IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

"It’ll be hard, tough — “devastating,” a couple of school officials called it — but the state’s 2.5% cap on municipal spending increases is a limit officials at [the] tri-board meeting said Ridgefield should stay under. [...] That’ll help keep taxes down."

And now the State wants to shift a portion of the teacher's pension cost from the state to the towns. 

That's the way this year's budget process began. It was certainly an important wake up call.

While I appreciate the Board members who spend hours on budgeting, most years the bottom line is aided by pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This year “Revenues exceeded budget by $1,460,000, due largely to collection of back taxes,” [BoF Chairman] Ulmer said." 

But it is my opinion that going forward, we must develop zero based budgets without rabbits because, eventually, they will go the way of the dinosaur & taxes will definitely soar.

[BoE] Ms. Baldwin drew a line with three supervisors. Mr. Hendrikson purportedly put $120,000 in the wrong budget column &  Ms. Manners is “[...] offended every year by the [BoF] who feel that they have to cut us [...]" 

OK. So everyone played their role in this annual drama.

I have long argued that Ridgefield should develop budgets & subsequent mill rates that are not subsidized by transfers from the surplus fund. 

Otherwise there will come a day when we will lose some services we currently enjoy or taxes will rise to a level that will limit the real estate market only to the wealthier amongst us.

New Canaan, Darien & other Fairfield towns have fine school systems but many of you, young families, can't afford to live there which is why you chose Ridgefield. Our real estate prices and taxes remain affordable and we have a fine school system.

Please, let's keep it that way.

Published in the Ridgefield Press

May 4th, 2017

GOOD CHANGE SHOULD MAKE COMMON SENSE

An excellent Letter to the Editor was titled "Insufferable amount of time to replace Route 35 bridge"

And this is the outfit we want to "improve" our little Main Street?

What for?

If you are one who is annoyed with the inconvenience of waiting a few minutes on Main Street while on your way to the Post Office, I say "beware".

All you will get is less sidewalk and more traffic. And if you are one who is worried about lack of parking space, you will have less.

If you are one who wants to straighten the intersection from Prospect Street to the CVS parking lot, I ask why? You will lose even more parking space and will end up with a traffic lane adjacent to a Ballard Park entrance instead of having a buffer.

And will all this speed Route 35 traffic along Main Street? Maybe. By 10 seconds? 20 seconds? 30 seconds? An entire minute? And the trade-off is?

Well, if the bridge on 35 is any guide, downtown interruption will last for who-knows-how-many-months, there will be less sidewalk, fewer parking spaces, replacement trees, more traffic traveling faster.

While further down 35 how many vehicles do you see just missing each other at the intersection with 116 or darting out of South Street or across double yellows coming out of Starbucks or Adam Broderick or pedestrians dodging traffic crossing 35? How about all the cars with children and seniors gauging their chances driving into and out of the Recreation Center & Founder's Hall?

What we really need are improved pedestrian crosswalks from Main Street to Farmingville, re-marking 35 so there are turning lanes to the strip mall businesses and a traffic light on 35 at the Recreation Center intersection.

I'm all for change but it should make common sense.

Published in The Ridgefield Press, April 27, 2017

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.

Pledge of Allegiance before the Board of Selectmen Meeetings - Yes or No? Well..... maybe.

Ridgefield Press Letter to the Editor

Published April 5, 2012

It strikes me that Ms. Manners is entitled to her opinion, discomfort and reservations about pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America before the Board of Selectmen's bi-monthly meeting but I also believe the Select(wo)men should be able to take a vote on this very simple issue without hiding behind some consensus polled from other towns. 

Ridgefield should do what it thinks is right for Ridgefield. Take your choice: we can lead, follow or fall in line.

To me this inaction simply demonstrates the board's "leadership" qualities. Ms. Manners had the courage to speak clearly to her convictions. I give her credit for that. Everyone else sort of punted. 

I, myself, do not say "under god" when reciting the pledge because I believe in a strict separation of church and state.

Should the Board of Selectmen decide to pledge allegiance at the start of their meetings, Ms. Manners can stand silently, in respect and if I am one of the three audience members usually at one of these meetings, I can recite the pledge, without enunciating the words "under god". And everyone else can do what makes them comfortable. It is a free country. Right?

The only point here -- for me -- is that the Board of Selectmen was not able to demonstrate some leadership and  take a vote on a simple request by a taxpayer for fear of..... what? .... losing the next election? 

Board of Selectmen members: Please learn to vote your real convictions, what you really think is right on ALL matters, big and small, no matter the political consequence and distinguish yourselves as the leaders you are supposed to be instead of constantly pandering to some group for next year's vote. 

In my opinion, it really diminishes you as a board.

Ridgefield Press Letter-to-the-editor > Special Referendums

As we glide towards the March 13th Library referendum, I offer these observations about all the separate referendums.

Is it a divide and conquer stratagem?

The virtue of the Schlumberger purchase won't be written for a decade. Meanwhile, we are saddled with an additional $500,000 annually which will affect some budget - - be it Schools, Parks & Rec, Police, Highway, Fire or your own.

Town income has increased barely 1% yet we have started talking about a budget in excess of two times that. What does that tell you?

Chief Roche wants a $4.5 million addition to the Police Station. We have already invested $500,000 for complete building plans without having laid single brick.

There is talk of refurbishing the Community Center to better handle emergencies for $4.5 million.

The library wants $5 million to expand.

Can a new Fire House be far behind?

The first Selectmen, thinks that by sliding one project into the budget one year and another in another year, he can say our debt will not increase. But the fact remains these are 20 year bonding issues so, at some point, the debt & debt service for these projects will be carried forward simultaneously.

And none of the aforementioned projects include the normal capital requests which have averaged $3.5 million over the past three years. (This year there are capital requests totaling $6,000,000.)

Don't we taxpayers have the right to consider everything on our plate before making a decision? Mr. Marconi said we would be “distracted”. I disagree.

Vote 'no' on the Library referendum on March 13. Move it to May along side the Police Station, the Emergency Center project, all budgets and capital requests (a staggering $6 million this year). Let the taxpayer's vote determine priorities. There would be a higher turnout. That's good.

Jan Rifkinson

February 16, 2012

Campaign TV Appearance > After funny opening monologue, move slider to 32 minutes for my segment

Why vote for an unaffiliated candidate?

Written by Jan Rifkinson
Monday, 07 November 2011 05:26

 

Who am I, what do I stand for, why am I campaigning for a seat on the Board of Selectmen?

I’m a retired, middle class married guy living on a fixed income, financially squeezed like many of you.

Philosophically, I’m for transparency in government, full disclosure and working more closely with Ridgefielders.

Fiscally, I’m careful. I want to understand the reasons for spending and exactly how that spending will benefit the taxpayer. I believe more revenue streams must be developed to reduce the tax burden.

People move here not only for our excellent schools, but because both housing and taxes are lower by comparison to other Fairfield towns in our category. If that formula changes, Ridgefield’s charm will change. I am not in favor of that.

I love new ideas. I like to converse with people. I admire thoughtful individuals with common sense.

I am not politically driven, which is why I made a conscious decision to run as an unaffiliated candidate.

Demagoguery, dogma and political gamesmanship don’t belong in Ridgefield.

Someone willing to volunteer their time for the community, running for a seat on the Board of Selectmen as I am, should understand the town’s major issues. I attended almost all board meetings for the past four years and I can say that I am knowledgeable about those issues.

If I am elected, I may not always get it right, but I’m sure going to do my best to balance the interests of everyone in the entire community.

Press endorsements in election

Written by The Ridgefield Press
Monday, 07 November 2011 05:29

Ridgefielders are lucky to have more than 30 candidates — Republicans, Democrats, an unaffiliated voter — running for office on Nov. 8, including 23 in five contested races. It takes concern and courage to run: hats off to them all.

Ridgefield is great place, and doing remarkably well considering how tough the economic times are — a 1% tax increase last year. The four incumbents on the Board of Selectmen deserve re-election: two Democrats, Barbara Manners, who has done so much for the arts and to enrich community life in town, and Di Masters, the community center director and a former Planning and Zoning chair; and two Republicans, Andy Bodner, the board’s house skeptic and numbers man, and Maureen Kozlark, the moderate longtime school board veteran.

That said, Jan Rifkinson, the unaffiliated petitioning candidate, deserves credit and the town’s thanks for making a contest of it and running a clean issue-oriented campaign. [...]

Faint praise from the opposition > A valid candidate says Susan Coco

No challenge for top spot in Ridgefield

Robert Miller, Staff Writer

Updated 11:35 p.m., Friday, November 4, 2011

RIDGEFIELD -- Even in Connecticut, the Land of Steady Habits, this town is the soul of political stability.

It votes on the top town officials only every four years, rather than every two years. And this year, when the Republicans had a chance to challenge First Selectman Rudy Marconi after his 12 years in office, they chose to pass.

Marconi is running unopposed, ensuring he'll be first selectman until at least 2015.

Nor did the Republicans even try to pick up a third seat on the Board of Selectmen. Instead, the four incumbents -- Democrats Di Masters and Barbara Manners and Republicans Andrew Bodnar and Maureen Kozlark -- are facing their only challenge from petitioning candidate Jan Rifkinson.

Rifkinson said he finds the lack of competition in town "pretty distressing.'' His candidacy, he said, offers the voters at least one choice in the selectmen's race.

"When you serve too long, the knife can get a little dull,'' he said of the incumbents.

Democratic Town Chairman Susan Cocco called Rifkinson a valid candidate.

"He's certainly on the ballot," she said. But Cocco then quickly praised Marconi and the four selectmen, Democrats and Republicans alike, saying they offer the town proven leadership. [...]

Schlumberger: Another IBM fiasco waiting in the wings?

 

Let's put the question of whether buying the Schlumberger property is a good or bad idea aside for a moment and look at the methodology with which our town leaders approached this expensive proposition.

Eighteen months before Schlumberger was to leave Ridgefield, the town was notified of their intentions.

Those eighteen months plus three and a half years later, we are told that we must make a deal to preserve Ridgefield's destiny and it has to be done NOW at a 'guestimated' cost of $4 million without a completed plan in place.

That's exactly what happened at a Board of Selectmen meeting on Tuesday, September 7, 2011 with only a few days notice to the public when the agenda was published on the town's website.

Rather than starting this process 60 months ago, or taking another few months to get it right, our reaction to the IBM fiasco is to put the town in the awkward position of making what might be another bad decision.

So on September 7th, the Board of Selectmen -- with one dissenting vote -- rushed through a proposal to put a $4 million dollar bond to the voters on November 8th to buy 'about' 35 acres of the Schlumberger property, peeling off the other acreage for town and private development with an un-named developer. And what are we going to do with this property? Who knows?

There are all kinds of questions to be asked and answered but as usual we are going forward half cocked.

The First Selectman stated that this deal would not increase our overall debt -- a statement that is just plain wrong.

(1) First, the obvious point: borrowing $4 million dollars is just that, borrowing $4 million dollars. That increases debt by $4 million dollars.

(2) Then there is the issue of paying down the bundle. We are currently doing that in an orderly fashion which is only possible so long as we don't increase our capital borrowing by more than $8 million in any given year.

So let's look at that number.

In a 'normal' year we borrow between $3-4 million in capital to finance the purchase of yet more trucks, fire engines, plows, boilers, complete roof repairs, replace school doors and asbestos tiles and begin energy saving projects, etc.

Already announced will be a fall request by the library -- as a separate referendum -- for a reported $5 million dollars to help build a $20 million dollar library.

As a separate issue the schools want a gas line installed to the High School in order to save energy costs, an admirable goal, but timing is everything in life.

By my calculation, we are looking at borrowing at least $12 million for capital projects which does not allow for the same orderly pay down of Ridgefield's overall debt, currently $95 million, at the current rate, in other words the debt curve changes. We will have more debt longer.

Now I have only the information that is public. Somebody please correct my assumptions with some facts, if I am wrong.

Lest we forget, the town of Ridgefield is currently the most indebted town in CT and Ridgefielders are its most indedebted citizens. So proposing that we spend another $4,000,000 for a half cooked idea is a stunning proposal to say the least.

I ask: is this good management?

Now, as a separate matter, let's look at 'controlling our destiny' by buying the Schlumberger  property. An argument could be made that it is a good idea if we know how it is going to be paid for going forward.

It is said that any boat owner -- except perhaps the most wealthy amongst us -- claims the two best days of boat ownership are the day they buy the boat and the day they sell it.

That could be said about buying the Schlumberger property as well. While it may feel good to buy it, how are we going to maintain it going forward? It costs Schlumberger a reported $1 million dollars annually to do that. Wouldn't we have to spend a similar amount? I don't know but one thing for sure: there was no plan put forth by the Board of Selectmen to deal with this question amongst others. And if there is no plan, there will be unforeseen consequences. Maybe to schools, to roads, who knows?

I submit there are more followers than thinkers on the current Board or Selectmen. And we, the residents of Ridgefield, will bear the brunt -- yet again -- of their lackadaisical thinking

Buying Schlumberger, controlling our destiny, may well be a good idea but is it, the way it is currently structured?

Ridgefield Patch 08/10/2011 > Ridgefielders For A More Open Local Government

Written by Ridgefield Patch editor Michael Gibney

Recently, Ridgefield residents and the Board of Selectmen have discussed the possibility of including more time during meetings for public comment.

Possible solutions have ranged the spectrum, the more conservative of which would allow time only for members of the board to address private concerns at the end of the meeting. The more liberal solution would open the floor to any and all public comment in an "open-mic" fashioned part of the meeting.

As it now stands, the Board is set to discuss a compromise that would allow for a more open government without letting meetings devolve or slip into the midnight hours.

Jan Rifkinson, who is getting ready to run for a spot on the Board of Selectmen in November on an unaffiliated ticket, first brought up the idea with a request for "Old Business" and "New Business" items on each meeting's agenda to allow for meetings to address issues off the set agenda.

"I understand there's an agenda," Rifkinson said. "But people do come with ideas. Right now there's very little audience participation."

For Rifkinson, the more open the better.

"My point of view is that you encourage people to step up with ideas who may not come otherwise," Rifkinson said. "You allow people to say, 'Sometime down the road, I'd like you to look at X, Y and Z.'"

Both times the subject has come up, the Board has generally agreed with the sentiment, but when it came to logistics, there were some apparent drawbacks, one of which addressed the primary reason for having an agenda in the first place.

"When we have items on the agenda, such as a blight ordinance, for instance, a specific group of people show up," First Selectmen Rudy Maroni said. "People get upset when we talk about things not on the agenda -- that's the reason we have one."

Selectwoman Barbara Manners said that residents are welcome to call Marconi's office beforehand to secure a spot on the agenda, and they are often included.

"We make it clear that people can call the office and put something on the agenda," Manners said. "And I've never known Rudy to turn it down."

The Board of Education currently allows time before meetings for public comment, which draws a large crowd at times. Having been a member of the school board, Selectwoman Maureen Kozlark chimed in on that experience.

"I liked having it on the agenda," Kozlark said. "We don't necessarily want to make it a free-for-all for the public, but we want people to have the opportunity to speak their minds."

Selectman Andrew Bodner suggested opening it up to the members of the board for a "Board of Selectmen's Report," borrowing from the "First Selectman's Report" item currently on the agenda.

"We wouldn't want someone to use it as a pulpit for issues not relevant to the Board of Selectmen," Bodner said, addressing the "open mic" solution.

Currently, Bodner said, the board is "pretty gracious" in allowing people to speak.

"I don't think there's been any meetings that no one's been able to speak," Bodner said.

Rifkinson wants the process to be formalized, though.

The subject is still up for discussion, and the board was open to the compromise of permitting a short time at the beginning of each meeting for comment but without allowing a free-for-all kind of atmosphere.

"The bottom line is to have another conduit for people to comment," Rifkinson said. "Anything we can do to encourage a dialogue should be looked at in a positive way."

Ridgefield Press 08/11/2011 > A common Sense Approach to Grants & Abatements

Written By Jan Rifkinson

At the August 3rd Board of Selectmen meeting, the Jesse Lee Church requested an approximate $800 tax abatement  on about $12k in income derived from a parking lot business on their property.

After some discussion, the propriety of granting this abatement was tabled with the not-so-unusual statement by First Selectman, Marconi, that it had been rubber stamped for years without question based on some agreement made between some people at some time, some where.

In my view charity is a wonderful part of Ridgefield's heritage. What is problematic for me is how the monies are distributed.

When the last Charter Revision Commission was in session, I suggested that the BoS appoint a 'Grants Commission'.

Going forward any organization that wanted a grant would apply to that Commission in writing, explaining why a grant was needed. The Commission would  weigh the various requests, review usage reports from past recipients and present their recommendations to the BoS, which by charter, must disburse monies.

By doing it this way, I reasoned, disbursing grants would be independent of personal relationships and political spheres.

The Charter Revision Commission researched, honed and accepted this approach, presenting it to the Board of Selectmen who promptly killed it.

The First Selectman was protective of the current system. Di Master's voiced her opposition by saying that 'handing out grants was one of her most satisfying responsibilities'. Andy Bodner mused that the amount involved (currently in excess of $225k) wasn't enough to change the system. Both J Plock and B Manners were also skeptical.

I believe a common sense argument could be made that all grants, rent & tax abatements should fall into a single category so tax payers could easily see how many of their tax dollars were disbursed in this manner.

We might all be surprised how much we spend in discretionary funds.

Why is Jan Rifkinson thinking of running as an un-affiliated candidate for Selectman rather than as a R,D or I?

The simple answer is because I want to get away from the kind of dialog that is taking place on the Ridgefield Forum.  It's the kind of political discourse that I believe obfuscates, dilutes, detracts & confuses the issues before Ridgefield.

What we need in this town are some new ideas -- from anyone -- regardless of party affiliation. It's like adding a new ingredient to a recipe; it can change the taste but not the dish.

I think party affiliation has come to mean monolithic thinking, i.e. a Republican is conservative, a Democrat is liberal, an Independent is.... ??? When one is un-affiliated, there are no expectations except, hopefully, common sense.

I don't think political parties are intrinsically a bad thing. I'm just not comfortable with the current political climate as represented by these organizations. I also think they are useful for individuals who are interested in political advancement. I'm not interested in that. In fact, if I run for Selectman, and if I won a seat, I doubt I would run for a second term. I think new blood is good.

Also in the equation is my life experience. Most of my adult working life was spent within news organizations. In those days, publicizing political affiliations was absolutely verboten. Many of us never belonged to political parties; some even stopped voting so we couldn't be identified with one side or another.

Did you know what political party Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Mike Wallace or others belonged to when they were broadcasting? I doubt it. Well, I grew up in that world so it is more natural for me to belong to no political party than to belong to one.

And finally, about splitting the vote, you have to understand that the only consequence of my possible run as an un-affiliated candidate that I considered was, not how it might affect an existing political party's chance of winning a seat, but how I would feel about myself & my ability to represent everyone to the best of my ability. 

The jackpot is now $88,169,669. Soon it will be worth more > Ridgefield Press editorial

Monday, 20 June 2011

Ridgefield Press Headline: Should Finance board sit in on [town] union talks?

I say “sure”, why not? A member of the Board of Finance is already able to do that for BoE teacher negotiations.

To date, the rationale for this minor organizational change on the town side has been buried in mis-information and a sea of red herrings.

The Board of Finance has NOT suggested that it wants to negotiate labor contracts alongside the BoS. They just want a place at the planning table.

In fact, the BoF has NO place negotiating along side the BoS, any more than it does with the BoE.

While I subscribe to more inter-board dialogue, public tri-board meetings, that’s where it ends. Each board has a function. Checks and balances should be preserved.

Consider the following: The BoF is the only board tasked with tracking the town’s overall finances so let’s look at their utility in that context.

1.    The Board of Finance can break out the total town-wide costs of the entire labor pie, including salaries, insurance, medical, pensions.

2.    The BoF should be allowed to present such data that would support a notion that if there is to be less pressure on tax payers going forward, only an x% labor increase should be contemplated for that pie -- short term plus long term, i.e. salaries plus pensions & benefits.

3.    The BoF should be encouraged to offer (if they have anything to offer) their perspective on possibly more nuanced approaches to achieve those goals.

And that’s where the Board of Finance involvement should end in my opinion.

From then, the BoS & BoE should act independently. Periodically, in executive session, the boards can (and probably should) discuss their progress with the BoF.

There are differences in how labor negotiations are currently conducted in Ridgefield.

The BoE has PROPERLY included several members of their board on the negotiating team along with a labor relations attorney, the superintendent of schools as well as a representative of the BoF (currently David Ulmer).

On the flip side, the current first selectman likes to negotiate the town contracts ALL BY HIMSELF. (The Human Resources Director is present but that person reports directly to the first selectman.)

In my opinion, this process smacks of politics and conflict of interest as the negotiation is between politician and constituents.

The first selectman currently makes progress reports or presents completed contracts to members of his board (the BoS) for their ratification. Yet none of those members attend any of the negotiation sessions nor have they been encouraged to join the process.

Yet, quoting selectman Manners, this process has “worked very well.” I wonder on what she bases this comment. As compared to what — wishful thinking, political allegiance, convenience? There are certainly no facts or statistics that I know of to support this statement but it must have felt comforting to state that for the record.

The first selectman, like any good politician who wants to assure an outcome, presents a report from his vantage point and since NO ONE ELSE from his board attends any negotiation sessions, who’s to disagree — or even has grounds — for serious discussion about his approach to the negotiation or with the first selectman’ assessment of its outcome. Moreover, there is no real ability to discuss the long term implications of these contracts on future tax rates & by then, it’s too late anyway.

In the Ridgefield Press of June 2, 2011, Mr. Marconi is reported to have stated “[...] that with 12 years of contract negotiations experience, he understands the budget implications of contract decision without advice from the Board of Finance.”

If accurately stated in the press, I take the following from that statement: Mr. Marconi has nothing to learn. He has done it right for 12 years and sees no room for possible improvement.

An open discussion with the only board that is ultimately responsible for the town’s financial health only intrudes on his ‘territory.’ It seems he may be resistant to change for some reason other than than for the public good.

This is a very foolish position to take in my opinion. A good idea — no matter where it comes from — should be welcomed and embraced, not mired in territoriality and rejected as out of hand.

If we are to compare our town’s first selectman to a CEO (vs a political leader), then asking all management parties to the table in order to get the town’s financial ducks in a row before starting a negotiating season should be a no-brainer.

Considering that labor costs represent at least 71% of Ridgefield’s entire $124 million dollar budget, I firmly believe exploring this kind of reorganization to include the Board of Finance in labor negotiations is a vital step in making Ridgefield’s financial future more conducive to growth.

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.

01/31/2011 Letter to the Editor > Ridgefield Press "What, me Worry?"

Carol and I just returned from a little trip to Costa Rica & I came back a changed human. It was a wonderful, laid back  adventure. The natives were courteous, warm & welcoming; the weather delicious. It relaxed me, put things in perspective.

I now consider asking taxpayers for $167k to hose down some six year olds at the recreation center that already loses about $600k annually just another quaint Ridgefield idea. So is building a $20 million dollar library during these economic times.

The Board of Selectmen spending so much energy not approving a full (from part) time salary for Fred, our diligent parking cop, which would have been funded from the Branchville Parking fees while, simultaneously hiding a million dollar mistake in executive sessions.... Eh! Who cares?

And a measly 2.87% school increase on an $80 million dollar school budget. Oh pish.... that's just $2.25 million. What's that? A matter of foregoing eight or nine cups of Starbuck's coffee?

Finally, instead of the BoF asking embarrassing questions, I say give the Board of Ed the entire $89k they requested for a new boiler even though they will be reimbursed $60k by insurance (which they didn't mention). They can use the extra money for something educational.....or not.

That Ridgefield's income is flat and that property owners have lost another 6% of their home value just last year (http://tinyurl.com/5srjg5c) no longer concerns me. I'm calm and confident Ridgefield will rebound in the next 8-10 years.

In the meantime, raising property taxes a few points annually shouldn't cause alarm. We have a wonderful school system -- in the middle of the educational pack -- propping up our property values. And parents of kindergarten aged kids now have more free time to "shop Ridgefield".

I agree with Mr. Jewell. This space should be reserved for friendly letters.

12/09/10 Ridgefield Press > Letter to the Editor re: my political foray

While Keith Miller sat there, bored by the proceedings, reading his newspaper and texting, I sat before the Board of Selectmen with the earnest expectation that what I had to say would actually be considered in deciding who would take Joan Plock's seat. I read an opening statement (http://tinyurl.com/2dze8cg).

Why did I have this expectation? Because CT statute 922 stipulates, that in case of an early vacancy on the Board of Selectmen, any candidate: Republican, Independent, Green Party, Tea Party, Coffee Party or Un-affiliated, could throw their hat in the ring (Democrats couldn't because of minority rules).

Little did I know that I was playing the naif, the naive fool. The questions directed to me should have given me a clue.

Ms. Manners: What do you think about social services?
Answer: I like them.

From Ms. Masters: Where did I see Ridgefield in the near term?
Answer: I don't know since we are too busy scrambling to stay afloat.

From Mr. Bodner: a tight lipped lecture about my campaigning against budgets.
Answer: We need more strategic, long term thinking. May I suggest more Tri-board meetings.

From Mr. Marconi: nothing.

Soon it became clear this was only an exercise.

The First Selectman announced he had promised the seat to the Republicans. From Barbara Manners: It should go to a woman. From Di Masters: I agree with Barbara. Some women in the audience were outraged. No comment from Selectman Bodner. The audience wasn't allowed to comment.

This was a farce. It diminished the process. It diminished the Board of Selectmen.

The entire process disgusted so many people, of all political stripes, that the decision may now be taken out the hands of the bumbling Selectmen and sent to referendum for a town-wide election.

And so ends another shallow chapter in Ridgefield politics.