LETTER TO THE EDITOR PUBLISHED 12/08/2016

Broadening Ridgefield's tax base, improving Main Street while maintaining Ridgefield's quaintish [sic] lifestyle should be the top priority for the Selectmen.

We have spent thousands of tax dollars on economic development consultants without any change. 

We know renting first-floor, Main Street storefronts for office space only subtracts from a quaint Main Street. You took months to contemplate a food truck ordinance but have not been able to decide on first-floor occupancy for years.

Currently, you are discussing hiring a Parking/Development person at $20,000 a year to wrestle the problem. Adding to government bureaucracy is not the answer. Policy is the answer and you  -- BoS -- are responsible for policy. Maybe after you have a policy, adding an administrative position might make sense. 

But if you must, make it a contract/freelance position at half the salary with a commission incentive, split between the town & property owners, for every new business lured to Ridgefield. 

Then the NIMBY problem -- Not In My Back Yard. There are some 'businesses' that have abandoned plans in town because of NIMBY. 

While I understand the NIMBY concerns, there has to be a balance between special interests and community development.

The state wants to widen Main Street, straighten cross streets, add turning lanes, sync traffic lights for crossing safety. Baloney; don't do it.

The state only wants to relieve Route 7 traffic at our expense. None of their goals will help Main Street. 

Find a charming solution: raise the crosswalks slightly, lay Belgian block for differentiation, maintain the pedestrians crosswalk signs on Main and 35 & enforce the traffic laws. 

Spending an extra two minutes in Main Street traffic isn't a detriment. It's part of Ridgefield living & may even provide a moment for people to glance into a store front window and decide to buy something.

$5 million too radical a one­ year change - Letter to the Editor 5/6/2016

I feel manipulated when it comes to our school financials.

First, ERG equality.

A few years ago, I spoke with Peter Prowda, state Board of Education, the man who developed the ERG system. Mr. Prowda explained ERGs were created so educators could compare pupil test

scores in the same ERG category; not the amounts spent on each student. So the ERG is no reason to approve a 4.99% increase in the Board of Education budget.

Second, more seniors are moving into Ridgefield.

Why? There are many advantages to this town — besides the schools — that make Ridgefield, Ridgefield. After all, Ridgefield was the #1 town in Connecticut for years before the $90,000,000 school

bundle was even considered or passed. So schools are not necessarily the reason for a 4.99% increase either.

Third and fourth: Recent history should have clarified the connection between property values and school budgets. They do not parallel each other. And school expenditures do not guarantee

academic excellence. The #1 town in Connecticut — known for its excellent school system — spends far less per student than we do. Again, no rationale for a 4.99% increase.

We pay pension/health benefits for non­certified Board of Education employees, currently set at $1,051,000. Board of Education wants to add another 19 to its payroll. Why do we need more

people for fewer students? An increase of 4.99% makes even less sense.

I still don’t understand what happened between 2015 and 2016 that requires an additional $5 million. That’s a radical change especially in view of a declining school population.

It feels like expenses are just spinning out of control again. How do we regain control? The only way we can — by voting.

Squeezing taxpayers is only one part of the budget formula, not the entire formula.

A proponent of excellent education,

Jan Rifkinson

5/6/2016 Letters

Copyright © 2016 Hersam Acorn

The Chameleon Language of Edu-speak - Letter to the Editor published in the Ridgefield Press April 14, 2016

Edu-speak is nothing if not a chameleon language that takes on definitions that aim to obfuscate rather than clarify. 

The argument that this BoE budget should be supported because it is Ms. Baldwin's first makes sense only if we are now throwing Deborah Lowe under the bus after praising her repeatedly. It begs credulity.

The Board of Finance volunteers worked hours to arrive at a financial formula that they believe is fair and equitable.

But I believe we are throwing millions at a school system without solving structural issues. 

The bulk of the problems surround the Special Needs community, a current mix of in-house programs, lavish outside contracts, settled lawsuits and exorbitant legal fees under no central authority that I can discern. Why are taxpayers just hearing about this via a doubled increase for 'education'.

I question why our technology is lacking, why we buy student laptops instead of having each child use their own. Why can't students plug in whatever tool they want to use to learn, be it laptop, tablet or phone?

I question why $93k is set aside for text books, not because we need them but because some teachers don't know how to access educational materials via the internet. We plan to pay for these teachers to learn to do that so I also question the $900k set aside for teaching teachers. Shouldn't teachers bear some responsibility here? Are principals doing their jobs? Are we hiring the right teachers? 

I am concerned that state shared education funds may be reduced $900k if the legislature has its way.

Despite the many hours put in by the Board of Finance, I question whether the upcoming budget passes muster. 

Written by a proponent for strong education.

Letter to the Editor - published in the Ridgefield Press on March 21, 2016

At their March 8th meeting, the Selectmen dodged their Charter responsibility by not making a recommendation on the requested 5.72% education budget increase. The Selectmen folded to political pressure from a special interest group representing 20% of our Ridgefield community. 

What ruffles my feathers is that we elect these people to make balanced decisions that affect the entire community. So did they?

Sort-of. By recommending that the mill rate not exceed 3.5%, they were saying that the BoE request was too high.

The question has now moved to the Board of Finance and they should have lots of pointed questions.

I re-read a letter-to-the-editor from 2004. The BoE and it's supporters made the same arguments then: state mandates, special ed, DRG, falling behind and real estate values. 

To begin: real estate values have fallen precipitously since 2004 despite steady increases to the BoE budget year after year -- mostly to support a larger school bureaucracy, more hires, a larger head count. Does this have a familiar ring to it?

About $800,000 of this year's school budget goes to training teachers. Are we hiring the right teachers? I don't understand why the teachers don't contribute to this training.

Nevertheless, over the years, nothing much has changed scholastically in special ed or standard ed. Yet this year the town has cut almost $1,000,000 in the highway department budget and will most likely be expected to cut planned fire fighters. These cuts will affect all of us in order to satisfy an insatiable 20% of the community. Is that a balanced approach?

The town's books are audited annually. Connecticut has an education auditing department. How about using it, Board of Ed? Let's make sure the kids are getting the benefits, not the bureaucracy.

From a strong proponent of great education.

Trickle Down Education - Ridgefield Press, February 25, 2016

Could someone explain to me what has changed in Ridgefield's educational Neverland except the replacement of one superintendent with another?

Specifically, with fewer students to teach, what is the supposed cause for the extraordinary increase now before us after years of reasonable increases? I just want the facts and figures. No educational mumbo jumbo, puleeeze!

Fewer students, possibly one less plant to support but we need more employees? Where's the rationale in that?

Have Ridgefield's children been educationally disadvantaged over the past years? Or is this a political move by our new superintendent, trying to make a statement and a 'name' for herself?

All I know is that beyond a certain point, more money does not equate with a better education -- here or nationally. In my opinion, administrators and teachers have been feathering their nests for far too long in the educational industrial complex. It's more top down economics; the kids get the least benefit.

We need an activist, democratically elected Board of Education, Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance to maintain a fair balance in this town -- as they have demonstrated in the past -- and put a lid on this ridiculous financial flim-flam before it gets out of hand again.