Rosendahl on the Referendum
The argument that this referendum invalidates voters seems strange to me. If you check the statutes you will find not one, but many that deal with changing the numbers of members/terms, and the reseating of a BOE. This is not new legislation being proposed under the cover darkness like the Breen hostile takeover of the Academy. This is being done with statutes that have been on the books for many years. These same statutes were used in Woodstock in the ‘70’s I believe to deal with a BOE that was not representing the best interest of students or the town.
This is being done in total transparency based on CT Statutes.These laws were put in place to allow a town unhappy with their BOE to have a mechanism to have a fresh start.
If the townspeople vote ”Yes” to change the number and terms and reseat the board, all BOE members are encouraged to run again. The way I see it, this is pure Democracy at its finest.
What strikes me as odd is if an individual is doing a good job for the students of Woodstock and is representing the townspeople with their best interest in mind, why would they be so concerned about not being reelected?
When I was campaigning for the BOE, several voters said to me that once I was on the BOE I would act just like the rest of them. I answered them by stating that if any townspeople were so unhappy with the BOE that if they ran a petition I would be the first to sign it. Unlike some of my fellow BOE members I find it a matter of integrity to follow through on my campaign promises.
Now that Mr. Powers and others have had the fortitude to do what many have spoken about for years but not had the courage to do, I am in full support of voting YES to reseat the BOE.
What I am not in support of is of how the BOE has reacted to the referendum. Again, this is not a trick, it is part of CT law. Also I find it un-American that the BOE voted to spend taxpayer dollars to defend themselves against the referendum. With the exception of Brian and I, all members present voted to spend your students tax dollars even though it appears to me to be a direct violation of the Campaign Finance Law.
The Town Clerk noticed every member of the BOE with this information as it is her duty to monitor the CT Campaign Finance Law. I also asked everyone that attended the meeting if they had read them, the response was “yes”. You be the judge if the BOE is following the law.
Mr. Powers, as just a townsperson, is registering a PAC to follow the many rules which I believe he is in the process of.
So, should our BOE be allowed to spend our student tax dollars to defend themselves even if the lawyers find a loophole? Remember we spent ~ $300,000.00 on June 30, 2008, the last day of the fiscal school year so we would not have to give the money back to the town, at the same time we required pay for play sports. I have asked that we reimburse the pay for play parents before we spend money on anything else with the end of year funds. I want money for Woodstock students but I want it spent on the students and in the town’s best interest. As a BOE member I want the BOE to be a role model for our students. Bending the law at every opportunity and having townspeople foot the bill is not what I call a good example. Why did the BOE put itself in a position of having the BOF question us on trying to mislead the BOF with misinformation? Is this another good example of how to get things done?
THE CONNECTICUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW
A GUIDE TO FINANCING A REFERENDUM QUESTION
Prepared and Distributed By
The Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission
Revised May, 2007
X. PROHIBITION ON THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS Public funds may not be used to influence anyone to vote for or against a pending referendum question. Anyone found in violation of this prohibition may be required to pay a civil penalty of either $1,000 or twice the improper expenditure, whichever is greater. If a violation is found, the Commission will typically order that restitution be made to the municipality or government entity in the amount of the improper expenditure. An individual paying a civil penalty imposed under this section may not be reimbursed or indemnified with public funds.
(Section 9-369b, General Statutes)
This is a very small excerpt from a 50+ page booklet. If you dig in you will find several loop holes in the above statement. So at worst the BOE has blatantly broken the law and at best is using the loopholes provided to them from legal budget spent from your student’s tax dollars.
The Laws for FINANCING A REFERENDUM QUESTION were put in place for the very reason of a referendum like this, where townspeople challenging a board would be on the same ground as the board. In other words it was put in place so your tax dollars would not be used against you the citizen. I am deeply troubled because the BOE seems to respond to all criticism with the same child like defiance.
Please take a look at the legal bills and check registers on this blog. How can we claim a “bare bones budget”, when we spend an out of control amount on legal fees? If you look at the legal bills you will see the Superintendent or the Chairman speak to the lawyers almost daily and even have them write letters for them.
I do wish that this referendum could have been done without taxpayer dollars, and my understanding is that Mr. Powers did everything in his control to do this. His intention was to combine it with the budget referendum but because of a timing issue out of his control it was not possible.
If this referendum creates a BOE that is open and accountable to the town this is an investment Woodstock should make.
Does a board who has its’ students best interest at heart spend up to $400 an hour on lawyers at the drop of a hat?
I was hoping the BOE would embrace this referendum as a way to openly engage with citizens and have them take ownership of our excellent school system PK-12 as stated in our goals.
As always I am speaking as a parent, townsperson and private citizen, not as a sitting member of the BOE.
Steven Rosendahl
This communication is paid for by Woodstock for Progressive Education. Craig R. Powers 100 Brickyard Road Woodstock, CT, Agent
Dear Steve,
I cannot agree with you more. Yes, the reseating of the WBOE is legal and is NOT setting precedent in the State. And yes, the Board has acted illegally by spending money to put out their political opinion to the public.
In Woodstock the pay to play tactic is just that—a tactic, not a necessity. And in recent history on the WBOE not all or even a majority of members usually break their promises; the recent Board is an aberration if you look at Woodstock's history over the last 50 years.
Good luck from France.
1) On what authority do you rely to support the assertion that “These laws were put in place to allow a town unhappy with their BOE to have a mechanism to have a fresh start.”? (Innocent question - you failed to support this important assertion so there is no basis for relying on it.)
2) Most every challenge, question and accusation in this article apply with equal validity to the Petitioners and supporters of this measure. Examples: Both sides seem to have utilized rarely used, but valid laws to achieve their goals. Does the behavior of both groups then constitute “Bending the law…and having townspeople foot the bill…”? What is the practical difference between groups behavior? This measure seems extraordinary - it has the practical effect of undoing election results and it’s been used in Woodstock only once in nearly 40 years – but supporters rely on it’s legitimacy. Was the law they utilized illegitimate? Can we all admit that undoing an election like this is appropriate only as a last resort?
Assuming that the BOE/Town do act like reckless children whenever challenged actually place MORE responsibility for resulting costs on those who initiate the action. In either event, it is completely foreseeable and predictable that initiating certain actions will definitely result in high legal costs. Therefore, in order to behave responsibly toward taxpayers, any ‘initiating party’ must take this into account and make an effort to avoid these costs. There have been far too many expensive actions to achieve goals attainable by less costly, alternate means. Both parties share responsibility for all costs. How many expensive legal matters have members of the same group initiated?
3) If this has been “spoken about for years” then it could have been submitted months ago and in plenty of time to make all deadlines. That was not ‘out of the control’ of Petitioners. This last-minute rush and associated cost was completely avoidable by more carefully planning so it would coincide with the Budget Vote - by anticipating these deadlines and all foreseeable, predictable delays, etc. Why was this matter not initiated months ago in order to assure it would make the deadline and take advantage of a ‘piggy-back’ vote? Why did Petitioners wait until the last minute, with no time ‘buffer’?
4) What specific behavior constitutes the inappropriate use of public funds for political activity? Again, ‘innocent’ question – I’ve not seen unbiased information. You’re assertion does pre-suppose knowledge of a ballpark estimate. Approximately how much time, effort and money has been (or will be) spent inappropriately? Is ANY legal advice/research is appropriate on this matter? How would you have handled it, given that the law changes enough in 40 years to trigger a fiduciary duty to investigate?
Thank you.
Connecticut unlike many states has no recall process (like in CA when Arnold Schwarzenegger, now Governor of CA, took the place of the sitting Governor midterm). These laws have been on the books longer than most people reading this blog are old, so the author’s motives are currently unknown. In the Woodstock records, the last time these statutes were invoked (1971) all that remains is the exact petition question which is very similar to that which is pending. I have been told that the 1971 initiative was brought forth by a group referred to as the “Young Republicans”, now known as the “Old Republicans” or as the Café calls them, the “Manure Mafia.” (No disrespect intended). If you speak to any of them, there is no question that they used the law to reseat an out of control BOE.
When the current BOE members were trained by Shipman on FOI issues, the lawyer pointed out that CT had no law to remove a single BOE member even if they never attended a meeting. I asked about the full board and the lawyer stated “no”, but mentioned if the number of members was changed it would amount to the same thing. Mr. Ford was at that training.
My other observation is that there is no facility for changing numbers or terms in the statutes for other boards like the BOF.
“Assuming that the BOE/Town do act like reckless children”- those are your words not mine. I have no issues with the other boards currently and feel they have improved greatly after the last election with most of the "Breen Party" members having been replaced.
In the end all of these questions are up to the voters to decide, and I will abide by their wishes. The Woodstock School System is paid for and owned by the Town, to me that means the townspeople.
The rest of your questions are rhetorical and will be seen by the readers for what they are.
One more comment. I was raised that if you believed in something you were willing to sign your name to it. Please have some integrity and sign your name if you feel strongly about your questions/positions. Thanks.
As always I am speaking as a parent, townsperson and private citizen, not as a sitting member of the BOE.
I’ve seen in past comments that some readers don’t want too much argument in these comments. That’s reasonable and I’ll make this my last post on this subject, but I do request that it be posted as a public reply independent of whether Mr. Rosendahl replies.
Mr. Rosendahl,
I’m not sure why you characterize my direct questions as “rhetorical”, but for the record they are not rhetorical – they are asking for ‘back up’ and support for assertions or they are challenging certain premises and arguments in your post.
The contradiction uncovered in the ‘legislative intent’ issue is a good example of this. Your initial assertion was about ‘why’ the law was “put in place”. Upon being challenged, that statement turns out to be a mere guess with no back-up regarding legislative intent and, in fact, “the authors’ motives are currently unknown”.
I also don’t know why you dodged the questions/comments regarding: (i) shared responsibility for legal costs; (ii) control over Timing; (iii) how legal consultation should have been handled; (iv) specific examples of behavior that is “un-American” and constitutes misusing funds for political end and how much money has actually been expended; and (v) why when ‘they’ do it, you call it “bending the law” or finding a “loophole”, but this measure is “pure Democracy at it’s finest”? Do the answers to these questions uncover more contradictions?
You’re correct about the ‘reckless children’ comment – someone else made it and I should have gotten my facts right the first time.
Your comment regarding integrity is simply out of line (and completely irrelevant to the validity of my questions and comments). There are dozens of reasons why one may choose to remain anonymous which have nothing to do with integrity (from participating in the Witness Protection Program to the exercise of personal prerogative). In any event I’m not interested in being told what to do or having my integrity questions based on flimsy premise. Of course, I won’t dignify the comment by disclosing my reason.
Thank you.
I think you have said it all.
I think the question of whether or not the letter put out by the BOE violates CT. Campaign Finance law or not remains ambiguous, at least to me. The letter does not explicitly state "do not support this referendum". It certainly doesn't state "support this referendum" either. It does lay out the cons with no pros. I know many of the folks participating at this blog feel that's a clear violation. I'm not so sure. I would guess that in a court of law, this could be a real gray area if nothing can be proven one way or another. The letter does seem to walk the proverbial fine line BUT if no one on the BOE used taxpayer funds to consult with the attorney for advice in composing the letter, then I would think it's in compliance with the law. If the BOE used taxpayer funds to only question the legality of the proposed referendum, that sounds perfectly legal and well within their rights to do. So if one or even a few BOE members consulted the attorney, found out the petition/proposed referendum is legal, then found out they could not use taxpayer funds to advocate for their position, it could fly. As long as the chairwoman or even a few board members winged it and composed the letter themselves without using taxpayer money to pay for legal advice on the wording, it should hold up in court. I'm no expert by any means whatsoever, but the letter doesn't sound like something a decent lawyer would draft. I'm guessing they winged it.
None of the opinions offered matter on the legality of the actions taken by the WBOE after they were notified by the Town Clerk; the SEEC will decide the outcome by themselves.
I thought this was a theoretical discussion of opinion at this stage. Are you saying that some sort of formal complaint or legal action has been filed? If so, I was unaware.
Dear neighbors:
I'm fairly new to town and am desperately trying to catch up on our fair town's dealings.
First, may I say, I commend those of you who have submitted letters to the newspaper for your clarity and insight. Had it not been for one such letter, I would not have even known about this and similar sites.
I understand that the petitions and referendums are legal. However, I would encourage you to emphasize more that the purpose of this part of the law IS to do just this: unseat and get that fresh start.
I say this because, although I bear a sincere appreciation for comments on fiscal responsibility, etc., I struggle(d) with unseating appropriately elected officials -- and all of them, no less -- for an alleged lack of such discipline. Just as I don't have much affection for term limits -- Election Day is the day to stop or prolong someone's time in office -- it seems shaky to create this new day to "redecide."
Up until I considered WHY the ability to hold the referendum exists and understood that it truly is no new phenomenon, I would have voted against the idea. Now, I'm much more open to a "yes."
Keep writing, and I'll keep mulling.