noankjail

Notes from the Old Noank Jail

To All……………..

I am writing this follow up to regarding the need to “Vote No” to Phase II at the Monday May 2nd Referendum in Groton. There have been recent developments and clarifications within the past few hours.

1) The suddenness of the “audit” mentioned in recent media articles, including the DAY, has raised some very serious questions as to proper procedure by the Groton Board of Education (BOE) and the Superintendent. This matter is being taken up with the DAY as to the possible illegal advocacy of using the audit at taxpayers expense and may even result in a further article on the subject by Monday. Under the circumstances, this would be an appropriate action on their part.

The comments and questions involved are as follows:

I frankly had not heard of the audit before reading about it in the DAY editorial and Chuck Potter’s article. My question is WHY NOT? Why have we not had it “shoved in our face” before this time when many of us have questioned the Phase II numbers? If it unquestionably agrees with all that Mr Kadri has said, we should have been seeing it in print long before this 11th hour last-minute blitz from the Phase II promoters.

We can only therefore suspect that there may be caveats, qualifying statements and questionable data in the audit which are not necessarily supportive of the desired outcome. It will be interesting to read the report, but in the 11th hour, perhaps too late to effectively challenge the contents by Monday May 2nd. Legal action may be appropriate following the Referendum.

Again…why have we not heard and seen this supposed report? Why has the BOE hidden it? Why has it been shown only to the press? What does it really say? What are the qualifying caveats? Why was it commissioned with public funds after the referendum was set? Why isn’t that a violation of the state rules against using public monies for advocacy after a referendum is set?

I also received an E-mail reply which stated: “I too was very frustrated and annoyed with the Day’s article and editorial. And I agree…the Superintendent’s hiring of the auditor seems like a clear violation of elections enforcement and needs to be challenged….the charge of impropriety needs to be made.”

Another, more detailed summary, included the following: “At first blush, I thought the results of the study on savings was damning, but after thinking about it I realized that the associated commentary raises a lot of questions: (1) When was the study commissioned? (2) What were the assumptions? (3) When did Mr Kadri receive informal notice of the results? (4) When did he receive a hard copy of those results? (5) If early-on, did he hold on to the report to preclude an open discussion of claims? (6) Are reimbursements a part of the claimed savings? (7) How are the savings going to translate into tax reductions? (8) What happened to promised savings from Phase I?”

“Also, nothing has been said regarding how new buildings will result in an improvement in student performance. Phase I yielded no such improvement, as witnessed by the Kolnaski school continuing to be on the list of those schools in danger of failing.”

2) Most have you have heard the references myself and many others have made concerning the fact that Harvard and Yale have 100 year old buildings which they proudly maintain. In that regard, I received this amusing comment from the Sexton (maintenance manager) of one of our local church buildings:

“Funny that they build schools out of brick and mortar with planned obsolescence in 25-30 years. I work in a wooden church that was built in 1871 and has survived a few fires and hurricanes in it’s 140 years. It’s still standing, operational, well attended, and considered one of the more beautiful churches in the area.

Oh, wait …. We don’t use tax money, we use donations and fund raisers.”

3) Along the subject of Town and School building maintenance, I did receive a clarification from a former BOE member who indicated that “it is not the fault of Wes Greenleaf, or past or present Superintendents…or BOE members… that many of our schools are not up to CURRENT codes or that many are in need of some major “maintenance/renovation”. The BOE can put in their annual operating budget routine maintenance costs… Painting… Minor upgrades… Maintenance…but not Renovations/major upgrades. The Town does the same. Any large expenditure on facility major maintenance/repair has to go in the CIP —(Capital Improvement Budget)” which is managed by the Town.”

4) The following comments below by the Chairman of Friends for Affordable Education (FFAE or FAE), Mr. Andrew Parella, are appropriate, and I hope that as many of you as possible, including those of you who I spoke with earlier today, will follow Andrew’s advice and contact people who may be “sitting on the fence.” We need every possible vote. The promoters of Phase II have spent money and we can be sure that they will, as they did with Phase I, try to “close” very strongly at the end. As we can see, they are already doing this, including knocking down or stealing our blue “Vote No” signs (2 were gone just from Noank Village this morning).

“Therefore, in this last stretch, we need everyone possible to talk to their friends, neighbors, etc., to vote on Monday, May 2 and vote NO to let the Superintendent and BOE know that we want other alternatives looked at. I talked to several people today in passing and everyone of them said they are voting no. They are mad at the paper but this could energize us to get people out even more readily. People are saying they can’t afford it and that’s the truth, they can’t.

The simplistic view chosen by The Day shows their lack of knowledge of Groton’s dynamics and how quickly “a too good to be true” approach is taken to heart and then encouraged by a local media company. Generally, the paper is a good one for information, but (in this case) they have to weigh the entire picture. The most disturbing factor in all this, is that an audit was done on a plan that was derived by one person and focuses on scenarios that are unpredictable with many assumptions. This is very dangerous!

Now, for the election: I need each of you who receives this email to call 10 people who will then be asked to call 10 more people…ASK them and remind them to please vote on Monday, May 2. You can insert if by email, or say if you see them, a one liner such as: this project will bond us for the next twenty years….this project will add preschool into our school system creating an extra layer of government….or the proposed middle school is directly in a flight path…or the grade levels are all being rearranged which is going to be a hardship on our children….or more bussing will occur on Rt. 117 and Route I, etc.”

5) One of the folks I spoke with today has suggested that if Phase II is actually approved (God forbid) on May 2nd, that a legal action should then be taken because of the issues involved, including the building of a new school in a flood prone area. Speaking for myself, I would definitely support such an action.

But I have a better idea.

Let’s save the legal fees. Let’s get as many people as possible to Vote No on Phase II.

Again, thank you all for your support.

Ed Johnson, at the Old Noank Jail.

Notes From The Old Noank Jail

As we approach Monday May 2nd and the Referendum Vote, here is a brief update on items that are new along with some that have been reviewed previously, relating primarily to Phase II.

Some of you may have noted the recent letters and articles, pro and con, in the local papers. In today’s DAY, they favored Phase II but this was based only upon figures provided to them by the Groton Board of Education (BOE). The Accounting firm mentioned was working from those same figures. No other alternative plan or alternative set of numbers was utilized. In that regard, I received some interesting comments, which I summarize below.

There was the mention of an audit. Chuck (Potter) says “the school district commissioned an accounting firm ….” I believe this could be in violation of state statutes (9-369 and PA 00-92 of Oct 1, 2000) and the interpretations of the State Elections Enforcement Commission. These generally prohibit the expenditure of public funds to advocate for or against the subject of a referendum, once the referendum has been set. An audit conducted before the referendum was set would be OK, but if done afterwards would appear to be a violation….

How would an audit of future events be accomplished? If you tell an auditor you are going to eliminate an $80,000 position, then he will say “yes, that will equal $1,600,000 over 20 years.” Should we actually assume that will this will hold true for 20 years? Who can project ahead for that long?…..

The BOE can say that, without Phase II, they will add a new music room and an art room to S B Butler. The accountant will say that this item would cost $X,000. The BOE then says that they will save that amount with Phase II by NOT doing the add-on. They never have to answer the question of would they ACTUALLY, absent Phase II, DO the addition. As an example, who believes that the BOE would spend over $20 million, un-reimbursed, on Fitch Middle in the next 20 years. The BOE, though, has now taken credit for avoiding that cost.

I received comments by a person who was promised raw data to review, to be furnished by a Groton school parent actively involved in promoting Phase II. Supposedly, this was to come from either the Superintendent or the BOE. This information never came. The Phase II promoters are making claims with no data available to substantiate them other than the numbers they themselves present to us. Show us the numbers they are using so we can make an informed decision. If this was a business investment for us to consider, most of us would probably decline it due to a lack of disclosure.

Basically, I find it ironic that a newspaper that is actively downsizing for economic reasons would favor a School expansion project that would cost the taxpayers so much money. And in one of today’s articles, they actually mention that the State may only extend $57 million, not $66 million as the promoters claim!

In today’s mail, I received yet another “scare tactic” postcard…bright orange…from the Phase II promoters… and was amused by the following statement under “A No Vote Will Cast You”… “The Board of Education will be forced to consolidate schools to undergo town-wide redistricting to meet the current school budget.”

OK, folks….so what exactly are the promoters presenting to us with Phase II? Wouldn’t you say, offhand, that they ARE basically consolidating three upper middle schools into one?

The existing objections remain; (1) Chester Location is wrong and WILL create problems for Rt 117 and Route 1 Traffic and this is based on my 20 years as a professional student transport driver in this area, and NOT on a “professional engineers” opinion. (2) The same area IS prone to flooding…most of us have seen this. (3) Why do we expand in an aircraft flight path? (4) Why are we expanding in an area where there is only room for ONE playing field? (5) Why are we not MAINTAINING and using existing buildings more effectively? (5) Why do we have to support Pre-K education out of OUR OWN POCKETS when it is NOT being supported by the State? (6) If our buildings are not up to code, WHY NOT? etc., etc.

I have also read opinions regarding businesses in Groton and how this Phase II plan will affect them. All the comments I have received, which I did not solicit, are very negative towards Phase II. Below is one summary of multiple viewpoint which I will leave as closing remarks. In the meantime, I hope you will all go to the polls Monday May 2nd and Vote NO on Phase II.

And for that matter, Vote YES on the Thames Street project. It really needs to be done.

Thank you, Ed Johnson, at the Old Noank Jail……

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“In addition to my Groton home and personal property taxes, I own and operate a business in Groton. Our annual payroll is in excess of $1M, almost none of which (except for taxes) is spent in Groton. Our facility lease is triple net, so we see any real estate and personal property tax increases directly. Our markets are very competitive and sometimes marginally profitable, so any additional taxes imposed are a real burden to continuing operations and a threat to the jobs of our employees. Some of our vendors recently moved to Rhode Island because Connecticut (Groton) presents such an unfriendly business environment. If Groton continues to increase my business taxes to benefit only the BOE, my company will be looking too…..”

” Of our 23 employees, 3 live and own homes in Groton. The 20 who live outside Groton are aghast at the property taxes that businesses and individuals must pay. There are a number of them that would like to be closer to the office (fuel prices), but will not move here because of these outrageous taxes. We have people moving further away, not closer…..”

“None of my friends children moved back to Groton after school…………it’s too expensive. It is very difficult for a parent to leave a Groton home to a son or daughter because the taxes are so high…..”

” The Groton voters spent money with a consultant and approved a phased school improvement plan in 2003?? How does this new Superintendent get to fund another study (estimated at approximately $50,000) with our tax money and come up with his own plan that does not comply with what the voters already approved?”

“…..A piece of this puzzle that bothers me is the obvious lack of maintenance the BOE performs on their current assets. It should not be the BOE’s responsibility to maintain school buildings as they obviously do not know how. Just compare the condition of the Town Hall (maintained by the Town) to any of our schools . The BOE maintenance department could definitely learn a lesson or two from the Town. Although we pay for duplicated services, the BOE services are obviously substandard (but more expensive and apparently not accountable to anyone). Turn the responsibility for maintenance and associated budget over to the Town…”

“How can any logical person vote for another multi-million dollar asset for the Board of Education to ruin in 25 or 30 years?”

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Notes from the Old Noank Jail

To: George Gombassy, Connecticut Watchdog, 04/24/11

I read with interest your comments today in the Sunday Business section of the New London DAY newspaper concerning people having difficulty resolving customer service issues with the large utility companies. You mentioned Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) as being one of the companies that does not appear to be very responsive.

I am a CL&P residential customer living in Noank, CT which is part of the Town of Groton, CT and apparently I have no choice but to utilize CL&P services as my provider. Yet a nearby friend living in the Mumford Cove section of Groton is able to utilize the services of Groton Utilities, which is owned by the municipality of Groton City.

On December 31st, 2010, I received my CL & P Electric Bill in the amount of $249.18 for 1415 kilowatt hours from November 24 through December 29. There was also a notice enclosed which read: “ATTENTION – PUBLIC ACT 10-179 requires CL &P to collect additional charges to fund a state budget deficit for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.” Then the notice went on to say that this would start with January billing and initially be referred to as an “Economic Transition Charge.”

I contacted CL &P customer service and was told I would probably be paying over $5.00 monthly additional for this extra charge. The CL&P representative mentioned that it related to an act making adjustments to State Expenditures requiring the Department of Public Utility Control to establish a charge on electric bills to recover certain revenue bond costs.The monies collected from this charge would then be transferred to Connecticut’s General Fund. In addition, apparently this monthly charge will be changed on July 1st, 2011 and referred to as an “ERRB” (“Economic Revenue Recovery Bond”) which is expected to remain in effect for as long as eight years.

I contacted my friend living in Mumford Cove. There is absolutely no such charge being placed on his electric bill by Groton Utilities. There is no mention of this being done in the future.

Therefore, we have the following problems:

a) Either CL&P is charging me for something extra to which it is not entitled, or…

b) The State of CT is imposing an extra charge on my CL&P bill, without my permission, to collect extra money from me in order to help bail out the State debt, in which case…

c) Why is my friend in Mumford Cove not being charged a similar amount on his Groton Utility bill, and therefore…

d) Why is this unequal tax/fee/surcharge being leveled on some CT taxpayers and not others?…and…

e) Why does CL&P do this, but GU does not?…and…

f) If in fact that you find that the CT legislature itself has created this unfair, unbalanced situation, never directly authorized or voted upon by the taxpayers, then who are the irresponsible politicians and lawmakers that have allowed this “theft” to become reality?

In conclusion, I would greatly appreciate it if you can look into this and write about it in your column. I feel that “exposure” of an issue is frequently the best way to resolve it.

Notes from the Old Noank Jail

Groton’s Phase II Program – Concerns

Speaking as a person who does not favor the present Phase II proposal for Groton, nevertheless I do not feel that Phase II should “die” if it is voted down on May 2, 2011. Instead, it should be reviewed, evaluated and brought back again in a revised form after more input from citizens. We need to remember that Phase I itself was initially voted down but then revised and eventually approved by a public vote.

Members of a group favoring Phase II have stated that the planning by Town citizens over the past five years is now being torn down by the opposing side. Yet, if we read minutes of the 2010 Design Committee, their own previous Phase II plan was greatly modified by the Superintendent. He brought in a new consultant who challenged the phase II 2003 plan of the previous consulting firm, which had been produced at a major expense to the Town. The minutes indicate that the previous plans had not favored the Claude Chester School site for reasons of physical size, flooding, traffic congestion and aircraft flight path problems. A local Town historian, following a 1984 nearby plane crash, wondered why the existing school was not therefore closed after such an incident.

The proposal for pre kindergarten school will not be supported by the State and there is no guarantee that it will be mandated in the future. There is additional concern that, although four schools were closed in Phase I, yet the difference between pre- Phase I staffing and the present Phase II budget is only four full time equivalent positions. Moreover, the proposed school budget for next year is 17% higher than the actual expenses during pre- Phase I, yet there are fewer students and four less school buildings. The question remains…did Phase I actually result in a savings to the Town?

As citizens, we are being told that we will pay more taxes if we don’t approve Phase II. Yet, as Groton residents, if we look across the Mystic River at a Stonington house equivalent in value to our own, we can see a property paying far less in taxes than ourselves, despite Groton having two of the largest industrial taxpayers in the State. Some of us feel that it is our Groton school system which is going out of control with costs…and now we face a $133 million project.

In the past month or so, and in line with the Superintendent’s recent backup plan suggestions, the thought of two middle schools could make more sense than the current Phase II plan. As example, Westside Middle School has had recent renovations, the Cutler Middle site has extra physical space for expansion and both sites are still close to areas where children can walk to school, reducing bus costs. Floods, traffic and aircraft do not appear to be major issues at either site.

The addition of a $1 million artificial turf athletic field at Fitch Senior High School as part of Phase II has also raised some eyebrows, especially in these economic times. Many feel that this is an inappropriate expense, having been turned down once previously,but now being added to a very expensive total project. Would a community/school swimming pool be more appropriate? And some folks, myself included, feel that even though these might be excellent times to do construction projects because of lower costs and possible reduced future aid from the State, we still don’t want to be “pressured” to pay the extra future tax money. We also have concerns about how the Groton business establishments will view their increased taxes.

There has to be a better way to accomplish Phase II. Let us hope we can be given that opportunity. Let this actually be the beginning of that process and not the end.

Notes from the Noank Jail

A few days ago, the DAY wrote an editorial concerning President Obama announcing his 1 Billion dollar campaign. The article pointed out that he had not been in favor of the move by the Republicans to allow major contributions to political campaigns by business organizations. Now, he was possibly taking advantage of the situation himself, although much of his campaign financing will be “grass roots.”

I think it is actually amusing to see President Obama utilizing the Citizens United ruling, by a 5 to 4 vote, which does now allow major corporate donations to political campaigns. In essence, he is using the Republican’s tool to actually fight them on their own ground.

Poetic justice!

NOTES FROM THE OLD NOANK JAIL

STOP SPENDING MY MONEY

I am a 70 year old Groton taxpayer who has seen his property taxes go up, up and up for the past several years, much of it due to an expensive school system that has produced less than satisfactory educational results. The last straw is a huge middle school project that would cost us and our children a fortune in future years.

We do not need this big school, especially at the chosen location, for reasons involving floods, traffic, safety and size.

I was delighted to find and support several other people who felt the same way, so the Friends for Affordable Education PAC was thus formed. We have other ideas for the future of Groton’s education system and will deal with that subject after we see the Phase II project defeated at the May 2nd Referendum.

NO Property Tax Increase

Posted By: ed j
Published 03/26/2011 12:00 AM
Updated 03/26/2011 10:22 PM
0
0
COMMENTS (0)
Bookmark and Share
print this article

To the Honorable Mayor Streeter, Members of the Groton Town Council, Town Manager and Town Clerk,

My latest correspondence from the Social Security Administration confirms that for the calendar year 2011, once again, I shall receive no increase in monthly payments. Their exact words to me were: “Your Social Security benefits are protected against inflation. The government measures changes in the cost of living through the Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI has not risen since the last cost-of-living adjustment was determined in 2008. As a result, your benefits will not increase in 2011.” Yet, some of my expenses for products and services, along with my property taxes, continue to rise.

The Groton FYE 2012 proposed Budget now shows an increase of 3.4% in expenditures over the FYE 2011 budget, principally due to the Education budget, which I believe has been submitted on the basis that the Phase II proposal will NOT pass. Because of the loss of a major business in this area that relocated out of state, homeowners may also be facing a higher mil rate and many of us estimate an approximate 10% increase in our property taxes. At this point, I’m estimating that the current property revaluation will not produce a dramatic downward shift in values, as some would hope, but will probably remain the same or even go up slightly.

In view of the fact that I will not be receiving any cost of living increase, I am therefore not in favor of ANY increase in my property tax. Here are some suggestions as to how the above 3.4% increase can be eliminated:

a) Convert and utilize existing encumbered funds as an extra reserve to reduce Town expenses;

b) Inasmuch as the Town Manager and Town Clerk have willingly set the example of “no salary increase,” have all other Town AND BOARD OF EDUCATION STAFF, including the Superintendent and his direct subordinates, receive no salary increases, and additionally have the Board of Education proceed with layoffs if necessary in order to arrive with ZERO budget increase, or less if needed (Waterford did this recently);

c) Since the CPI has not gone up, there should be no union pay increases, and if union members feel they are entitled anyway, arrange appropriate layoffs, since you won’t be in a position to pay those increases;

d) If the Groton City and Groton Long Point governments are insisting on presenting increased budgets to the Town of Groton, DENY THEM OUTRIGHT and continue with your ongoing evaluations of their separate services with a strong eye towards consolidation;

e) Where there are Town properties, such as former schools that are not going to be utilized, rather than continuing to provide maintenance, consider offering them to the local fire districts, perhaps providing a one-time monetary incentive to help them with initial restoration/maintenance, after which the Town will be no longer obligated;

As a Groton citizen and taxpayer, I AM saying that I WANT REDUCTION IN SERVICES in order to arrive at a point where there is NO INCREASE IN MY PROPERTY TAX. I cannot express this situation more clearly.

And if ever I wanted an opportunity, as a citizen, to actually VOTE on the final approval of the budget, this is certainly the year for it. Unfortunately, the Town Charter is not written in such a manner that currently allows that to happen. And yet, the majority of the Groton Town Council and RTM saw fit to pass along the $133 million Phase II project to the voters. Where is the balance of responsibility here?

In looking at the future, I am still very much opposed to the Phase II School proposal. While the figures have been “adjusted” to show that it would result in “no cost increase for the next 3 years” by those actively promoting the project, they don’t highlight the much higher “long range” costs, which will cause major budget problems for us later on. In other words, we are being shown a “buy now and pay later” policy, totally inappropriate for our current financial situation. And I have heard comments to the effect that in the Phase I project, the Chester School site was NOT recommended by the engineers as a good expansion location back then for reasons which included (a) being potentially unsafe under the aircraft landing flight path, (b) being in a flood zone and (c) having a high area traffic density. Those who were actively promoting the use of the King property back then would probably remember this. And many citizens, including myself, have already come to the same conclusions and expressed them publicly.

Please arrange for no property tax increases for the FYE 12 budget.

Thank you all for the time that you spend on these matters.

Ed Johnson, Groton, CT

Notes from the Old Noank Jail

Common Sense Economics

by Ed Johnson

We live in a troubled global world, subjected to forces beyond the control of most individual citizens. Some of these forces are created by human greed and mismanagement, such as the global financial crisis which only recently began to settle down. And, the citizens of Japan will suffer, probably for decades, as a result of a simple, devastating act of nature which claimed so many lives and physically destroyed a major portion of their well ordered country. We will share in Japan’s economic grief as well, as the ripple effect of their disrupted economy affects the rest of the world and undoubtedly causes financial disturbance in many areas. Again, we will have to “ride out” the resulting turmoil.

Therefore, it is time for local citizens to focus on projects that we are actually able to control and projects that result in long-term financial benefits. We need to reduce energy consumption and think “outside the box” when we consider our own lifestyles. We need to save money by cutting back expenses. We cannot solve all the world problems, but we can at least work where we can actually make a difference.

By my observation, as a 70 year old man, I see two local projects in Groton which need to be addressed using simple common sense. One involves the Thames Street road reconstruction in Groton City, which was defeated in a previous Referendum primarily due to excessive cost. Thus far, the Thames Street Review Committee has reduced the initial estimates from $10.7 million to approximately $6.4 million…a substantial improvement, with no frills attached…and will bond the project at a low figure. This makes sense to me and I recommend when this project goes to public Referendum on May 2nd, the citizens of Groton approve it.

Unfortunately, when citizens are voting on the Thames Street project in the May Referendum, they will also vote on the $133 million Phase II school expansion project, which is a major mistake. We don’t even utilize our existing school buildings properly from an ecological perspective, the educational trend nationally is for smaller schools, the education of Pre-Kindergarten children will not be funded by the state and would instead inflate an already oversized education department at our own taxpayer expense.

The choice of using the Claude Chester property for the proposed large school is another major mistake. There are insufficient playing fields (without invading Poquonnock Plains), frequent flooding on Route 117 and the nearby fields, heavy traffic when the existing school is dismissed, and worse traffic when Route 95 is closed due to accidents.

Consolidation into one school increases more bus vehicles, routes and expense. It makes more sense to utilize the recently renovated West Side School and expand the Cutler Middle School (which has sufficient space) to accommodate 6th through 8th grades. These changes would only be a few million dollars…they would not be $133 million!

I estimate the “Phase II” project would add approximately $400 annually to my taxes, already too high, over the bonding period. This is not a good investment…this does not give me a good “bang for the buck” in terms of value…and I don’t see any energy savings for the project. All I see are more school buildings not being properly maintained and “dumped” back on the Town. Harvard and Yale have 100 year or older buildings…proudly and properly maintained. Why can’t Groton?

In summary, lets use common sense, vote “No” on Phase II at the referendum, and send the school board back to come up with better solutions. Let’s try to help ourselves, for once, by not raising our own tax bills, and not obligating future generations with debt that we create.

Groton’s Phase II Project a Mistake

The following remarks are based upon some comments I just received from Mr. K.E.Andersen, with whom I correspond periodically. I felt that the content was appropriate for a “letter to the Editor”…….ej

Groton’s Phase II Project a Mistake

Phase I was a botched program where cost savings were promised to us by the School Board who pushed for it. They never delivered any savings and our grandchildren will pass these costs on to their grandchildren. Phase II will be more of the same, only more so (Did you ever try to swallow a whole grapefruit?). Unless and until the Board of Ed, Town Council, Town RTM and Groton Citizens themselves make a firm commitment to actually maintain what they already have and what they contract to build in the future, this will forever be a growing and perplexing problem.

There is a lot of emotional talk about all this effort being for the benefit of the “children” but the truth is that those children’s future earnings are being spent 2 to 1 before they are even old enough to work. They will enter the educational process already in debt and will spend their entire lives afterward paying it off.

This is not the year for the Phase II school project. In fact, there will never be a “good” time for it. The present plan is flawed on many levels and needs to be further reviewed. “Bigger” is not “better.”

Ed Johnson, Groton

Phase I was a botched program where cost savings were promised to us by the School Board who pushed for it. They never delivered any savings and our grandchildren will pass these costs on to their grandchildren. Phase II will be more of the same, only more so (Did you ever try to swallow a whole grapefruit?). Unless and until the Board of Ed, Town Council, Town RTM and Groton Citizens themselves make a firm commitment to actually maintain what they already have and what they contract to build in the future, this will forever be a growing and perplexing problem.

There is a lot of emotional talk about all this effort being for the benefit of the “children” but the truth is that those children’s future earnings are being spent 2 to 1 before they are even old enough to work. They will enter the educational process already in debt and will spend their entire lives afterward paying it off.

This is not the year for the Phase II school project. In fact, there will never be a “good” time for it. The present plan is flawed on many levels and needs to be further reviewed. “Bigger” is not “better.”

Ed Johnson, Groton

To the Editor of the DAY,

Groton School Budget Magic?

In the 02/01/11 edition of the DAY( Matt Collett’s feature headline article “Groton writes 2 school budgets”), and in a follow up to the Board of Education meeting, Groton Superintendent Paul Kadri introduces some financial figures that resemble a magician’s act. Such a deal he has for us…if we let him have his proposed Phase II new school program for $133 million dollars, he will agree to having “artificially low staffing levels” for three years. These new levels would then save approximately $1.4 million dollars from his 2012 requested budget….such a deal…

Mr. Kadri appears to be trying to convince the taxpayers that ultimately this huge, very expensive school project is going to save us money in the long run. The Claude Chester site is perfect and we should ignore the “Wizard of Oz” magician figure hiding behind the curtain…who wants us to ignore the lack of adequate open playing field space for 800 kids, the existing flood water problem, the increased traffic congestion and the fact that this project is on the direct flight path to the primary runway at the Groton Airport.

Sure, no planes have hit the existing school…yet…so let’s build a bigger target!

How about if we simply cancel the “magic” show and send a message to the Groton School Board that this entire expansion project needs further review, with new emphasis on better use of existing properties and facilities? And, if they don’t like the King property, why not simply expand the Cutler Middle School, which has far more athletic field space and none of the above problems?

Realistically, why don’t they plan to spend somewhere between $5 to $10 million dollars expanding and renovating existing, usable facilities, rather than spending $133 million?

Ed Johnson, Notes from the Noank Jail