IN OTHER WORDS - The New York Times: "It would be too much to say that the recent election was a loud gong signifying nothing. But if it signified much, it is hard to see what."

“It would be too much to say that the recent election was a loud gong signifying nothing. But if it signified much, it is hard to see what.”

This was a November 7, 2007 article that was written in the Journal Inquirer by the Editorial Staff.

After that election, I called the Editor and told him I would be happy to explain what change we were working towards. At that time there was no interest. Had I had the opportunity I would have explained what I am re-capping now. In the four years since that election, we have accomplished those “changes.”

I believe it is much more that a gong signifying nothing. The Town of Vernon had come off of 16 consecutive budgets that could not pass over a four-year period, and each year the Town actually was operating on its reserves because it could not collect taxes without a 30-day tax warrant. Mainly that was due to failure of the government officials to examine labor, debt, pension, waste in service delivery, waste in energy, wasteful staffing, departmental collaborative efforts and spending money without assessing if that would reduce future budgets.

Vernon was borrowing money before paying down or retiring debt and there ere absolutely no interworking collaborative efforts by the Town Government Administration and the Board of Education Administration.

For some reason, prior to the 2007 election, Government Officials did not recognize that the Town of Vernon budget ultimately goes to the taxpayers for approval.

In recognition of all those issues, during the past four years, every labor contract has be negotiated and re-written. The Town’s pensions have been reformed.  Pensions and benefits for new employees have been reformed, which changes the structure of that cost.

Energy and fuel usage is down due to energy policies being implemented.  Departments now share and cross over in service delivery, the tax rate has been reduced in three budgets, taxes have been reduced for everyone in 2011, actual spending has gone down, staffing has been reduced. Access and accountability through softeware applications and web based services have allowed instant access to government officials and complaint tracking by the public.

Management software application has been implemented and the financial and accounting system has been brought up to date. The municipal bond rating has been improved.

All staff replacements hired after retirements have had some type of private sector experience. Productivity has increased.

We have reduced the crime rate by 16 pervent. We have safer streets, we have finished 14-year-old bridge projects. 

We have begun a public infrastructure investment through expense reductions with new roads and a plan to complete the remaining roads.

Again, we have safer streets.

Our students' scores have increased. We have better schools, we have completed our school building projects. We have begun management of the school facilities through the municipality so the school system can concentrate on education and curriculum.  We have a new superintendant of schools who focuses on education and education of children but understands that taxpayers pay the bill.

We have better schools.

We have cut the tax rate three out of four years and in 2011. We reduced taxes for every taxpayer.

We have lower taxes.

We have the safest streets, we have the best schools, we have the lowest taxes, and real spending is reduced and controlled.

This is my response to the November 11, 2007 article.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06EFDC1E30F932A25752C1A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=?&pagewanted=print

November 11, 2007

IN OTHER WORDS

P for Petty Politics

It would be too much to say that the recent election was a loud gong signifying nothing. But if it signified much, it is hard to see what.

One could say that the voters voted with their wallets, that they are tired of bloated budgets, high taxes and tax increases.

Certainly that is what Vernon Republicans, jubilant over the decisive victory of Jason McCoy over Ellen Marmer, said. But the budgets could hardly be blamed on the Democrats alone. Republicans, including Mr. McCoy, already controlled the town's Board of Education and Town Council.

Manchester experienced what might be seen as a sea change: the Republicans taking over the Board of Directors. Here again, the claim was that fiscal responsibility had won the day. The proof will be in the pudding.

Candidates who run on a platform of ''change'' have a hard road to travel when they win, especially if they have been part of what they now pledge to alter. The questions are simply put and not so simply answered: Change from what to what? To what end or purpose? And how do we intend to do it?

Up in Minnesota they used to call state politics ''sub-local.'' In Connecticut, said one wry observer, we might call local politics sub-petty.

Why should the politics of our towns be as mean - and often meaningless - as it is?

And by meaningless we mean candidates who run on no more of a platform than ''I'm not him, or her.''

''Change'' without context is just chaos.

If we want to change local government in Connecticut we have to talk about issues: How should we finance local government? What are our priorities in local government? What do we want our teachers and police officers to do and how much do we expect to pay them?

You can look at the recent local elections and say we live in a culture of distraction and the voters don't really know what they are doing. Or you could ask: Why don't we give town politics a point?

Otherwise it is all about ego and personalities and who is up and who is down and who is in and who is out.

The Journal Inquirer, Nov. 7