HOW does this Action have the potential to “end the Woodstock civil war”?
The timing IS the fault of those involved – they controlled the timing completely. This could have been submitted months ago and/or predicated on a ‘piggyback vote’ with a regular Vote and save costs thereby. Instead, a false urgency has been foisted on Town taxpayers. Petitioners could have done more to determine the actual cost of this vote, rather than guess based on anecdote (say, by a call or two to the Town Hall - I’ve heard the cost is north of $6,000).
The Petitioners are responsible for Legal Costs as well – the Town has a legal, fiduciary obligation (under the ‘Duty of Care’) to seek legal advice and perform legal research into this unprecedented action. They would be remiss if they failed to contact Town Attorneys. The Petitioners have forced this Town to incur more Legal costs – it’s disingenuous for them to complain about those costs when they could be 100% prevented by relying on Elections. This Town is not equipped to defend suit after suit, nor research unprecedented and unique ways to unseat BOE members merely because a group is unhappy with them.
The question “how is an openly conceived petition, vote and outcome different than an ‘ELECTION’?” surprises me, because the difference is utterly fundamental. Elections involve regularly scheduled, reliable dates and campaigns and rules and a long process by which Voters are informed by each participating party and results which are supposed to stand for set Terms, etc. Importantly, Voters rely on the Election Process and it’s results - Voters don’t expect that their Voting Franchise will be usurped by a Petition whenever the mood strikes (Voter Confidence is extremely important). This Action is extraordinary and a politically unique way to unseat a Board; elections are not.
This site has much to offer, but this extreme attitude of ‘we are 100% right and they are 100% wrong’ sometimes permeates and the level of discourse deteriorates apace (getting personal or off-subject is not productive). The notion that this measure will cure all BOE ills is a highly suspect opinion. We have yet to hear a substantive and comprehensive description of specifically HOW this measure would achieve such lofty goals AND why it is necessary given it’s high voting and legal costs and given that Elections are the proper mechanism to unseat elected officials and Voters rely on those Results.
Con,
No one here has ever said that we are 100% right, nor they are 100% wrong. You have avoided many of my previous questions and while I am not avoiding yours, the point is moot and the people will decide on June 9th. Thanks and be sure to vote either way if in fact you are an elector of Woodstock.
Oh, well. Too bad, because this issue is NOT moot, it is truly heating up. I’m sure many taxpayers would like responses to my challenging questions and would like that comprehensive explanation regarding how this is a ‘win’ and how it will end divisiveness (when it seems to have caused divisiveness at the expense of taxpayers) and a response to my comment on responsibility for all costs.
That '100% right' comment was made after I looked at an article YOU suggested - the 'civil war' link - which is over the top, offensive in it's use of terrorism language and a despicable display of one-sided righteousness. It is a form of protected hate speech and it sure seems like a 'they are 100% wrong' attitude - after all, it likens opponents to Arab Terrorists in a truly offensive way.
I see only two questions you ask me: one I did address (legal costs) and the other is off-subject and contains a totally faulty, embedded assumption – like ‘when did you stop beating your wife?’ – You ought to check my comments, for I never addressed my residency one way or another).
Your lack of response seems a dodge. That’s not your style, so I reckon you have no time – either way, the reason you gave seems to be merely a purported reason for not answering, not the real reason.
As always Con, you are entitled to your opinions...take care and be sure to vote your conscience on June 9th.
Admin,
Thanks for the reply. So how is this going to work now? Is the June 9th date now set in stone? If not, I'm wondering if we'll actually be voting before school gets out for the summer, or not. Are there any remaining factors that could effect the June 9th date? I'm thinking that if the vote is postponed for some reason until after school gets out, there's a possibility that one of your stated purposes will be tougher to meet. You stated that you're attempting to reinvigorate the parents and get them interested in school issues again (my paraphrasing of your remarks). I would imagine there's a chance that the turnout will be low once school is out for the summer. Some families could be away on vacation and others may simply become switched off school once they are done with it for several weeks.
And if the referendum does pass, what happens next? There would need to be a new election for BOE members sometime between June/July and November, right? Would that leave time for candidate forums of some kind in the event that new candidates present themselves for consideration? I can't find it right this second, but in one of these recent articles, I thought you mentioned that both political parties were consulted prior to this intiative. Was there any dsicussion about candidate forums of any kind?
The dates are supposed to be set at a Selectmen's meeting today at 4:00. I expect they will hold but won't be sure until then.
If the ordinance is adopted by vote on June 9th, the political caucuses will get 30 days notice (must be noticed by July 15th). The campaigns and elections will go as normal (Nov.) with seven members being elected.