I have great confidence that Dartmouth can overcome it's current fiscal crisis. One of the main reasons for my optimism is the commitment that I see in many townspeople to help come up with solutions. There are people from all walks of life that are pulling together to lend their talents to help the town. Volunteers on the Finance Committee, Library Board, Council on Aging, Select Board, budget task force, privatization committee and many others are working tirelessly to come up with ideas for resolving this crisis. Another group working to help are our town employees. It is absolutely essential that every one of our public employees, regardless of department, do everything possible to help the town recover. One item that has been repeatedly mentioned is the need to amend contract terms with represented employees. One example of an opportunity to save money is going to biweekly payroll. Perhaps the town can approach the bargaining units and see if they would be willing to renegotiate the payroll issue now, prior to the end of the contract. Some may do so and we can reap some savings sooner. I don't see a down side to asking. The worst that can happen is that the bargaining units will decline and we will have to wait until the contract is up.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
105 comments:
Bill, as you know the Privatization Study Group is looking at a lot of different things, but one we have explored is outsourcing payroll. I personally know of 2 companies that have done this and reaped savings from it. Part of the stumbling block with this is that we would need to be bi-weekly to fit into the way the companies issue checks.
We were told that this subject has been broached and no progress was made. It was stated that the police are very adamant about staying weekly. It also seems to me that it needs to be done for everyone in order for significant savings to be realized. It could end up costing us more to do it both ways.
With this committee as well as the BRTF it has been frustrating because any good idea seems to not be possible under the current contracts, and the reluctance to change them. Most of the things that would help build a stronger future for the town, shifting retirees to Medicare, changing health plans, adjusting benefits, bi-weekly payroll, etc., all seem to fall into the "can't do" category.
I am pretty much convinced that the town will not be able to reap any truly significant savings this year, and the most important thing to do is hire a good negotiator this year to work on the contracts that will be coming up, mostly next year.
Of course negotiators expect to get paid so we will need to budget for that. I have also come to the conclusion that the most important money question on the upcoming ballot is the $1.5M to get us through this year.
I may not like all of it, but it is the only way to stop us from degrading from where we were this year and having the residents/taxpayers experience more pain through reduced services. FY10 is where we need to expect significant progress in future savings because there just isn't that much hanging out there this year, but we do need to get through it.
Frankg, thanks for the update on the privatization committee and about efforts to make contract changes to save money. I think it is unfortunate that we can't make some progress. It makes you wonder when the employees will not agree to cost saving suggestions when layoffs are on the horizon.
I completely agree that we need to have some kind of override to get us through the next year or two. However I wish that the choice had been to level fund budgets rather than add additional employees to an already unsustainable budget. What do you think about voting for the $1 million Stabilization fund question and not the $1.5 million general government question. Some one told me that was the course they have chosen. I had not considered it that way, but it does provide a patch and does not include the added personnel. Just a thought to kick around.
I realize that change is hard. I went to getting paid every two weeks a couple of years ago. It take some getting use to, but it isn't that bad! You get used to it. Why does it have to be 'can't do' when it will save to town and was a DOR recommendation? We can't stay the same and expect things to get better!
I don't understand why town employees would fight a change to a bi-weekly pay system. The more money the town saves, the more likely they will retain their jobs. If the employees are not willing to work with us to help the town, they can not expect the taxpayers to vote for an override for them to keep their jobs.
Well, welcome to the world that I have been frustrated with for 2 years. There have been many nights where I have come home from meetings and my wife has said, "boy, I guess that wasn't a good meeting."
I readily admit I am a control freak, and having been a Process Engineer I am used to seeing a problem and fixing it. In my work with the Town I have had no problem seeing the problems, but have been very frustrated with the fixing part.
In fairness to our employees I don't believe anyone has asked them to do any bending. Being union, all negotiations go through those professionals. And in fairness to them, that is their job, so before they give an inch they want something in return. That is why any real change has to wait for the collective bargaining to come due.
I will also state that my observation is that internally we are not equipped to deal with the unions. That is why I believe the most important things we can do this year is hire a GOOD negotiator to handle things. To continue to try and deal with it ourselves would be like you and me sitting in a poker game with professionals and expecting to leave with our wallets intact.
When I say "can't do" perhaps I should say "can't do right now". The Town leaders have a desire to change things but we are all stuck with the lousy framework that has been laid out. Historical bargaining has been all give and no take. We asked why only Blue Cross is considered, and the answer is "because that is what the unions want." We ask why there are high cost medical plans offered that private industry has moved away from long ago, and the answer is "because that is what the unions want." In the case of paychecks, the contracts explicitly say "weekly". Frustrating. I believe that we can still provide good benefits to our employees, but with balance can save the Town, and us, money. The days of a $5 co-pay for a prescription are long gone in the real world.
It has taken me a long time to get to the position I currently hold, but as my favorite coach always says, it is what it is. Reality sometimes sucks, and while we may all want to change it, we can't. I truly believe that our leaders have gotten the message, but we are stuck with this lousy framework for at least this year. We all have said that fixing this town will take time. That is not months, not even 1 year, but years.
I am not at the position where I would support override money for "future needs", because to me it is a dichotomy to say this is what our future needs are, and at the same time we are doing things to change our future needs. I am from the Missouri part of Dartmouth, so show me, the proof will be in the pudding.
However, I also recognize that there are very few things that can be adjusted to meet the budget needs this year, what I consider a transition year. There are very limited things that can be "touched", and that is how the street lights went out last year, and only the non-union employees got their pay frozen. This year is worse, so to not fund the budget needs for FY09 would again cause the residents/taxpayers more pain, and would clearly be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Services would have to suffer, no way around it. The people that plow our streets will be laid off. The actual workers in the Town Hall will be laid off so expect to stand in long lines when you want something. Paying our highly-paid administrators to answer phones is not good use of my tax money, and stops them from actually doing the job necessary to run the town so things don't get worse.
I know some things are already falling through the cracks because of cut-backs, and I don't want more of that to happen. The police funding has been mandated for FY09, so they will get their budget money one way or the other, BUT, that means that the $500K has to be made up by even more cuts elsewhere. The library and the COA impact statements that were presented to the SB would seem very likely to be worse, because again, there just aren't that many places where money can be made up, and $500K is significant.
So that is why as I scan through the override questions, and find things I don't like about each one, I come to the conclusion that the one that is the most important to get us through this year is the $1.5M. The STAB fund idea is interesting, but we need $1.2M just to sustain where we are, and in addition to the complication of putting the $1M in the STAB fund then working out the appropriation, it still falls short of what we need for the year.
I believe that we can continue to hold feet to the fire by staying engaged, but we really need to get through this year, so I will hold my nose and vote for the $1.5M.
I'm holding my nose reading this stuff. So only the $1.5mil is grudgingly agreed to, and the school employees, the town employees, the library, the COA, and the police can all go to H. Perhaps the control freak in you might want to research the impact of continuing cuts to receivership on the schools and the town, frankg.
Do you understand what is at stake here? Holding the schools and the town hostage over issues already being addressed is insanity. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. These important issues of DOR recommendations must be addressed, but not as a condition of a long overdue fix to the budget. Read my blog www.momofnPT@blogspot.com for further arguments and details.
momof3, welcome to my blog and thanks for stopping by. The reason that myself and others don't want to vote for overrides is that we are convinced that the town has not made the changes necessary to sustain it's operation from the projected revenue. Until those changes are made, an override is a very temporary measure that just postpones the inevitable. I cite as an example the fact that $1.8 million dollars was moved off the budget last year in trash costs and $325K in fees levied, but this year that money is all gone. Swallowed up by the increase in costs in just one year. You can find out more about what I think the problem is here
I don't think that frankg wants the town to go to h. He grew up here and I am sure he wants the best for the town.
one last thing, I have noticed an error in the HTML that you provide for a link to your blog. Try this my blog here"
The correction is to remove the @ and replace it with . What you should see if you cut and paste this into a entry is a link that says my blog here. Try it in your reply and see if it works.
Oops, can't include the html in an hmtl comment. What I was trying to show was back arrow a href="www.momofnPT.blogspot.com" forward arrow my blog here backarrow /a forward arrow
Notice the only change from your previous HTML is that the @ is replaced by a period.
frankg, I'm not sure we aren't on the same wavelength but I am taking about the $1 million in lieu of the $1.5 million, rather than in addition to. Might that be a way to go? I think your answer is no, you'll vote for the $1.5 million.
Senator Everett Dirkson once famously said, "You know, a million here and a million there, pretty soon you're talking real money"
The numbers get big quickly, don't they?
momof3, If we don't change the way we do business in this town, we will be seeing override after override after override! I really feel bad about the school questions because I still hear people talking about 'Cushman' and why are we doing this again. I think the question should have been worded differently. Most people will give the school money for textbooks, pc, teachers, etc. but, after the override last Aug. and all the negative vibes we all heard about Cushman school, I'm just not sure...I wish you good luck. Times are tough right now.
momof3nPT - First of all you have put words in my mouth. I spoke about what I felt was the most important question on the ballot. Without a functioning town the rest means nothing. Secondly, insulting people will never get you votes. Civil discussion is always good, but many on "your side" don't seem to know that. You insult me and you expect that will make me change my mind? All you do is make me laugh at your simplistic view of life. Here is a problem so take my money, AND everyone else's.
Everything on the list is important, but some is more important to each individual than others. I have had discussions with Dr. Russell and others, and told them that "real needs" may in fact be real, but that doesn't mean that people should sacrifice their own personal real needs to fund them.
There are people in this town that cannot afford to pay more taxes, but you don't seem to care about them. So, let me get this straight, your real needs are more important than their real needs so they should be sympathetic to yours while you dismiss theirs. I get it.
It is called priorities, and people have to take care of their own house before they look outside. That doesn't make the other needs unimportant, nor does it mean that people don't care. Many in this town are "paper wealthy" because of property values increasing, but that doesn't give them more cash to spend on things that you think are important, or in fact they also think are important. There is only so much money to go around, especially with a Recession hanging over all our heads.
I have put in a LOT of hours trying to help this town, and I don't remember you sitting next to me while doing it, so don't tell me I need to do research on things, because I have, and I guarantee it is more than you have done in your own narrow little world.
I have never been an override supporter because I believe in fixing the root cause, and throwing money at a problem NEVER works. It has taken me a lot of soul-searching to get to the point where I would at least support the $1.5M, because I see no other avenue for us to get to the point where we can actually make progress, the kind you can count in dollars and cents. You say things have been addressed, but my idea of addressed is not having talked about things, but actually implementing change and seeing results. You can continue to be happy with words, but that is not what I look for, it is only the start not the solution.
And by the way, the $1.5M helps the town employees, the library and the COA, so clearly you have no idea about what you speak.
I have read your Blog and it is clearly narrow in focus. You again only are interested in your immediate needs without regard to others. The voters clearly told the school side that they needed to look inside the system to find ways to implement cost savings. As I have told Dr. Russell, you either need to get working, or find a better PR person to advertise what has been done, because the perception is that there has been no headway. Grouping things into 1 large asking was a great move too. Even those that would like to help in some way won't be able to.
People in this town don't blindly hand over more money just because someone asks for it. To expect so is very foolish. I didn't do that with my kids and I am not about to do it now. If you folks channeled all this anger and energy you have into pushing back at the school leaders to implement change, we would all be better off. The rest of us have been busy doing that with the Town side, and there has been progress in attitude and methods.
So good luck with YOUR attitude and methods, I am sure it will bring you a lot of success on April 1, and you will mistakenly think it is our fault, but that won't stop you from writing about it.
Bill, I get the idea of the $1M instead of the $1.5M, and I find it interesting. The problem I am wrestling with is that we need $1.2M, so is it better to overpay or underpay. With the current situation I am leaning to the overpay because the shortfall would probably cause necessary workers to lose their jobs. In addition I believe that some of the extra $300K IS needed. Last year I would have chosen the underpay.
The web intern idea was one of the suggestions from my group. We felt the Town website needed work, especially in its ability to get info out to the taxpayers. The one IT guy we have on the Town side is swamped and needs help. We thought getting an intern was an inexpensive way to get him some, and with no benefits.
Gagne's office needs help too. He doesn't have enough help now so if a shortfall requires him to lose what little he has, he will end up doing more of the secretary type job and less as the Executive Administrator. If we expect him to participate in leading us out of the hole we can't do that, and is clearly not what we pay him his salary for.
The extra also gives the COA some relief, and Animal Control, which is needed. The Executive Administrator shouldn't have to go out and capture animals, which is what is happening now. The COA said they can get by, which I truly admire, but if the cut is deeper what would they have to do? The $200K is more than their entire budget. Do they hit the library more? I don't know, too much uncertainty. As I said, there isn't much that can be touched, even for $200K.
Since I don't know where they would take the shortfall from, and to me a lot of the extra is needed, overpaying seems like it is the lessor of 2 evils.
As I said, I DO find the $1M idea intriguing, and continue to think about it. I guess the question is general enough that the money could be used to fund the sustaining, as long as TM appropriates it that way, but it seems a bit of a kludgie way to get there.
The idea of town meeting getting to appropriate the $1m instead of our Gagne and Iacoponi sure is intriguing to me too. No one seems to debate the abilty of the DPW to absorb some of the hit and I think there's room there.
Appropriations from the Stabilization fund require a 2/3 vote for approval. That's a pretty high bar to clear but mean any spending had very broad support.
I wonder why no opposition ever posts here? Could it be that all I here is insults and denials? I'm sorry you don't care about the schools or the town enough to give them at least a few more years of solvency before they go belly up. I have only been here 2 years, and we wrote in my husband for Town Meeting on the first vote. I have been volunteering at my son's school as often as I can get child care for my two others. In our short time here, we have put our time where our mouths are, thank you. Rest assured I will hold the town and school officials accountable as well.
You all have a choice, the passive voice of "Now I can't vote for it" is ridiculous. You don't want to, why don't you be honest. The rest of us have to suffer the practical realities for your wonderful high ideals. I could even admit that many of your ideas are correct, but if we wait to fund anything until these changes occur, there won't be anything worth saving.
Momofthree, I am reminded of last july when the cry was that if the override failed, we would fall into the ocean and float away to noman's land. As it turns out, we balanced the budget and even had almost two millon dollars of free cash to bolster our reserve and stabilization funds.
It's sad to see that the information provided by Bill might go unseen to the public masses.
By the way, anyone who has the ignorance to say Bill or ANYONE is against schools or the town is just juvenile and absolutely absurd. Come on!
I hope that you who comment here can rise above scornful sarcasm and name calling, and instead choose to engage others in reasoned arguments. Momof3, I have had discussions here with those who disagree with me. Look here in comments. I feel that I treated them respectfully and as they did me. Good people can disagree with out being disagreeable. Anonymous, if you think Momof3 has missed something give your side and convince her.
Momof3, I'm glad to see you spend so much time volunteering with your local schools, but let me remind you that Bill created and donates numerous hours to the Youth Lacrosse league in Dartmouth and is very passionate about the development of Dartmouth's young adults, AKA, the future.
As far as 'high ideals' go, don't you think we all should have high ideals?
momof3, Bill T has given his time to the youth in this community for several years. He founded a LaCrosse League and still spends hours coaching and teaching children how to play the game. He also tried to buy used equipment and offer it to parents to help them keep their costs down.
He was a great role model to my son when he played.
Yes I am hubby of mom of 3 and share in her extreme frustration over this whole mess. We moved to this town 2 years ago, with two toddlers and one expected, picking Dartmouth because people raved to us how much better this town was than the others on the southcoast. We even bought our house specifically because, although not in Padnaram, it was districted for the "best elementary school in the area" per different/competing real estate agents- yes the dreaded "Cushman" word. Maybe its a case of buyer's remorse, watching your town now have dropping mcas scores and the largest elementary school in the state, and being told "but don't worry, kids are adaptable" and "it will prepare them for the large middle school". Part of our frustration lies in knowing yes there are sincere people who want to correct the financial situation in this town, but there are also a fair number who have already had their children through the system, and could care less going forward.
No mom of 3 and I do not enjoy being in a position of trying to defend, in my opinion, lousy school administrators and committee members, because it has become fairly obvious that they are inept.
In our short time here, mom of 3 and I have discerned: there is a large segment of this town that feels the "richie-riches" had their own school, and feel this is/was unfair - and are happy to vote against - no matter what the implications at quinn; also, there is a good depth of animosity towards leadership in this town, and a fair number feel this is a chance to get back at them for various affronts over the years; there are some on both sides of the override position who want to make things work - (but I'm afraid this is a small number).
As for me, i'm voting for the 1.5 and the schools, obviously the latter out of self interest, and the former to keep the town going. All those who think receivership is a good idea just remember the big dig and how well this state did managing that (and in the name of civility, I'm not suggesting that anyone here is supporting receivership, although the henry nichols' of the world do)
I'll hope both of these pass as I drive by all the for sale signs in dartmouth, especially the ones that have been for sale for quite some time. Maybe my buyer's remorse won't be so bad if someone else can get snookered into buying a home in dartmouth with the second largest elementary school in the state.
I hope some of you will put some of this energy battling the school administration and committee after all this, because if anything, it is apparent that if one feels the town is not being run well, it is even more apparent that this town is poorly served by our school leaders and they should be held to the fire as some want to do to the BOS and other town departments. Quinn is not a good situation, and needs to be rectified - and overcrowding potter and demello isn't the answer either.
“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”...Adolph Hitler
No new taxes seems to fit the quote don't you think.
husband of momof3, I understand your frustration. I agree we need an override in his town just to give us time to make some changes so we don't get into this situation again. I wish that different groups were not so pitted against each another. The schools in Dartmouth have always had dedicated teachers, involved parents, and a community that has supported them. I am confident that we can work together in this town.
hubbyofmomof3, I can assure you that many of the commenters here as well as myself are very much interested in correcting the financial situation in Dartmouth. Many have served on a volunteer basis on various committees and commissions to try to move the town forward. Some of what you see is our frustration that the leaders don't get it or are being purposely evasive. On top of that, some have tried to demonize any questioning or opposition to overrides. I characterize it as frustration rather than animosity. I don't personally have any agenda due to past differences or affronts. I just want to get started post haste in getting back on track. There are well meaning people on both sides of the override questions who will need to work together regardless of the outcome of the votes. We want to have the same things that you do, good schools, adequate services, and a bright future for the town. I have not discussed the issue of receivership since I don't think it is a good solution, the town should solve it's own problems with input from the citizens. It's that last part, input, that is lost with receivership. That said, the results of receivership have been mixed, it seems to me to have helped Chelsea but not Springfield. Mostly I think it was raised as a scare tactic to gain support for override questions. I am not discounting the possibility, I just think that we have the collective intelligence and will to avoid it.
On to schools. What I believe is that the school department has not set their priorities on the education of students in academic subjects. Unfortunately those in the administration and School Committee disagree with that assessment. I have attended and spoken at School Committee meetings, made that case and found my remarks were not well received. The town and Select Board have little say in this beyond refusing to give additional funds above the minimum set by law. I feel the townspeople are to that point, no more money until the focus is on teaching and curriculum in basic subjects. While you are rightly troubled that your neighborhood school has been closed, the majority of parents in town did not ever enjoy the benefits that were extended to Cushman. I think it is a question of basic equity for all.
I, for one, will keep working to make Dartmouth a better town and I hope that you would join in that endeavor regardless of the outcomes on April 1.
Please Bill T - what are those benefits that were extended to the students at Cushman? I'm truly curious because I never saw them yet they are referenced constantly. If its small class size I wonder when that was, as my experience for four years in that school showed a class size of 23-25for my child - not much different than any other school in the system. Is it the year or 2 where a first grade class had 12 students right after the school system was re-districted or was it more than that?
It's already been shown the building did not have a special librarian as reported in the ST (no library for that matter)neither did it have a special nutritionist as also erroneously reported in the paper. It had the same teachrs and curriculum as the other schools too. Aside from old classrooms, bathrooms and a combination gym/cafeteria and auditorium what's so special about Cushman that keeping it shut at all costs is so important? Just curious why this perception is there and if there is no substantiation for the perception why does it get perpetuated by sites such as this and by someone who seeks elected office? Its an important issue because whether that building ever gets open again apparently rests on the answer.
this is hubby of momof 3 - Yes the closing of cushman bothers me, especially, and please stop this talk of "basic equity for all". We now have a crammed Quinn, and a lousy learning environment but at least we have equity for all in our system- except those who can't afford to pay for extracurricular activities - they can have a waiver, equity be damned in that case. My beef is not with you (although I have a large problem with the "equity" argument - that doesn't hold water - just more class warfare business - and a dirty little secret is that not all students who were districted to cushman come from richie-rich homes, and a crammed quinn affects original quinn kids as well, lets not forget gidley kids either) but with the school committee, who tried to blackmail voters into the previous override by threatening closure and cramming kids into quinn, and they lost. Fairhaven had a similiar situation, but obviously planned it, and things went much smoother when they closed a popular elementary school.
I'm glad others in this town were fortunate enough to have their children make it through a 5 elementary school system, with extracurricular activites included in what used to be called a "well rounded education", and no fees for busing, etc. But times change, now all we should provide are "the essentials" (it just depends upon which definition of essentials one uses).
I just want to see people use this energy on the schools as well, but I don't have much confidence in that. But I am a town meeting member, and I'll use that position as best i can to improve this town even if it means goring everybody's ox - obviously in the name of equity for all.
I think that you hit on the key word in your comment. Perception! If the widely held perception is that Cushman received special treatment and a majority of voters don't like that, then inclusion of Cushman in the initiative is counter productive. I am not responsible for that perception and have not tried to perpetuate it. I just pointed out that the belief is they received special treatment. Whether or not I believe that is true is really irrelevant to whether a majority of the town believes it is true and to the question of re-opening the building. The voters will decide on their perceptions, not mine.
If, as you say, students had the same teachers and less than satisfactory facilities at Cushman, I am puzzled by your vehemence that it be reopened. Would you care to elaborate on why that particular building is so important to the school district?
hubbyofmomof3 again - Not speaking for anonymous above, but what is evident is that the 3 elementary school plan isn't working at this time - because it is obvious quinn is a bad situation that needs to improve. There is nothing attractive about a community with the largest (or second) elementary school in the state. Something needs to change - opening gidley or cushman, or both. The Dartmouth parents group I thought put forth some fine ideas, ones that didn't involve an override for reopening schools to decrease quinn size, with overrides instead if passed focusing on books etc. Why this wasn't embraced by all in town is beyond me - but I remember the headline being "parents group wants to reopen cushman" and it was crushed going forward. My feeling is that something must be done on the schools side now because 1)quinn is not a good situation, and 2) really it is what it is all about - the salaries and contracts going forward, the largest chunk are from the schools - and we can't really touch the pensions just the salaries. If we forget about doing something now about quinn, then it won't occur later, we all know that. Everyone will just continue with "kids are good at adapting".
So Bill, let me understand this if you believe it a perception problem -which I frankly do - you still advocate keeping it closed for the sake of that perception rather than getting the truth out about the wrong perception. I don't follow that line of thought for a 'leader' to embrace, I honestly don't.
I believe both schools need to be re-opened to solve crowding throughout the K-8 grade so yes it is my opinion that we get pat 'perceptions' and document truths.
As far as the parents plan getting crushed going forward. You bet it was through a combination of mis-leading headlines in the newspapers and the continued 'perception' that somehow Cushman was so bloody special. For me its 'specialness' lies in the fact that it can accomodate 250 kids and to keep it and Gidley closed when one of the biggest problems facing us is overcrowding is beyond me. But hey, there's only so long I'm willing to push that rock up the hill. The town will get what it decides to vote for or against for better or worse. It would be ashame though to base these and other important decisions on 'perceptions' and not realities.
hubbyofmomof3, In Orwell's Animal Farm, Napoleon quips, "that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". How you feel about that statement depends on which side of the equality equation you find yourself. Please try to understand the feeling of a parent of a Potter, DeMello, or Gidley student. I was talking about fairness, equity if you will. I believe that should apply to all our elementary schools. If the perception is that things are being done unfairly, there is likely to be some backlash, don't you agree? You may not have any responsibility for the perception but you have to acknowledge it exists.
I have never contended that Cushman students come from rich homes or that extra curricular activities are not valuable. I am trying to explain to you why there is hard feeling about Cushman school in town.
It seems to me that Cushman parents want to hold everyone accountable for the closing of the school except for those who actually closed it. Why is your ire directed at me or the other oxes you will gore? It seems to me that will further divide us and make it harder in the future to get funding for the things that you want.
I think only one school should be re-opened and have advocated for that since before the last override attempt. Unfortunately, for the second time, we are not given that choice. It's all or nothing, AGAIN.
I have been discussing schools here with several commenters who now are questioning my leadership because I will not support the reopening of Cushman school. Let me point out that my candidacy comes before the voters on the same day as the override questions. I could just as easily have pandered to your desire to reopen Cushman school and said sure I support that wholeheartedly. It would make no difference whether I support it or not. I am running for Select Board, not School Committee, so perhaps your comments would be more appropriately addressed to those running for that office. In any case, if the override question for schools passes, the Cushman would be reopened. If they fail, I could say well I supported it, and got your votes. I chose not to do that because I am not going to pander to anyone. I won't to get elected and I won't if I'm elected. I think that the negative feeling in town toward the Cushman school may doom the school question to failure based upon that single word, Cushman. I did not create the negative feeling nor do I endorse it, I am just acknowledging it exists. If you sincerely want to pass an override to help conditions at Quinn, then I suggest that you also have to consider the consequences of including Cushman in the question. If on balance it makes it more likely to fail than pass by including Cushman, you don't include it. The Cushman parents would surely howl to high heaven. But real leadership means that you have to consider the whole town and not just the group making the most noise.
I also feel that the school question is not fiscally responsible. We are in a hole and it's time to stop digging. If you want to continue to have these override fights and continue to be on the edge of financial collapse, don't vote for me. I want to change that and I am asking the town to trust me to do so. Giving people the truth, whether they want to hear it or not, is part of what I believe is leadership. I won't compromise that conviction for your vote. So here I am, take it or leave it.
I applaud momof3 & her husband for joining in the debate. It's always good for everyone to hear from both sides. That being said, I have to agree with Bill that Cushman has always been considered "favored". The origional school override questions separated the 2 schools. I would have voted to open Gidley. I would not have voted for Cushman. I think this issue has caused devisiveness in the town and reopening Cushman would never allow those wounds to heal. Just ask seniors in this town what they think of Cushman. They will tell you the "perception" has been here for generations.
I got it Bill. Perception becomes reality so why bother addressing the questions posed above. The school is part of the town, your platform at one point included bridging the school/town divide (paraphrasing) but when the tough questions come that should be addressed its pass it off to 'the other guy'.
I do give you credit for running, and should you prevail wish you luck in making sense out of all of this.
Anonymous, Since there are several people posting here anonymously, I am not sure what I failed to address so far. If you want to continue the discussion, let me know what you feel I have missed in my replies. I would be happy to respond.
Just because the Cushman perception may be long standing and popular; it's still false. Would you rather pander to a group that cares more about its class warfare than address the needs of three schools worth of kids? These kinds of challenges demand a little courage and integrity in the face of such entrenched mythology.
It's been a while since anyone has mentioned the state grant that Cushman used to replace windows and the boiler. According to reports, the town is required to repay the state to the tune of $150k if the building is not used as a school. That's quite a hefty price tag to keep a school closed. It would be better spent on say: books, computers, after-school programs, etc. I have not heard of any loophole, or any plan to address this problem. Perhaps all those who cling to their false impression of Cushman would pay for that privilege themselves.
The overcrowding at Quinn has faded into the background since the last article in the paper. Noone seems to think it's worth addressing except the parents of the kids involved. I have to say, if my child had to go there, we'd look for a school elsewhere. There's no way I'd let my kid go where he could get lost in the shuffle. The only thing they were able to maintain was the teacher student ratio (1:21), actually better than the 1:23 average at Cushman.
I hold Dr. R and the school committee primarily responsible for Quinn; however, the voters have a chance to rectify it. Do the kids from Gidley and Quinn also have to suffer because of the 'negative vibes' about Cushman? It seems just too ridiculous and sad.
hubby sez: "don't worry, the kids will adapt, and it will prepare them for the overcrowded middle school." (insert sarcasm here.)
Bill-T, leading by perception doesn't appear to be a sound business practice. Nevertheless, it would appear that both you and the CFRG (Marianne)would disagree with me. What other perceptions may you have, one can only wonder. But I am now beginning to see the logic behind your arguments.
Did you know momof3 and hubby of momof3 that the reduced cost to open Cushman is now $197,000? The reduction from previous costs was achieved thru a combination of reduced admin (share a principal with Gidley, limited janitorial and admin support services)and some other cost cutting measures. So if roughly 1 busload of kids could walk to Cushman instead of take the bus to Quinn as they now do you would save about $42,000 (1 bus 1 year cost)and the net cost drops to $145,000 to open that school. Eliminate the pay back penalty of $150,000 or so and guess what, the first year is paid for. Subsequent years would cost $145k or so to keep the building open.
Similar, but slightly higher ($202k I believe) costs would open Gidley.
With both buildings open once again, the district could consider impplementing on a limited basis, full day kindergarten. The district could elect to charge fees for full day K to cover costs, or implement a fee free program and in year 2 enjoy a significant increase in chapter 70 funds from the state to offset the cost.
Imagine, keeping a building closed when to open it would cost virtually nothing in year one and in subsequent years could be run for 1/2 of 1% of the school budget. And the problems this would solve would impact all students from K-8 - not just one small group of kids. It would also allow consideration of full day K another program whose benefits have been touted for years but will not be implemented if the space does not exist.
This whole discussion can not be had unless people are willing to stand up and address the lie behind the 'perception' tag.
In my opinion a leader would research these issues and if he/she determined they had merit would stand up to the majority that perpetuates or finds comfort in these 'perceptions' rather than dismiss those who do raise the issue as 'howling to high heaven'
Concerning Cushman & Gidley, The SC & Dr Russell closed those schools and they are the only ones who can re-open them. If you're angry...talk to them. If you're upset with their plan... talk to them. They have the control to open, close, & decide where each grade will be. I've heard that it might be a good idea to have K-2 at Demello & Potter and 3,4,5 at Quinn. Again I don't know what those numbers are but it makes sense to keep the younger children in one school. In the end SB & Dr. Russell will decide with parent input of course.
Sorry, At the end of the last post I meant SC not SB.
Another "perception" in town seems to be the only solution to our financial crisis is to throw more money at the problem. That "perception" is not only false but a road to override after override. If people really understood the root of our financial crisis, that would be the last thing they would advocate for. We cannot sustain our budget and yet there are those who wish to add more salaries through this override without having fixed the structural deficit. This is the kind of logic that has got us into this mess and continues to lead us into decline.
Regarding the perceptions of Cushman School. A friend of mine gave me a bunch of old annual town reports from the late seventies and early eighties. Among them was one annual school report from 1978. I thought it would be interesting to check the elementary enrollment numbers and figure students per classroom. Here they are.....
Cushman 29.1
Demello 32.47
Gidley 35.7
Potter 29.8
Make of it what you will.
I guess from all this no one wants to confront the issue that I have been discussion re: perception vs. truth on the re-open school building issue. Much easier, safer just to pass the blame off-its Russell or the SC but when its put back on the table its a bad isea again,or spin to a different topic etc.
BillT is running for Select Board yet will not confront this issue, rather says keep it closed because of 'perceptions' rather than truths or say it's the school commmittee not me. People say that there is no leadership in town, no one that is willing to bring differing forces together to hammer out some compromise and all I've heard so far is pass the buck, its about 'perceptions', dismissing Cushman parents as if they are not part of this town and pay taxes like everyone else just to satisfy some false perception. I woul'nt have believed it unless I read it myself.
Thank you Barry
Anonymous,
I do not think that the ovverride question put forward by the schools is fiscally responsible. We cannot increase our payroll, decide to heat and maintain buildings if we can't pay for it in the future. It seems that your only issue is to reopen Cushman school whether it makes fiscal sense or not. We cannot make these decisions based on emotion. So make the case for opening that school based on dollars and cents citing the source of funds that will sustain the added expense out into the future. Not we save $150,000 for a year and that pays for the school,I am talking about continuing revenue. That's how I will judge it. Whether the override questions pass or fail, we need to very carefully consider any new spending since we cannot sustain even what we have now. As I said in my previous comment, I could pander to you and say I want to open the schools. I haven't and I won't. If your only issue is to reopen Cushman school, don't vote for me. I will only support that if it makes fiscal sense. In my opinion, it does not.
I have to admit that I had no idea of what "Cushman Academy" meant, so I had to ask some parents. I can't imagine anyone thinking it is a "fancy" school. It wasn't when I went there, nor when my father went there, so by now has to be really showing its age. Even way back then we used the "cages" for activities.
If I were the School Committee I would make the decision on what made the most sense and not worry about perception. As an outsider to the school workings it doesn't seem to make sense to me to reopen Gidley with its wooden frame and it not being eligible for grant money, as well as its operating inefficiency. Dr. Russell told me that Cushman is much more efficient to run because of the new heating system and windows.
If they don't want to use it as a full elementary school then maybe they should move the offices from Bush street and rent out that space for some revenue. Bush is not that efficient to run either as I am told. I don't believe they need a ton of space for the offices so maybe the rest of Cushman could be used for some town-wide kindergarten, or something like that. Let everyone share in the "Academy".
The SC is its own worst enemy because it makes no sense to have created a plan that called for closing 2 schools then saying "oops" we have a crowding issue so let's open 2 schools. It seems unrealistic to me that they couldn't have found some way to implement something in the efficiency category to keep something open during the current year... and NOT cut teachers, but look a bit higher on the ladder for some sort of job consolidation. The SC is flying by the set of their pants.
They shouldn't have waited until crisis time to make a decision either. The numbers are readily available so why didn't someone think things through a few years before last, and put a plan together that would work? There is too much reliance on "bailout" money on both sides of the Town.
In any case, it is entirely in their control because as we know, the SB has no control over the SC, nor does anyone else except the voters. Demonstrated poor planning and ineptness is not the way to win support.
Population growth and where it occurs governs classroom size. Otherwise, redistricting would be needed every year to achieve equitable perfection! Barry has implied special treatment and that is irresponsible, as were his claims in red print that consolidating our schools would not overcrowd them! Redistricting was planned for, but didn't occur. We're dealing with crisis management instead, and Barry played a strong role in that! Why? As he stated himself when he first took the mike, he's paying enough taxes on his property (assessed at $1 million). It serves him well to perpetuate an ill-conceived perception.
Anonymous,
Sounds like you have a personal problem with me. The first time I took the mike, as you say, I endorsed a plan that was put forth by the school committee because at the time it saved $750k. Upon doing some more of my own homework, I formed the opinion that it was more of a scare tactic than it was a good plan for the children of Dartmouth. At that point, I urged the school committee to come up with a plan to close only one school and did not specify which one. I still stand committed to this position. I also stand committed to the following position---Only people of poor character lie about what others have said to support their own position.
Let's get back to issues, please. As far as I can tell, everyone wants the town to make it out of this crisis. Where we disagree is how to get there, and whether we fund the schools and the town a few more years to avoid more cuts. I don't believe any additional posting is going to change anyone's mind, at least not any of the current posters. I hope that the lurkers are compiling their own evidence, so that they can come up with their own informed decisions.
No lie has been told here, Barry. And, your remarks referring to your property taxes were made long before any plan was proposed by the school committee - and is on tape. Your position implying consolidating schools would not overcrowd them is in print - red print distributed all over town! Your response puts your own character in question as has been the case from the start.
I've given the explaination for class sizes. It's sad that your among those that don't seem interested in righting a long-standing wrong with respect to the "perception" that's written about here in recent posts.
frankg
I am in agreement with you regarding the SB having little if any control over decsions made by the SC. However it is widely agreed that the relationship between the 2 groups has been frosty at best. Plenty of blame to go round on each side no doubt for that situation. Other communities have been able to foster a much more communicative and cooperative relationship between these 2 groups. There has been some progress made in recent years-slow progress to be sure but some movement. What I would hope in any one running for the SB or SC is a commitment to move that cooperative dialogue along hopefully at a more rapid pace. What I have seen so far from Mr Trimble is more of the same 'its not my problem' or 'they made their bed let them lie in it attitude' which I find dissapointing. Seems an opportunity missed to make a difference in my opinion.
As far as supporting those that have made poor decisions in the past, short of firing the leader and recalling the entire school committee another option that some have pursued is to participate more actively than ever before in evalutating future decisions and try to get the school committee to look at the long term implications of any decisions. That effort has been going on for at least a year and hopefully the plans that get put before the public are much better thought out than ever before. That's not making excuses for previous poor decision making but recognizes that citizen input is vital to the decision making process. That said, it was very dissappointing to see the 25 or so people at last night's school forum once again-many the same old faces. Hopefully more people will be able to attend future forums at the schools in the upcoming weeks to hear about the plan and get questins answered.
Let's not attack people here! If every question passes, the town still has lots of work to do. Having said that, if the schools get their override questions what will they do to help the town with the fiscal problem? Unfortunately,we are in this together. Mr Trimble is looking into the future of Dartmouth and thinking about ways to prevent receivership. It appears that some groups want every override question passed, no cuts, and of course agree that we can't go into receivership? So how will that happen? If things stay the same,we are doomed. We need to think about how to run the town in a different way and that includes the schools. We need to be creative. Let's stop blaming people for our frustrations! We are all in this together!We all care about Dartmouth!
anonymous, obviously you have a personal problem with Barry and getting your facts straight. This is what the red print you refer to actually says: "Consolidation of Cushman & Gidley 312 less students in Quinn, Potter & DeMello than the year before the new high school was built. 1975 enrollment= 4,560 FY06/07 enrollment= 4,313"
Take from that what you will but there sure is an awful lot of "putting words in other people's mouths" these days. These enrollment figures are fact. Check them yourself. As a matter of fact I think you should spend more time researching and less time making false accusations and personal attacks.
I post and comment here nearly every day so there is no need to put words in my mouth. I am running for Select Board on a platform which includes fiscal responsibility. The School Committee and administrators are given about 1/2 the town's budget every year. They may do with those funds what they see fit. I would hope that they make prudent decisions about spending but ed reform has given sole authority for those decisions to the schools and mandated increases in their budget as well. Since the school department makes the decisions, they have to bear the responsibility of those actions. The situation with Quinn school, textbooks and other things is one of their own making. I can have opinions about it but have no real influence in the decisions. That is the reality of it.
The DOR recommended at budget summit with the Select Board, Finance Committee, School Board and town and school administrators attending. I think that is a good idea and that these summits should hash out what funds are going to be available and where they will go. The end result should be a budget number for each department to work with and the Select Board should do everything in their power to hold the departments to that budget figure. That includes refusing to approve override requests if they believe it not in the long term fiscal interest of the town.
Mom of 3 and Hubby- why do you think so little of Dartmouth school staff? Having moved here 2 years ago maybe you have a sour view after listening to the contrarians on this blog and in the editorials, but I have a long list of educators in Dartmouth that have earned my trust and admiration despite the harsh and mostly undeserved criticism that is thrown their way. I hope 5 and 10 years from now your children will have flourished in Dartmouth schools. Do they go to Quinn? There are some terrific staff there! My kids are both at the dreaded Middle School and have had wonderful teachers for the most part. There are flaws mainly due to a lack of funding, but dragging down a whole staff because you are caught up in the negative fervor of a few extreme viewpoints is not the answer.
anonymous-- I don't believe I have been critical of the school staff beyond Dr. R and the SC. On the contrary, I believe they attempt to do the impossible, day in and day out. My mother was a reading teacher in the NY public school system for over 30 years, so I have a great respect for the profession. I also have an insider's view on some the the pitfalls and common problems that often occur. Please read more of my blog: momof3nPT.blogspot.com for more.
There are too many "Anonymouses" here, but to the one that addressed me, I agree with much of what you say. I haven't heard Bill T. say he wouldn't work for collaboration, and certainly that is something that is necessary to fix this whole town. Perhaps it is a question of there being many formidable tasks that need to be done, and one sitting or wanting to sit in the SB seat can more easily focus on things that are in direct control.
I agree that there is enough blame to go around, but to this involved observer I have to put significant blame on the SC. I remember 2 years ago when they almost had to be wrestled to the ground to share their budget with the SB, and the FinCom. Their answer to the requests was that "we are elected, we don't answer to you." I heard that said.
I believe that the very limited collaboration has been due to the SC wanting more money and the SB being the gatekeepers as the override generators. Otherwise, I get the impression that everyone would rather not deal with everyone else. You are correct in that attitude HAS to change.
I know there has been more engagement with the parents and others, and this is great in my view, but from my seat it is hard to have confidence that any real change will happen given my observations of what has transpired. Fresh, more willing perspectives are probably needed all around. I believe there are many well-qualified parents that I would like to see raise their hands for the SC seats as they come up, but of course, many don't have time because they are parents, and have other obligations.
No matter how the SB race turns out it is good to have 2 candidates that have clearly different perspectives. This gives the voters clear choice in what they believe in, and is in fact the basis of democracy and representative government.
This is the anonymous that agreed with you FrankG. I agree there are too many anonymous posters here but gven some of the venom spewed recently - I'll stay anonymous.
Anyway, I think more parents will raise there hands for SC seats in upcoming years. This year there is some choice. For me it made sense to sit, listen and learn for a year before I jump into the fray and I think there are 2 good, new candidates this year so there will be some change any way.
I think there has been some movement on the school admin's part as far as being more open to scrutiny-not nearly enough yet but it is a bit like the titanic. It takes a lot of energy to change inertia......
Many are aware these were the figures you used to imply consolidating schools would not overcrowd them. The year before the new high school was built, the schools were over-enrolled by several hundred students.
That's the fact you failed to mention in red print - one reason of many as to why your efforts often don't resemble a credible source of information. And, that's a fact not a "false accusation or personal attack". People have good reason to be upset.
You might want to take your own advise.
No, it is not fact. It is your opinion. There is a difference.
Anonymous, you could'nt be more wrong about this. I agree with BillT, we need to pull togther for our town.
Bill, and the CFRG have opened the eyes of many people in this town about the illusion many of us believed to be real. Imagine, for the 20 or so years I have lived here I believed we had clean streets, beautiful, well maintained parks and beaches. A strong, fully staffed police department, a robust, hard working DPW and dedicated team of professionals running our town. Imagine,I thought that our school system was well run and the pride of the South Coast with hard working teachers and administrators who believed in the value of a good education and planned for the future. And I can scarcely now believe the ridiculously low cost to make this illusion a reality! Having lived in New Bedford many years ago I dreamed of the day I could move to this magic place called Dartmouth!All this and more, much more. How could they do it?!
What a fool I've been to have beleived in this illusion. How could I have been so stupid? Well, the truth is finally revealed thanks to BillT and the CFRG. I know there has been no proof of how this illusion has been maintained low these many years, but I know BillT and the CFRG will reveal the 'smoking gun' soon. Even if they don't or can't, does'nt matter because they've managed to convince enough people like me that something must be wrong-right? Surely someone is making out big time by providing all of this wonderfulness for so small a cost. Not to worry, thanks to BillT and CFRG we'll soon be stripped to the bare essentials and we can see just how 'they' managed to maintain this illusion for as long as they have.
Thanks BillT, thanks a lot.
BillT, I still don't think you've answered the original question I posted a while back. How about it?
I've lived in Dartmouth my entire life. When things are going great people don't pay attention. For many years it was difficult to find people to serve as town meeting members. A few years ago, a SB member ran unopposed.
Now the town is in trouble.
The CFRG has raised awareness and brought some subjects up that I think people needed to hear. People weren't paying attention before. I do not agree with everything that the CFRG says, but I am grateful that we have a group who are willing to come out and ask the tough questions of our town leaders. Please don't try to dehumanize this group just because you don't agree with them, their voice is important!
Asking tough questions is a good thing. CFRG grossly misrepresent and mislead the public. Unfortunately, some of those who weren't paying attention over the years aren't able to recognize that. Many of us who were, do.
anonymous, when making accusations one should be specific and not just throw general statements out there. Please specify because I would like to hear what you consider grossly misrepresenting and misleading the public to be.
CFRG misrepresentation:
That the SB is not following the DOR recommendations. In fact they are carrying them out and have said so on many many occassions. That things are not happening as quickly as the CFRG likes does not mean they are not being carried out.
CFRG misrepresentation:
Buy out costs exceed $720,000 when the actual number is closer to $320,000.
CFRG misrepresentaion:
The only way to solve Dartmouth's current financial problem is to cut services to below bare essentials.
CFRG misrepresentation:
They are looking to compromise when in fact they have requested time and again to have all in town follow their solutions and demands. Case in point the letter to the editor several weeks back that scolded the town moderator for appointing a pro-override person to the finance committee and further demanded that future appointments should be submitted to the CFRG for review prior to appointment.
CFRG misrepresentation: They demand transparency at all levels of town government (a good thing of course) yet refuse to be transparent themselves.
CFRG misrepresentation:
Their web site refers to their group only as 'The good guys' which makes those who do not agree with them? The bad guys I suppose. Some compromise.
Anonymous misrepresents the entire thing. What specifically have the CFRG said that is not true. Not a list of what YOU SAY they did.
Has the Select Board adopted a financial plan as follows? A town-wide financial plan is the integration of multi-year revenue projections, adopted polices (such as reserve policies), and analyses of organizational goals and their long-term impact on expenditures
Has the Select Board voted to discontinue all personal contracts except as allowed by law? If so , at what meeting did they take this vote?
Has the Select Board presented a multi-year financial forecast to the town? Where is it?
When has the CFRG advocated cutting services below the bare essentials? I recall Select Board members warning last year, "You will not recognize this town if this override fails". It did. I can still recognize the town. Who is misrepresenting?
To Anonymous - Those are the misrepresentations as I see them and read them in the Standard Times. Maybe the letter about appointments to town committees being passed by CFRG was a figment of my imagination. I don't think so but I'll check - Anonymous.
My God - there's too many anonymouses here-too hard to follow. Take a number will you please!
I'll start - Anonymous #37
Here is a perfect example of misrepresentation. On WBSM today someone called in to say that if administration for the Council on Aging were cut, there would be no one left to provide any services to the elderly. This is a clear misrepresentation since there are four employees there. This misrepresentation came from the override supporters camp and is proof that they will stoop to any level to get what they want, even swindling the elderly. Pathetic!
I understood there are three employees at the Dartmouth Street COA. The director, someoneelse whose position I forget and the janitor. The way I heard Mike gagne and the Director tell it recently at a SB meeting was hours would be cut at the facility, not that the people would not be there. I do understand that the N Dartmouth COA will in fact close when their grant money runs out-perhaps that was what was meant. Too bad I missed the radio program but it was pretty clearly explained by the COA Director at the SB meeting.
I am a big fan of Barry Walker's and I keep a scrapbook of all the letters he has had in the paper. I am reading his letter to the moderator and I don't see anywhere in it where he demanded that future appointments should be submitted to the CFRG for review prior to appointment. I also went to the web site and could not find "good guys" anywhere. I don't know about the other things you talked about but judging from what I looked up, I don't think I can believe anything you have said.
groupie-look a little harder. Go to the FAQ heading, click it. Go to the topic titled CFRG. Click the heading 'Who are we/" and la voila it says one sentence "We are the good guys'. Trust but verify.
groupie - here's an excerpt from the letter:
Feb 3, 2008 Standard Times
Keep supporters of 2007 override off finance board.
.....Perhaps the most important appointments he or she makes are to the Finance Committee.
We feel that those appointed to this committee should fit a certain profile. This profile should show that these appointees have the propensity to be good stewards of the Dartmouth taxpayers' money. Business finance, accounting and fiscal planning credentials are all a plus in choosing Finance Committee members. Those who have prior records supporting irresponsible fiscal policies or special agendas should be eliminated from consideration.
Those are not my words groupie, they are from the chair of the CFRG and the steering committee of the same group.
While the quote you site is from the letter, there is still no demand to review anything. It's simply an opinion stated. Thank you for posting it though. Now people can read it and judge for themselves.
You're welcome groupie.
So there you have the evidence, folks.
The CFRG says they are the good guys!
They say they only want those with demonstrated records of fiscal responsibility on the Finance Committee.
Pretty damning stuff. Will you bring the tar or the feathers?
Pretty damning indeed- the headline says it all for me.
'Keep supporters of override off the Finance Committee' That excludes virtually half the people that thought the override was a good idea.
I also happen to think many people that don't agree with the CFRG are good guys too sso their assertion otherwise is insulting.
Not a whole lot else to add after that.
Actually, since the CFRG is not running for office but BillT is, I wonder if BillT would tell us his position on who should be on the FinCom, or any other board in town. BillT, do you agree that someone who supported last year's override should be barred from serving on the town's Finance Committee?
anonymous, headlines/titles for letters to the editors are created by the editors and not the person submitting the letter. The quote you are attributing to the CFRG is from the editor of the ST. Please try to stick to the facts and refrain from misleading information. As was the case last year, this kind of behavior only does damage to your cause.
So what are the facts. Does the CFRG believe an override supporter should be allowed on the FinCom?
Should the CFRG be consulted before any appointments are made? While the CFRG can discuss our town's fiscal and management issues and has been given access to information, and budget #'s etc. they are simply a group of Dartmouth citizens with no authority whatsoever in our town gov't. They are free to endorse a candidate for SB, FinCom etc. or pursue such endeavors themselves but that is where their influence should end.
Misrepresentations and misleading the public:
1. As stated in earlier post regarding your implying consolidating schools would not overcrowd them- "red print" flyer distributed all over town stating consolidation of schools - 312 less than before new high school was built. Neglecting to state - schools were OVERENROLLED BY SEVERAL HUNDRED STUDENTS the year before the high school was built.
2. Marianne W. continues to site the "glossy" publication that adorned "no" sign before July vote
containing over "80%" of INCORRECT data with respect to town employee salaries. (including my own incorrectly listed at TRIPLE my salary). No retraction ever made for erroneous data - still refer to publication in this very forum!
3. Repeatedly stating no committment made by SB regarding changing to Split Tax Rate when, in fact, majoriity of SB publicly made committment to do just that prior to July vote to inform voters.
4. Purposely misleading seniors regarding proposed tax abatement guidelines that would have tripled senior eligibility. (How many of those you bused to the polls were among those who would have qualified? - Talk about exploiting the seniors!) How many listeners heard the call in to Fall RIver radio station by 79-year old Dartmouth woman who would've qualified, but was told to vote no and never given the proposed information to make her own decision.
5. Predicting proposed PAYT would fail anyway not meriting any weight in making decision on how to vote.
6. Now implying contract issues not being addressed by SB. Misrepresenting process and role of Personnel Board.
7. Misleading public as to what a "structural deficit" is (doesn't appear you know yourselfs)
Just a few highlights. One could write a book.
Bottom line - CFRG is far from responsible. In your attempt to breed mistrust in others, you've created mistrust towards your own effort. (Opinion, based on fact)
Misrepresentations and misleading the public:
1. As stated in earlier post regarding your implying consolidating schools would not overcrowd them- "red print" flyer distributed all over town stating consolidation of schools - 312 less than before new high school was built. Neglecting to state - schools were OVERENROLLED BY SEVERAL HUNDRED STUDENTS the year before the high school was built.
2. Marianne W. continues to site the "glossy" publication that adorned "no" sign before July vote
containing over "80%" of INCORRECT data with respect to town employee salaries. (including my own incorrectly listed at TRIPLE my salary). No retraction ever made for erroneous data - still refer to publication in this very forum!
3. Repeatedly stating no committment made by SB regarding changing to Split Tax Rate when, in fact, majoriity of SB publicly made committment to do just that prior to July vote to inform voters.
4. Purposely misleading seniors regarding proposed tax abatement guidelines that would have tripled senior eligibility. (How many of those you bused to the polls were among those who would have qualified? - Talk about exploiting the seniors!) How many listeners heard the call in to Fall RIver radio station by 79-year old Dartmouth woman who would've qualified, but was told to vote no and never given the proposed information to make her own decision.
5. Predicting proposed PAYT would fail anyway not meriting any weight in making decision on how to vote.
6. Now implying contract issues not being addressed by SB. Misrepresenting process and role of Personnel Board.
7. Misleading public as to what a "structural deficit" is (doesn't appear you know yourselfs)
Just a few highlights. One could write a book.
Bottom line - CFRG is far from responsible. In your attempt to breed mistrust in others, you've created mistrust towards your own effort. (Opinion, based on fact)
anonymous,keep trying. Eventually you may be able to convince yourself.
anonymous-I could'nt agree with you more.
To eyes wide open - let's say you are correct that headlines are crafted by the ST editors and not the author of the letter. The headline reflects to me the exact sentiment that the letter is trying to get across. I suppose one could blame the ST for trying to sensationalize the content to sell papres but the bottom line is the content itself says 'we (the CFRG) want to influence who gets appointed to town boards, and we have determined that those in support of last years inititaive should not be appointed'. I do not know what other conclusion one can draw from the letter submitted-sensational headline or not. Who is the CFRG that they have such influence?
BW is likely to never get it. And, he's giving himself far too much credit to think he individually influenced masses of no voters. Voluntarily voting to raise one's own taxes is a very unpopular thing - not needing much persuasion. Which is precisely why one of the true heroes in this community is Dr. Shannon Jenkins who applied her expertise to providing credible facts for one to review to make decisions based on personal impact coupled with responsibility to community turning out an unprecedented "yes" vote.
Dartmouth is extremely fortunate to have someone of Dr. Jenkin's caliber to serve on our Finance Committee. The letter at issue here is a disgrace - and can be added to the "misrepresents and misleads the public" list as BW continues to imply a lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of our town.
He should be held accountable for the role he plays to mislead voters. He is wasting a lot of people's time over what amounts to very small savings (already being addressed by elected and appointed officials, but can only happen over time).
(Op-ed category)
anonymous, first you say BW cannot be credited for influencing voters and then you say he should be held accountable for doing so. Which is it? Just the fact that you spend so much time trying to discredit him makes him credible.
You are confused! Try re-reading. He likely didn't influence the "masses". He should be held accountable for the role he plays to mislead voters, though.
There are many posting here. And, when asked for specifics, people responded. Thanks to those for trying to set the record straight. And, thanks again to Dr. Jenkins!
BillT - I'll ask again. Wheer do you stand on appointments to various town Committees? Do you agree with the CFRG's position of not allowing override supporters on the FinCom for example?
Further, will you consult with the CFRG when it comes to making decisions on town related matters?
I think Bill, if elected, should ignore all citizens he doesn't agree with, have a tantrum whenever confronted with a differing opinion, ignore facts that do not support his view, & make things up as he goes along.
Sounds like a good description of the CFRG! (better known as the CFIG)
From SoCo magazine August 2007
"Retraction: Absolutely Not
There has been some chatter about the data we published in our July issue regarding salaries of town employees and the school department of Dartmouth. In order to clarify any misconceptions or false information being put out to the public, we wish to inform our readers that the data came directly from the finance office located in town hall. Upon obtaining this information, the SoCo staff spent hours condensing and organizing it-but at no time did they make changes from the original document. To insure accuracy, no less than a half dozen calls were made to the finance office for verification of the data. The numbers we published are from the town and any questions about accuracy should be directed to the finance office at the town hall."
The information regarding salaries came from the town. If it is incorrect, then apparently our town has no clue what they are paying people.
Lets talk trash. We are missing 25tons of trash a week. Where did it go? The difference in the reduction in solid waste should equal the increase in recycling. It does not. Only 5-6% of households have a private hauler. So where did it go? Maybe it is going to New Bedford which creates a burden on that city and the trash ends up in our landfill anyway. So I guess you could say PAYT is working because we have reduced our solid waste tonnage. I'm sure N.B. is just as pleased.
to trashman;
Recycling has increased 50% from what D.Hickox has said and I believe that given the increase in recycling that our own family is now doing to limit our trash. PAYT has something to do with the increase in recycling as does the increase in the types of recyclables now being accepted. I think a lot of the 'missing' 25 tons could also be attributed to families being more careful about the amount of stuff they buy and throw out. We compost more and use the garbage disposal more for food waste. Our goal is to limit trash to 1 bag a week (we're cheap too) and by and large we have been successful except over the holidays.
Some inevitably ends up on the roadside thrown by careless and cheap citizens who dont want to pay to get their trash removed. Some may get burned.
Some may in fact end up in New Bedford but it certainly cant be 25tons worth or I think we'd be hearing about it from aour neighbors to the east.
Has anyone from our town asked NB if their tonnage has increased since the PAYT program? Solid waste in Dart. has been reduced by 50%, recyclables have increased by 40-42%. 25 tons is a lot of trash. If people are burning or throwing on the roadside 25 tons of trash a week,would you say the program is working?
to trashman - that's not what I said.
once again to trashman -
I took you up on the offer. I called the greater New Bedford Regional Refuse Management Director and spoke with her about any change inn the tonnage coming to the landfill from New Bedford since Dartmouth instituted the PAYT program. Her answer:
"There has been NO increase in tannage coming to the landfill as a result of the Dartmouth PAYT program" Daily, weekly etc records are available to verify that claim for anyone intreested in confirming this statement.
So trashman lets put another false rumor to rest. Thank you.
Nice try, Barry. Clever spin, though.
sorry anonymous, wrong again. You tell me who you are and I'll tell you who I am. We are still missing 25 tons of trash. Where did it go?
Not to New Bedford
anonymous, glad to hear you took the time to make the call to NB. Keep up the good work and let us know when you find it.
You're something else trashman.
You asked the question and I took the time to answer it. You don't like the answer so you change the subject and move to a different topic. Make the phone call yourself, I suspect you'll get the same answer yourself.
You're so busy trying to stir up controversy you can't stand to be shown up.
anonymous, my you are sensitive. I was trying to thank you for making the call. I did not move to another topic. The topic is where are the 25 tons of missing trash per week???
Ah trashman - I gave an answer to where the 25 tons may have gone. People being more careful about their trash buying and disposal habits since it now costs per bag thats what my family has done. We all recycle lots more stuff, we compost and use the gabage disposal.
You then suggested someone call NB to see if the trash was disappearing there. I made the call and found that no it was not going there - in fact the nice director informed me that their tonnage had decreased too. Gets me thinking that the ecomony may also influence trash amounts. Less puchasing in down times less trash to dispose of. All of these factors could explain the decrease in tonnage as opposed to the ever popular 'disappearance' conspiracy angle.
I get sensitive because like many things in town these days its so much easier to float conspiracy, incompetence, bad management practice theories instead of searching out answers that are truthful. So instead of finding solutions to real problems you've got people chasing imaginary boogeymen. So yep I'm sensitive about that cause this town is going nowhere because of attitudes like this.
Post a Comment