The 2009 Budget
Yes / No
There is questionable consensus about the $37,430,562 East Hampton budget this year. The Board of Education approved their budget to send onto the Board of Finance, and then their budget was cut another $100,000 without the Board of Education ever having voted on it.
The Republican Party lobbied for a 0% increase in the budget, which could require teacher layoffs. They ended up approving a .38 mill increase along with the rest of the Council. Of note, the Republican Chair said that she was voting yes to send the budget onto the voters, but once in the voting booth that she would be voting no to fail the budget. This, after stating that referendums are expensive and cost East Hampton taxpayers $4,000 per referendum.
At the April 14th Town Council meeting, the only meeting at which the Town Council could weigh in and make changes to the budget, the Chatham Party presented new ideas to cut operational expenses with little to no effect on either education or town services. How did the Democrats and Republicans respond to the sound and practical ideas to save the town money in these troubled economic times? Their reaction ranged from eye rolling to “Interesting, maybe next year” to “You’re just trying to delay” to “We don’t want to delay the budget process to find further cuts.”
The bottom line? Although the $54 million facilities project ($31.9 million picked up by you the taxpayer) for new town buildings can be claimed to be “shovel ready” for stimulus money, this budget is by no means “voter ready” for residents. There’s too much mixed messaging about who supports the budget and who does not. The only way for this budget to pass is for a large turn out by parents with children in the school system. With questionable support from the Republicans and Democrats in town, this budget will fail.
Kyle Dostaler
East Hampton
Our Town
It’s amazing to me the volume of discussion that the Chatham Party elicits. We are just a small, minor party composed of East Hampton residents who just want to have a say in the process of how the Town of East Hampton is governed.
Our members and supporters are registered Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Green Party and Chatham Party. Quite simply, we are East Hampton residents who want our voices to be heard, not ignored, not derided.
Some of our members are politically conservative, some liberal. Taken together, we find common ground in the middle. We are moderates. Between the left and right, we are the quiet majority. Quiet, but not silent – if you care to listen. Then again, “left” and “right” are terms used to label national politics, not local politics.
We are a group of citizens with opinions about how we should be taxed, about how our town should spend its money, about how we need a better vision for the Town to move forward into the 21st century. We want to ensure that our school system is the best it can be while the needs of our seniors and those without children in our school system are also included in the budget equation. We are fiscally conservative, socially responsible.
The Chatham Party will not be apologetic for what it stands for. Nor should the East Hampton Republican/Democrats be apologetic for what they stand for. Counter to the “conventional wisdom” being tossed about, I would say that more often than not, most people in all parties want the same things. The major difference between “us” and “them” is that the major parties seem intent to expend much of their energies and effort (money) ensuring that there IS an “us” and “them”. Meanwhile, many of the votes taken at the Town Council table are, in fact, without issue and unanimous. The recent tax initiative for seniors. The awarding of bids and contracts. Tax refunds. Commission appointments. Resolutions. Support for the Clean Energy Task Force, Brownfields and Redevelopment. These are the usual, everyday acts of governing that go unnoticed in the newspapers, in the Internet blogs and online community newspapers, and in the everyday conversations around town.
An outspoken member of the Republican Party, Josh Piteo, has said that “The Chatham Party has never seemed to grasp the homogenous nature of East Hampton.” This is true. Where some Republican Party members embrace a homogenous (uniform/alike/unvarying) Town, we embrace diversity – a diversity of ideas, a diversity of opinions and a diversity of people. We all should be committed to the ideals of diversity – Democrats, Republicans and Independents. The fact that residents are tired of the same “homogenous” town that Mr. Piteo describes as East Hampton is why the Chatham Party exists. We encourage anyone who is tired of the status quo/homogeneity to join the Chatham Party – unlike Mr. Piteo, we would welcome your diversity and not exclude you for it.
Kyle Dostaler
Chatham Party Chairman
East Hampton
Disbanded
The East Hampton Town Council has disbanded the Lake Pocotopaug Commission.
After spending $7500+ for a Functional Assessment that cherry picked information and misrepresented facts to arrive at predetermined conclusions, the Republicrat Town Council voted 5-1 to “combine” the LPC with the Conservation Commission. Effectively this action disbands the LPC even though as a board they have accomplished more in just two years than any of the previous “blue ribbon” task forces.
What have they done? Create the first-ever watershed management plan. Hold education classes for residents. Initiate lake protection programs. Establish relationships with state agencies. Actively investigate grants. Dedicate 60-70 man-hours per year on lake sampling. Conduct water quality management studies. These were some of the things that the LPC was succeeding at. So with all this progress being made, why was the LPC disbanded? To save money? To improve communication?
As a former member of Town Council it was related to me by Jim Thomas (the in-coming Town Manager who was fired before he was allowed to start), that Melissa Engel had approached him and asked how she could remove every single person that was appointed by the Chatham Party to the various Town’s boards and commissions.
In 2007, many people split their ticket on election day in the hope that by electing Democrats, Republicans and Chatham Party, cooperation between the three parties could move our town forward (not backward). After seeing what has happened over the past year and 2 months, the Republicrat council has proven that they are not willing to cooperate, only dominate.
What do the Republicrats have to show for their time on Town Council? A disbanded Lake Commission. An ill-conceived and poorly time plan to spend $51,000,000 of taxpayer money for facility improvements. Less communication and less transparency. No Master Plan. Little accountability. Favoritism towards developers and family members. The list goes on.
Although the general intentions and concerns of one or two of the Town Council Republicans/Democrats are genuine, because of their loyalty to fellow party members, they are part of the problem. The Republicrat Council consistently manipulates the truth and fabricates facts to get whatever they want. Whether it’s to pave the way for a developer to build 127 houses on South Main, to eliminate the LPC, or push through a massive facilities plan, it’s all part of their hidden agenda and backdoor campaign promises.
Kyle Dostaler
East Hampton
Downsizing Volunteers
A new $7,500 Functional Assessment report by a Boise, Idaho consulting firm (Ekman Consulting) hired by the new town manager concludes that East Hampton’s volunteers and town staffs need to improve efficiency and communications. The report also calls for the town to create a unified vision for the town’s future.
A true vision for the Town’s future is critical and there undoubtedly needs to be more collaboration between commissions, boards and town staff. Problem is, we’ve all heard this before and our town’s volunteers and residents have been asking for a true Master Plan and a vision for the town for a very long time.
There are also controversial recommendations in the report that would require, if implemented, the disbanding of the new Ethics Commission and the Lake Pocotopaug Commission (among others). These two commissions have very specific tasks. One to help restore trust in town government. The other to restore an environmentally impaired lake to health.
Republican Chair Melissa Engel wants to downsize the number of our Town’s volunteers to save money. She and others on Town Council ignore the fact that our volunteers go through a selection process that appoints them to our Town’s various commissions based upon their expertise and background as attorneys, biologists, teachers, scientists, MBA’s, LEP’s and other residents with a wealth of lifetime experience who are passionate and concerned about making our Town a better place.
The reality is that some committees and task forces (which make up 14 of the town’s 32 organizations) need to be assessed and perhaps merged with other commissions or simply dissolved. One, the Lake Implementation Task Force created by the current Town Council, has never held a meeting.
Volunteers and residents can only hope that the Town Council does the right thing for the right reasons for what is best for the town and that the Town Council doesn’t just throw folks off of commissions for the sake of political expediency. Improving communications and providing strategic goals for our Town’s organizations should be the primary focus of Town Council, not “playing” politics with our volunteer’s free expertise and “downsizing” them to save money.
The Town Council is due to take action on the recommendations at their next February 10th meeting. Interested residents and commission members who have not been apprised of the report can download it from the town web site at www.easthamptonct.gov/Pages/boardandcommissionreport.pdf.
What is consensus?
True or false:
Consensus is telling people what to think and believe.
Consensus is gaining agreement by withholding critical information.
Consensus is overruling the concerns and opinions of others to push your agenda forward.
In the Melissa Engel and John Tuttle political playbook, the answer to all three questions is TRUE. This is how they define the “consensus” of the Town Council and the Facilities Implementation Task Force and the Town Council to support the proposed $51 million dollar facilities projects.
I love living in East Hampton and being a part of the community here. I want nothing more than to see our town move positively forward especially now during these difficult economic times. Fortunately, I am optimist and believe that better days are ahead of us. I also am a pragmatist and believe that in order to make the best decisions for our shared future we must be willing to acknowledge changing realities and work together to reach a true consensus, which is defined as “an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.”
Over the past 5+ years, I have seen two Town Councils come and go, and now a third is trying their hand to move the town forward. I also have paid close attention to the various task forces that have been created over the years to focus on specific projects. The previous Chatham Party Town Council created three task forces, each by a resolution with a clearly articulated purpose, goals, expectations and timeline. This was done to create the Streetscape Committee, which as everyone driving through town can see, has made great progress and has worked quite effectively toward the completion of its task. The other task forces created by the Chatham Party were a Technology Committee, which successfully completed its charge in 2007 and was disbanded, and a task force to hire a new town manager, which also successfully completed its charge (but that’s another story). The current town council, which is only one year into its term, has created at least 5 task forces so far including: the Water Implementation Task Force, the Clean Energy Task Force, the Facilities Implementation Task Force, the Senior Tax Initiative Task Force and most recently, the Lake Implementation Task Force.
The only group established by resolution was the Water Implementation Task Force; after that Chairwoman Engel decided that she did not believe that resolutions are necessary (contrary to Robert’s Rules of Order) and created the groups by simple majority vote (not consensus). She then named members for each group without going through the interview or appointment process. Interestingly, the Chairwoman named herself to two of the task forces (WITF and FITF). She named John Tuttle to serve on three of them (WIFT, FITF and Clean Energy). She also named Ted Hintz, Chairman of the Board of Finance, to serve on four (WIFT, FITF, STITF and LITF). With the exception of the Clean Energy Task Force, none of these groups were created with the full agreement of all members of the Town Council. And rather than allow full discussion and debate at the council meetings to achieve true consensus, the groups were hastily pushed through, voted on and created by the Chairwoman. This is a very important distinction in the considering whether or not there was consensus on the purpose and goals of the TITF.
The truth is that the three projects identified by the Task Force were never discussed or agreed to at the Town Council level. There has not been a single discussion (at least in public) about the necessity or cost/benefit of the projects. There has never been a public hearing to seek public input. I know that I for one have a lot of questions. Sue Weintraub, a member of Town Council and the FITF, has a lot of questions. And rather than answer Sue’s questions or have a public discussion or take the time to achieve true consensus, John Tuttle and the Chairwoman want to have Sue removed for not being a team player.
For my day job, I am a communications professional and marketing consultant. I work with a lot of corporate teams to facilitate strategic discussions. The idea of excluding the only voice on the task force with critical input is not only undemocratic, it’s incredibly shortsighted. How does the leadership of the FITF expect to have their proposal pass muster with the public and succeed at referendum if they are “de-railed” by one person asking questions? Instead, they should embrace the opportunity to have a full discussion and vetting of their proposal at the task force level so that by the time it gets to the voters, everything that can be considered has been.
Sue has brought many constructive and beneficial ideas to the FITF including making the projects energy efficient by suggesting that alternative energies such as geothermal be considered. This kind of input should not be silenced because the supposed leaders don’t want to be challenged to answer the hard questions.
In contrast, the only task force created by the Chatham Party town council that was contentious was the task force to hire the new town manager. Recognizing that a true consensus would be vital to the success of the project, the Chatham Party majority named Bill Devine, one of the most vocal critics, to serve on the task force.
A diversity of views is not only beneficial to making good decisions, it’s essential. Sadly, the majority leadership of the current Town Council does not have the moral courage or strength of character to be challenged.
From a historical perspective on this issue, the first Facilities Committee was created 10 years ago, coincidentally also by Melissa Engel during her first term as Town Council Chairwoman. Over the years the group has seen members come and go – the only constant member has been Engel. While always claiming that facilities are top priority for the town, they have met in fits and starts over the years. In fact, during the two-year term of the Chatham Party Town Council from November 2005 to November 2007, the facilities committee only met in public four times. I can’t help but ask why. Why were the facilities projects put on a back burner for two years only to now insist that the town move quickly?
A popular phrase among the majority members of the FITF is “analysis paralysis”. I have personally attended the facilities meetings over the years as well as the town council meetings and I cannot say that I have seen any true analysis of the projects being considered. There has been no cost/benefit analyses, no public input sessions, no meetings with stakeholders. Nonetheless the public is being asked to blindly accept the priorities as determined by the FITF. I for one am glad that Sue Weintraub has the strength of character and the intellectual stamina to do what she is doing as a member of the FITF and as an elected public official. It can’t be easy. Achieving true consensus never is.
Lack of Consensus – $51,000,000 and Counting
Consensus?
At this past Tuesday night’s Town Council meeting (12/09/2008), I witnessed what was perhaps the most inappropriate behavior I have ever seen from a sitting Town Council member. At the meeting, John Tuttle made a motion to have fellow member Sue Weintraub removed from serving on the Facilities Implementation Task Force. Why? Because she independently voices her own opinions and concerns about how the Town of East Hampton should go about spending $51,000,000 of taxpayer’s money. Imagine that, voicing your own opinion in the capacity as an elected official and then being told that it’s not only unwelcome, but that it’s unwanted. Is this representative of good government and democracy? Or is this something else? Perhaps petty bullying? Or is this an example of a “group think” mentality that some believe is the same thing as consensus? It’s not. If the majorities’ will cannot stand the test of a single individual’s differing opinion, which was acknowledged to be constructive, how much confidence can taxpayers have in the decisions that are being made?
After much discussion, Tuttle wisely withdrew his motion to remove Weintraub from the task force for lack of support from his fellow Town Council members. However, the spectacle of one council member chastising another council member while acknowledging her contributions only served to establish that a diversity of ideas and opinions are only valued if those opinions and ideas support the majority view.
East Hampton needs to move its facility plans forward, especially when our school’s accreditation is at risk. However, the task force, with very little input from residents, with little to no communication to the public, with no forward-looking community master plan and with no public comments allowed at their meetings, continues to forge ahead. The costs, without public involvement and true consensus, will be high.
Time To Plan, Not Spend
Town Facilities
It appears that Town officials are moving forward with a $51,000,000 scheme for facility improvements. Melissa Engel, the Town Council majority spokesperson, has generally identified 3 projects that are intended for a June 16, 2009 referendum:
- The building of a new two-grade school for 4th and 5th graders
- Renovating Center School for a new Town Hall
- Building a new science and technology wing on the high school
These decisions were arrived at after 3 short meetings of the newly created Facilities Implementation Task Force created and chaired by Melissa Engel.
At the same time, the Town is also looking into the purchase of property for what can only be logically concluded to be for a water system that that will run through Middle Haddam. A first phase water system would cost in the vicinity of $28,000,000 (or more).
The State is facing the probability of huge deficits. Governor Rell is projecting that the education cost share to Towns will be reduced by 6-12% in the coming year. Towns such as Bristol and New London are proposing to suspend standardized testing and eliminate staff development days for lack of projected funding. Yet, East Hampton continues to move along with its costly schemes.
Yes, the Town needs to move forward with facility projects to ensure that our town’s students receive a 21st century education and for our schools to maintain accreditation. However, the Town can only successfully move these projects forward if our town government reaches out to the public with factual information, is more transparent, and includes residents in the final decision making process.
In this economic environment, we should be spending our time, not our dollars, on an overall Master Plan that articulates the vision, desires and concerns of our community. A Master Plan describes us as we are today and forecasts our shared vision for the next five to ten years. A Master Plan is a blueprint for ALL future activities such as economic development efforts, amendments to land use regulations, environmental and historic preservation efforts, and for the expansion of community facilities and services. Some town elected officials call a Master Plan “analysis/paralysis”. I call it being smart.
East Hampton needs to move forward with priority projects, but it needs to do so in a financially thoughtful, conservative and responsible way that includes genuine public input. Now is the time for planning, not spending.
- Kyle Dostaler
Chatham Party Chairman
No Bid Contract
Why We Voted ‘NO’
At the last Town Council meeting (11/12/2008 minutes), the Republican and Democratic majority hastily voted to award a $45,000 no-bid contract to an architectural firm that has worked with the Facilities Committee for the last 3+ years. This contract, which dictates policy and has great financial implications, was brought forward by the newly formed “Facilities Implementation Task Force.” We voted against awarding this contract. Why? Three reasons:
- Wrong priorities. The Task Force, created and chaired by Melissa Engel, determined without any public input or consensus what the priorities of the Town should be: build a new “wing” at Memorial School to relocate Center School; convert Center School to create a new Town Hall; and renovate the High School to include a science lab wing for computer technology. While we agree that bringing the High School into the 21st century is long overdue, relocating Center School and moving Town Hall at a combined cost of more than $32 million is simply not a priority. What about a much-needed community/senior center and indooor recreational facility?
- Wrong process. After three years, Friar & Associates provided an inventory with multiple proposed “schemes”—not a comprehensive plan. Now, they have been awarded a no-bid contract to bring these three Task Force “priorities” to a public referendum set for June 16, 2009. It was irresponsible (and against town policy) not to have put this contract out to bid. There was no substantive discussion of the Task Force priorities at Town Council meetings or in any public forums.
- Wrong timing. The Task Force seems intent to rush this through. Why? Now is not the time to embark on non-essential multi-million dollar facilities projects. State revenue from property, income and sales taxes are all down. Less money will be available for towns and cities, less funding for education and fewer grant dollars. Moving forward now will only increase the Town’s debt and put a greater burden on taxpayers. We need to reassess our priorities, develop a Community Master Plan and adjust to changing realities.
When we tried to raise an informed discussion about our concerns at the TC meeting, we were ridiculed by other members as “being divisive.” When we questioned the process and wisdom of spending millions of taxpayer dollars at this time, we were accused of “being political.” Asking important and relevant questions is not political; it’s pragmatic and responsible.
- Scott Minnick and Sue Weintraub
E.H. Town Council
Zoning Board of Appeals
Let’s All Win
After more than 11 years, the infamous “Mr. Di’s” corner at Main/Rt. 66 is finally going to be cleaned up. While this is great news, it is NOT the “win for all” that Councilman Tuttle “reported” in his letter last week. The only winner so far is Mr. DiStefano who was granted a permanent variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The variance, which was conceived by our new Town Manager, will let Mr. Distefano remove the basement structure on his property without losing the right to build on the same footprint. With the variance in hand, he can make the property more attractive not only for the Town but for potential developers.
The good news is that the Town Council at its meeting on Wednesday night (11/12) supported action that will help to make the Town a winner in this deal. The Council unanimously directed the Town Manager to seek a legal right of first refusal for the property. What this means is that if – and when – Mr. Distefano decides to sell his gateway corner, the Town will have the first option to buy. Hopefully Mr. Distefano, who is a former Town Council member, will agree to the right of first refusal and the Town won’t have to pay a higher price because the variance was granted.
Looking back, the variance deal and process by which it was approved it somewhat concerning. Zoning variances are supposed to be the remedy of last resort. In order for appeals to be granted applicants must demonstrate a legal hardship. Financial interests, non-conforming lots or matters of convenience do not rise to the occasion. I would expect that our Town Manager would know this and work with our building department to uphold our zoning regulations. However, this was not the case when the Town Manager spoke in favor of the variance at the ZBA meeting even though the only stated hardship was non-conformity and a desire to maintain the economic value of the property. Ultimately, every time the ZBA grants a variance, it undermines the integrity of our zoning regulations.
Everyone in East Hampton wants to see our Town improved and properties cleaned up. We also need to improve our processes of government. We can start by ensuring taxpayer’s interests are protected.
