Propaganda & Baloney > Ridgefield Press 04/23/2011

The parents' education about the mandated $850k reduction in this year's requested 2.9% ($2,255,634) school budget increase was a "somber evening" intoned Ms. Low.

Baloney. A somber evening is when someone dies.

But Ms. Low was trying to send a message: the Board of Finance has done your kids a terrible wrong.

More baloney. Almost 100% of the adjustments that were eventually revealed -- after the voluntary February adjustments -- had zero educational consequences. (Do you wonder, as I do, why those weren't introduced in February?)

Instead of launching into her proposed adjustments, Ms. Low began by regurgitating the usual incomplete charts comparing Ridgefield to other DRG-As.

This was a further attempt to rile parents.

No where was the statistic that Ridgefielders' household income was the lowest of the towns she compared us to. Misleading you say? Maybe. We report. You decide.

Then came what she didn't want to call her "recommendations" -- but merely suggestions -- for those possible adjustments.  

Another message: 'I don't support these savings' ...even though we can afford them without hurting education.

Then some smoke & mirrors. We like to say Ms. Low's administration is the most transparent in recent history but I'm beginning to wonder.

Included in the adjustments was some low hanging fruit like raising RHS parking fees but she's leaving it to the high school to come up with $30k in reductions.

Then there is the expected savings from changing light bulbs but the $1.5 million capital request for that project hasn't yet been approved by the voters.

What happens if voters turn it down? 'Well, we'll find it somewhere else.' (Same for the Selectmen's budget)

A nip here, a tuck there. Death by a thousand cuts she called it but the students didn't feel the pain; only Ms. Low's ego did.

Conflict of Interest > Say it isn't so.

I was a member of two unions. I also served as an officer and negotiator for one of them and I can tell you that there are two sides to every union story. 

One is about unions doing what unions do: negotiating for more money and better benefits. The other is the management that agrees to give it to them.

Before every labor negotiation -- from the school and town side -- I've heard phrases like 'this is a difficult negotiation', 'we have no choice', 'it's not fair', 'we can't re-open contracts', blah, blah, blah.

This is what GM & Chrysler said before they went bankrupt.

Ridgefield's entire budget is $122,660,403. The town's operating budget is $30,941,427. Of that, $22,026,680 represents labor costs which is equals 71% of the town's operating budget.

The First Selectman negotiates all the multi-year labor contracts on the town side. I've never thought this was a good idea & have said so publicly and privately. There's a political conflict of interest.

In executive session (no records), the First Selectman presents the final agreement(s) he has negotiated to the other board members. With no first hand knowledge of the issues, the board consistently votes to support these labor contracts -- not three but four blind mice.

Wouldn't you think even ONE other board member would attend these negotiations to offer their perspective & to grasp the issues? I do. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, this doesn't happen.

I think this should be part of a selectman's commitment to the voters if they are going to vote on 71% of the town's budget.

The rest of the budget review that they make such a show of annually involves only the crumbs from the loaf.

A Ridgefield Scenario.

A guy owns 28 acres of land which to date is un-developed. For whatever reason it cannot be or has not been developed. This guy's taxes on the land are miniscule as it's listed as farmland. (+/- $.35 an acre -- a rate set in 40's). And it's just been sitting there collecting earth worms.

Maybe the guy needs money, maybe he just wants to get rid of it. He's probably tried to sell it on the open market. Maybe there was no interest or no buyers at the price he was seeking -- $1 million.

So he picks up the phone & dials Ben Oko (Chairman of Land Conservancy)

'Hey, Ben, I've got some open space for you..... How does 28 acres in Ridgebury sound? I can let the whole thing go for $1 million. Any interest?'

Ben: 'Wow! Cool. Neato. Boondoggle. Fantasmgoric. I'm in. I'll put the deal together.'

Ben calls Rudy Marconi

Ben: 'Rudy, 28 acres have come on the market which I want for the conservancy. The guy wants $1 million but I've only got $650k. Can you get me the other $350k so I put this deal to bed. Time is of the essence. It's gotta get done fast, can't wait for the budget referendum....'

Rudy: 'Yeah but I'll have to have a reason to spend the $350k because the voters are in a foul mood. Guarantee me a site for a cell tower that will earn the town $100k annually & I'll use that to counter the why-are-we-spending-$350k-at-this-time-argument & probably get it by the voters.'

Oko: 'Ok but....'

And the two of them work out a one page badly constructed contract between the town & the Conservancy setting out the ownership of the land & setting out the conditions & parameters for constructing the tower.

The contract doesn't pass the smell test at a BoS mtg thanks mostly to the 3 people in the audience who, grumble, ask questions about the town's involvement, question the site, the cost & the contract. Too many questions, not enough answers. The decision is delayed & Dr. Oko leaves pissed off.

Changes are made to the contract, it passes the BoS & it moves to the BoF who approves the $350k if the voters agree & Rudy goes off on an education campaign about how neat it would be to have a cell tower in that location.

Lost are the details of the real reasons why this deal came together.

Now What?

Opinion Column posted @ Ridgefield Press OnLine. Click Here

03/31/11 Ridgefield Press Letter to the Editor

In my opinion, the ignorance demonstrated at the March 24th budget meeting was nothing short of astounding.
 
The four or five kids who stood up, while I was present, to comment on the budget were the only ones who made any sense: They wanted their art and German and alternative classes preserved. What they said was heartfelt. They counted on the adults to make the right decisions for them.
 
And their point is THE ONLY POINT except for one salient detail: It's the Board of Education, NOT the Board of Finance, that is responsible for cutting teachers and classes before finding other economies.
 
What a game Ms. Low plays. And she's got it down pat. Cut the classes & activities that have thefewest "customers" and the least amount of blow back and use that to scare the rest of the parents into a stampede away from those who actually make the cuts. Nice.
 
I referred to you parents as sheep in another letter. OK, some of you got insulted. Sorry if I offended you but try to look past my rudeness to the point I am trying to make.
 
You parents are solely responsible for the diminishing educational values in the schools, not the Board of Finance.
 
The whole vociferous group of you who showed up at the budget meeting -- and I applaud you for that -- should go to the Board of Education meetings and give Superintendent Low & the rest of them a talking to about the educational priorities you want for your children.
 
What I witnessed at the Budget hearing was like watching a herd of wildebeest go over a cliff.
 
Those who spoke were blinded to what is going on, how the system actually works.
 
What I heard that night from most of the adults who spoke up was pure tarradiddle. 

Teacher's Unions Explained