Republicans Oppose Youth Programing

Last week Mike Farina posted a detailed and thoughtful story about the Republicans precieved willingness to sacrifice youth programing for … well, I really don’t know why they wouldn’t be supportive of doing anything and everything to ensure that youth programing is not reduced or eliminated.  Providing youth with positive and constructive outlets is a proven strategy to reduce gang activity and youth crime.  Last week’s events might have seemed like posturing; a flexing of new political muscles intended to demonstrate their magnificent power in the majority.  It was presumed that they would bend and ultimately agree to station a temporary trailer adjacent to the teen center to provide the town with the space they require to continue the level of programming they presently offer.  After all, who’d vote against kids?

I, and many like me, were wrong.  At last nights Zoning Board of Appeals meeting the proposal was defeated along party lines, the first partisan vote in 18 years!  I understand the need for partisan posturing on the Board of Directors, but on the Zoning Board of Appeals?  This trailer is essential to youth programming and helping to keep idle youth off the streets. 

The Republican “Covenant” was filled with promises about accountability and quality-of-life issues, how can they justify their stonewalling of this proposal, which was not initiated by the Democrats (though it is supported by them), and cutting productive programing for Manchester’s youth? 

Is that being accountable?  Is that dedicating yourself to being a champion of quality-of-life issues? 

The Democrats have always – and will continue to – stand in support of Manchester’s children, and will never play politics when the right decision is obvious.

Democratic Directors Announce February Resolutions

The entry is cross-posted at www.manchesterdemocrats.blogspot.com

The Democratic Directors recently released their February resolutions, which will be heard and considered by the entire Board of Directors later next month. There are four (4) resolutions in total; addressing the Bennet Leisure Center, hiring a library consultant, filming and broadcasting the Directors’ budget workshops and the institution of all-day kindergarten at all 10 elementary schools.

The Bennet Leisure Center resolution calls for the full implementation of the town’s recent proposal for after-school and weekend programing once the facility comes back on line later this fall. It is a comprehensive plan that will provide a variety of activities to provide creative outlets for Manchester’s youth.

During the last election, the Democratic candidates for the Board of Directors made Mary Cheney Library a chief issue in that the demand for – and success of – the programs offered has forced town staff to consider other space alternatives simply due to the existing size limitations of the structure. The Democratic Directors’ resolutions calls for the town to release an RFP (request for proposal) or RFQ (request for quotation) to hire a consultant to study future space needs and whether the existing facility is capable of supporting same.

As past budget workshops have not been documented to any great extent, the Democratic Directors believe that transparency is critical and have thus submitted a resolution that calls for the videotaping of all workshop sessions and subsequent broadcasting on Channel 16, Silk City Television.

The most ambitious resolution in the recent set of submissions is the request to institute all-day kindergarten in all 10 elementary schools prior to the state of the ‘09-’10 school year. Countless studies have demonstrated that young students who attend all-day kindergarten have more advanced social skills, fully-developed independent study skills and are better prepared for academic success later in their academic careers. The resolution calls for the Board of Directors to provide “all necessary funding” to assist the Board of Education in ensuring that that this goal is accomplished.

It’s Been Confirmed!

Shocked, I tell you…SHOCKED!

Transparency…There’s Nothing Like It

Has anyone else noticed that the Town of Manchester “Minutes and Actions” website hasn’t been updated with Board of Directors minutes since 11/20/07?  Is this an example of Secretary Pelletier being MIA or simply being lazy?  Regardless, don’t the people of Manchester deserve better, don’t they deserve to – at the very least – have access to the documents that detail the actions of our elected officials?

Then again, isn’t this the same woman who indicated in a past meeting that the accuracy of meeting transcripts is irrelevant?  The hubris is unquestionably astonishing and if past indications (see here and here) are a harbinger for future events, the next 16 months will be excruciatingly painful for the Manchester community.

Democrats Champion Youth Services

During the last Board meeting, the Republicans voted to abruptly table discussion on a financially reasonable, researched solution for emergency, temporary space needs at the Youth Services Bureau. The request was tabled (along partisan, party lines) right while our Democratic Directors were attempting to discuss possible solutions that would offer immediate help to Manchester teens.

The Democratic Directors were noticeably upset by not being able to offer our teens that help. The public in attendance at the Board meeting was shocked that the item was tabled so abruptly by the majority and that discussion was literally stopped mid-sentence. And the Director of Youth Services seemed heartwrenchingly dismayed that the Town of Manchester would refuse to help our teens when they need it most. As she pointed out, it is imperative that we help them now, while we can, before the summer begins and these children are no longer in our care.

We should not forget how wonderful our Youth Services have become under Democratic leadership. In the past decade they have established crucial services to help our teens. They have succeeding in helping our youth by giving them positive role models and influences, and we need to continue to reach out to more of our teens in need. When asked for thoughtful, considered help by the Director of Youth Services, we should give it—not put off discussion to another meeting, without even making plans to look at other possible solutions. The motion to table this item did not appear to result from an attempt to find a better solution; it seemed clearly an attempt to end discussion of the item by the Board of Directors.

We need to maintain and enrich the wonderful Youth Services programs the Democratic Directors have created for Manchester’s children. Let us not forget how important they have been. These programs, in conjunction with the great preventative police work by Chief Berry, are directly responsible for the drop in Manchester youth violence, the decline of crimes committed by teens, and the complete eradication of gangs in Manchester. More teens are off the streets and involved in programs that will keep them off the streets and off of drugs. The Democrats have done a great job over the past decade leading this town on quality of life issues like this one, and they should be lauded for successfully reaching and helping our children and teens.

Last week the Board of Directors could have voted for additional space to serve 50 more teenagers by leasing a temporary classroom behind the Youth Services Bureau. It would have cost $700 a month, and would have given our teens the temporary, emergency space they need before a more permanent solution can be found. If we are eventually able to find a permanent solution by April, that would be wonderful! But in the meantime, we should be helping our teens today, before they begin using drugs or making other risky decisions.

A temporary solution is the right thing to provide our teens before we can give them the more permanent solution they deserve. That solution deserved more discussion by the Board of Directors last week, and the Democrats attempted to find a timely, very-needed solution. That shows leadership. Just as they have done in the past, the Democrats have continued to show incredible leadership on issues of Youth Programs, Services, and Initiatives. Our Quality of Life in Manchester is better because of it. That is without question.

There is also no question that a temporary space solution will help more teens right now, and would have already been helping more teens today, as I write, before they choose the wrong path in life. There is no question that we missed an opportunity to reach out to more teens last week. The Democratic Directors tried to help them.

I am sad that we aren’t.

Healthcare

Over the last dozen or so years, health care has risen to the top of American conscience.  According to the Pew Research Center, health care is one of the fastest growing concerns among independents (the economy traditionally ranks as the most important).  There seems to be agreement between the parties concerning the need to address the growing problem of the uninsured, but they obviously seek to address the problem in vastly different ways.  Republicans look to the market as a means of addressing the problem and specifically focus their attention on lowering health care costs and increasing efficiency (see Romney, McCain, Huckabee).  Democrats have sought (for many years now) to expand health care coverage to each and every American, even if that requires the establishment of a government operated agency to oversee its implementation (see Obama, Clinton, Edwards).  In addition to a universal system, some have even advocated for a universal single-payer system, where options are limited and the coverage identical.  Some moderate Democrats and Republicans have argued that the solution is the creation of a hybrid system, which would preserve for-profit insurance companies, expand mandated coverage and focus on insuring all children first.

My interest is neither on the Republican nor Democratic dogma, but rather on the hybrid system, or the potential for one to exist and eventually thrive.  The one proposal that aligns most comfortably with the hybrid paradigm is that which John Edwards’ has suggested.  Edwards program would call for all Americans to purchase a government insurance package similar to Medicare.  There is no question that this could eventually evolve into a single-payer system, but, according to the New York Times, Edwards is (surprisingly) not opposed to that.  Edwards also seems to acknowledge that the program could take a radically different route – one where insurance companies retain a dominant role in defining coverage and approving procedures - and if that is the preference of the American people, he seems willing to accept that.

“I thought that there was a legitimate and strong argument for it,” he said. “But I also believed that there are an awful lot of Americans who like the health care they have and are nervous about entirely government-controlled health care.”

The program is very much like the system adopted in Massachusetts.  Mandatory coverage would be required, but subsidies and tax credits would help the most disadvantaged of Americans pay for it.  Those under the poverty line (about 21k) would receive coverage for free.  Businesses, with the exception of small businesses, which are exempt, who do not offer insurance would be required to pay 6% of their annual revenue into a regional coverage pool.  The program would be paid for with revenue gained from the elimination of the tax cuts for those making over $200k and cost-cutting measures (yes, a Democrat who wants to reduce spending).

Edwards’ proposal has one large gaping hole however, as noted in the Times article:  it does not define “affordability,” nor does it address the issue of exemptions (like those in Massachusetts).  But, unlike the Obama and Clinton proposals, it still actively seeks to retain a market and was the first detailed plan designed to address the undeniably broken (and porous) system that is presently in place and has left about 50 million Americans (16%) without any coverage whatsoever.

In Memory Of Equality

Today we celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  A man who was interminably persecuted throughout his lifetime, a man who was dismissed, a man who transcended and a man who will be forever embedded in the psyche of American history.  In honor of Dr. King, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in Atlanta, GA yesterday, below is his stirring and emotionally moving oratory:

The Inaugural GMYD TV Special

Without further delay, the first episode of the Greater Manchester Young Dems TV show:

The show is scheduled to begin airing regularly on the local cable access channel.

Republicans Change Campaign Platform After Election

After failing to fulfill a campaign promise in November, the Manchester Republicans shockingly re-wrote their official Campaign Platform (or “Covenant”) two weeks ago. In truly unbelievable, and unethical, fashion they chose to re-draft their Covenant with Manchester in order to hide that broken promise, in the process both breaking their word and losing public trust. By covering-up that broken campaign promise and whitewashing their so-called Covenant with Taxpayers, Manchester Republicans have entered into a dark, seething land of unethical behavior. By changing their campaign platform after the election, Republicans have proven themselves unaccountable to the citizens of Manchester. Their attempt to mislead voters by actually changing their campaign platform, reveals (1) that they have committed highly unethical actions and (2) that they feel they can ignore their own (and now laughable) “Covenant” with taxpayers by changing and erasing campaign promises just as soon as they break them. Over the Christmas holiday, the official Republican campaign platform was changed significantly in at least three places.

It used to read:

Fiscal Responsibility

• Performance-based Accounting to measure the effectiveness of Town government departments
  • Town departments should be held to easily understandable standards and goals to determine how effectively tax dollars are spent. On the first day of a Republican majority on the Board of Directors, the Board will form working groups to set goals for each Town department. Each year, we will measure the effectiveness of government and work to improve the quality of outputs from government. This performance-based accounting is key to saving our tax dollars.”

Since they failed to put those groups together on the first day, and still haven’t formed them two months later, they simply rewrote their platford to whitewas that failure. It is extremely unethical to do this.

Their “Covenant” now reads:

Fiscal Responsibility

• Performance-based Accounting to measure the effectiveness of Town government departments
  • IN PROGRESS – The Republican majority asked town staff to begin the process of implement [sic] a performance-based accounting system into town government in November 2007 and discussed the issue at the December 11 meeting of the Manchester Board of Directors.
  • Town departments should be held to easily understandable standards and goals to determine how effectively tax dollars are spent. A Republican-led Board of Directors will form working groups to set goals for each Town department. Each year, we will measure the effectiveness of government and work to improve the quality of outputs from government. This performance-based accounting is key to saving our tax dollars.

A few things should be pointed out here. First, they failed to do something that they promised voters they would do the very first day they were elected. That’s a fact. Second, they attempted to cover it up by re-writing their campaign platform. Yeah, that’s a fact, too. Third, if you reread their “Progress” report, you will notice that they say that they began to implement the process of performance-based accounting in November. Truth: this has never been discussed by the Board of Directors. Ever. This has never even been an agenda item for a Board meeting! Either they are doing this in secret, without any citizen input (also breaking their Covenant), or they are simply lying. Given their track record here, I’m going to guess they are lying. After all, they say that they began to implement the process of performance-based accounting in NOVEMBER, but then one month later during a DECEMBER Board meeting, not one Republican Director could even explain what performance-based accounting was, and three of them went on record as saying they had no idea what it is! So… how exactly could they begin it in November (in “secret,” mind you, without telling anyone) when they didn’t even know what it was in December? Hmmmm…. could it be that someone is lying to taxpayers here???

Here is another change in the campaign platform. It used to read:

Accountability

• A Town referendum to approve property tax increases over 3%.

It now reads:

Accountability

• Town referendum to approve town budgets that include a 3% property tax increase.

While this might seem like a pretty insignificant change, it is completely different and has far-reaching significance for their plans for the budget. These versions are really two, completely different things. In the first wording, (the version in their original “Covenant”), they basically tell voters that they are going to keep spending in line with inflation or flat, and if they don’t, they will be held accountable by sending any major tax increase to town referendum. That’s fine. That’s what they told voters, and this got them elected. It was about the re-val.

The new version of their “Covenant” however is *completely* different. By changing that one word and adding the budget into this tenet of their “Covenant,” the new version means that they intend to re-write our Charter. There would be no other way to send a budget to referendum without a charter revision. Now they assuredly did not campaign about that. The first version of their Covenant (the campaign promise that they ran on) was about taxes (really a veiled dig about the re-val in order to get votes). The new version, however, is about the budget!

Now they are saying they want to change our budget process. Further, the addition of the word ‘include’ now means that they intend to send next year’s budget to town referendum no matter what. Because of the property re-valuation phase-in over the next three years, our budget is going to include a 3% tax increase. That’s a fact. Even if the town budget doesn’t increase. Even if it remains the same. It will still include an increase in property taxes. Change that one word, and the Republicans are now telling us that they intend to send the budget, under a changed town charter, to town referendum no matter what. That’s not what they told voters during the campaign, and that’s not what their “promise” was to voters.

By changing the Charter and sending the budget to town referendum due last year’s re-val, and not due to budget increases, the Republicans are attempting to get the voters to send the budget back to the Board of Directors. They will then be able to make the cuts they want to Youth Services and the Library, say that they didn’t want to make them but were forced to do so by the voters, and attempt to escape blame for budget cuts to important programs. It is now, after last Tuesday’s Board Meeting, clearer than ever that they want to cut Youth Services.

It was wrong to mislead voters in order to get elected, and it is very, very wrong to change their platform as they see fit, accountable to no one. They made a promise, and they need to keep it. Enough deceit. And enough cover-ups by our politicians. We need accountability. And quite frankly, where are their ethics?!

Voters should be outraged that the Republicans have changed their campaign platform so surreptitiously, with such grave consequences for the future quality of life in Manchester. There is no question that the Republicans have clearly misled the voters, that they now have intentions to change our Town Charter, and that they have clearly committed egregiously unethical actions by changing their campaign platform to hide these facts. In the first instance they attempt to cover-up a failure. In the other, they out and out changed what they said they would do when elected. They should have been more honest during the campaign. Of course, had they actually told voters the truth during the election, had they actually told voters that their goal was to change our Town Charter to include a budget referendum, had they actually been honest for one moment… well, they wouldn’t have been elected. They lied to get elected, and now they are lying again about keeping their Covenant with Manchester. I mean, my God, it’s not even the same Covent they promised voters on Election Day!!

The next question is simple: What lies and hidden, secretive initiatives will come out of their agenda next?

Courage, Conviction and Conscience

Hey, it has to start somewhere, right? 

The Manchester Board of Directors had been considering a landlord registration proposal by the Republican majority since November.  The proposal, part of the ultra-complicated, undeliverable, and now changed “Covenant with Manchester Taxpayer,” would require all absentee landlords (those who own property with residential rental units who don’t actually live in the building) to register with the town.  The intention, according to Director Pelletier (the brains behind this time-bomb), is to allow the town a means of identifying and fining landlords that fail to properly care for their property.

Seems reasonable enough, correct?  Every town, from time to time, has an issue with a particular parcel that they deem ”blighted” or an absentee landlord that refuses to pay property taxes.  This proposal undoubtedly provides a workable solution to the ubiquitous conundrum.  However, the proposal lacks a funding mechanism and/or allocation of new or additional staff to oversee the program, which will force taxpayers to bear the burden (conservatively estimated at $50,000) and further strain the already valuable time of town staff.

On Tuesday the Board of Directors took up Ms. Pelletier’s proposal and the results were disastrous.  Minority Leader Zingler did attempt to reinstate the $25 fee for filing and $10 fee for any change of address, but that vote failed along party lines.  Director Sheridan then astutely requested that an annual report be conducted to determine the overall success of the program, compliance rates, landlord contacts, the cumulative amount of fines collected and the estimated amount of staff hours required to maintain the registry.  Sheridan’s suggestion was rebuffed by the Republican majority, claiming instead that Sheridan’s proposal was “too specific”.  Uh, isn’t this the same party that promised “results-based accounting,” which they claimed will streamline operating efficiency and provide specific data on programs overseen by town staff?  Seems to me like Sheridan’s suggestion parallels that which the Republicans campaigned on, and yet they stood in opposition to it…strange.

The proposal ultimately passed 7-1, with Director O’Neill admirably abstaining. (O’Neill claimed that it was a conflict of interest for a property owner, which she is, to vote on a proposed ordinance that would directly affect them personally.  Interestingly, Directors Pelletier and Tweedie, who both admitted to being landlords themselves, determined that it was not a conflict of interest since they would be “burdened” by the ordinance.  Perhaps they need a simple refresher in what a conflict of interest* really is.)  Now, by my calculations, that would have required two Democratic Directors to buckle and vote with the Republican majority – and, in fact, that is what occurred.  Minority Leader Zinger and Director John Topping both withered and voted in favor of the proposal, presumably because they didn’t want to appear to be “supportive” of blighted properties.  One Director, however, stood firm in his position that, if this program were to be instituted, a funding mechanism must be included so as to not further burden the taxpayers. 

In speaking with Director Sheridan recently, he noted that the fee was a deal-breaker.  He argued that leaving $50-$75k in revenue on the table and then leaving the town responsible for the $50,000 bill was counter intuitive, especially since the Republicans have scaled back the immensely successful Teen Night, refused to spend $24,000 to evaluate the renovation needs at Verplanck School, and have stalled expanding youth programing at the East Side Rec. Center once Bennett comes back on-line.  It seems to me that the Republicans have their priorities misplaced and are intent on appearing to bring about change instead of actually doing it.

Kudos to Director Sheridan for standing firm in his convictions and Director O’Neill for doing what she perceived was right.

—–

*see the part that specifically references that a conflict of interest exists even if no improper or unethical acts occur because of it.