(Upon first reading, it appeared that Perrefort indicated that the setting of the meeting date was proposed by the mayor earlier this month. Upon closer reading, the sentence actually indicates that the meeting is about the budget that the mayor presented to the council earlier this month. The wording of the sentence threw me and several readers off.
Here's how Perrefort sentence should look:
The hearing on the budget, presented earlier this month by Mayor Mark Boughton, will be held before the council at 7 p.m. in City Hall.
This post has been revised accordingly.)
While I'm a fan of the News-Times, and although I appreciate Hearst Newspapers for allowing me to speak my mind, on their site, this latest article from reporter Dirk Perrefort regarding the city budget public hearing is simply unacceptable (note the portion in bold).
A public hearing scheduled for Monday night will be one of the only opportunities for the public to speak about the proposed budget before the City Council votes on the spending plan next month.
The hearing on the budget proposed earlier this month by Mayor Mark Boughton will be held before the council at 7 p.m. in City Hall.
Now, take these points into consideration.
Point 1. THE TIMING OF THE MEETING:
Take a look at the City of Danbury's calendar.
There is NOTHING happening of any real importance on the week of April 26 (highlighted in red), one week after the scheduled date of the public hearing (highlighted in blue). Also, as highlighted in black, there are two other budget ad-hoc committee meetings that occur AFTER the public hearing. Think about it, why make the public offer their opinions about portions of the budget before the ad-hoc committees meet? It's like me complaining about the Mets losing a game BEFORE they play the game.
Which brings me to…
Point 2: THE COINCIDENCE:
On April 19-23rd just happens to be the VERY week when their is the greatest chance that most teachers will be out of the area as it is the start of the Danbury school system’s spring recess.
From the Danbury School District website calendar:
Which brings me to…
Point 3: COMMENTS MADE FROM SOMEONE IN-THE-KNOW:
Watch and listen to this comment from former teacher, Alternative Center for Excellence principal, and current city councilman-at-large Robert Riley's to the school administrators (while teachers were in attendance in the gallery) during last Tuesday's Education budget ad-hoc committee meeting.
COUNCILMAN ROBERT RILEY: …whatever happens, I hope we insulate the young kids…the young students from, you know, hearing or receiving anything that might be sent home to the parents that might give them a sense of insecurity while their in school.
It's one thing if we come out in the media or whatever and you say "things are tough." But I know that in the the past in my 34 years, there have times that..not you gentleman, I know you wouldn't do this…have sent home letter attesting that we're going to cut teachers. The younger children can not…be able to handle that and they become very excited and we don't want that to happen. It behooves you to make sure that those things not happen…no matter what we fix the budget at, you as the brain trust you have to deal with it and you have to make it work without cutting teachers…
SIMPLE TRANSLATION: Don't send parents messages about the budget that would make the Mayor and the City Council look bad.
Notwithstanding the blatant arrogance in making such a statement, everyone in attendance knew exactly what Councilman Riley was talking about when he uttered those remarks. Having parents, teachers, and students upset at the City Hall is something the council (and a mayor who's running for governor) would rather like to avoid.
It's happened in Danbury before and it's happening in Avon Connecticut right now.
Officials in a wealthy Connecticut suburb are deciding whether to raise property taxes after nearly 1,000 parents, students and teachers marched to a town budget hearing in support of increasing school spending.
A school band played as ralliers shouted and held signs during the 1-mile march in Avon from the middle school to the normally sleepy budget hearing at the high school Monday night.
Supporters of increasing the education budget say Avon's respected schools could be forced to eliminate 40 faculty and staff jobs as well as sports, language and music programs, if the proposed $48 million school spending plan for the next fiscal year isn't approved. The budget would require a tax increase.
Councilman Riley, the council, and the mayor know that if what happen in Avon happens at City Hall, it would place everyone in a REAL uncomfortable situation. It's one thing to have thousands of immigrant rights supporters protesting ICE ACCESS, it's a WHOLE different matter when you have hundreds of pissed off parents, students, and parents protesting the council's allocation decision-making.
For instance, take a look at the number of students, parents, and teachers who came last Wednesday to protest the Board of Education's proposal to cut ONE teacher from the Alternative Center for Excellence.
Trust me, that's a LOT OF PEOPLE for a Board of Education meeting.
You getting the picture? Okay, I’ll make this simple and to the point.
Knowing that teachers would be on vacation, and the fact that several budget ad-hoc meetings are scheduled for later this week, why is this public hearing happening at this time? Although the brunt of the concern should be placed on the Board of Education, nonetheless, the City Council are the body that allocates the money, therefore the public should express their concerns to them first, then to the Board of Ed.
In short, in light of the fact that there will be outstanding budget ad-hoc meetings after the public hearing, and timing coincidences, the date of the hearing makes no sense...or at the very least, the scheduling of the meeting should be questioned.
Which brings me back to the News-Times article....
I'm quite sure Perrefort and others at the News-Times received a number of calls/emails from teachers and parents have questions regarding the public hearing date, as well as the entire education budget proposal in general.
The reporters at the News-Times have an obligation to ask probing questions on their behalf. If teachers and parents are openly questioning the early date of the meeting, then it's the responsibility for the media to ask the question and get the answers.
UPDATE: Needless to say that I've received a bit of feedback on this post. Based on the number of replies I've received, the most puzzling aspect of this entire situation is the fact that the public hearing is scheduled while ad-hoc committee are outstanding.
If the public hearing was at the beginning of the budget process, then the council would have time to hear from the people before voting on elements of the budget in the ad-hoc committees. Although I understand this mindset, I still feel that the public hearing should happen AFTER all the ad-hoc committees have met. In this case, the public hearing should not happen in the MIDDLE of the process since revisions could be made after the public spoke on the final budget. It's better to speak on a proposal AFTER the budget ad-hoc committee votes on it as opposed to before they have a chance to deliberate on the item.
UPDATE 2: After re-reading the article, I had to revise this post. Upon first reading, it appeared that the setting of the meeting date was done by the mayor, but upon reading again, the sentence states that the meeting is about the budget that was proposed by the mayor earlier this month. Post has been revised accordingly and I repeated this comment on the top of this post.
Readers, parents, teachers, and students!
Let the News-Times know how you feel (and please be polite).
Letter to the Editor:
Email: letters@newstimes.com
Publisher: Art Cummings
Email: acummings@newstimes.com
Managing Editor: Jacqueline Smith
Email: jsmith@newstimes.com
Reporter Dirk Perrefort:
Email: dperrefort@newstimes.com
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
