Our Town

In my Greenwich Time column this week about a successful first month of single stream recycling in Greenwich – Smooth Sailing on Single Stream – I quote from Sally Davies and make reference to the Greenwich Recycling Advisory Board (GRAB) which Davies chairs. However, because my column is limited to 700 words, I was unable to write more about Sally Davies and GRAB. So I thought I would give some more information in a blog posting.

Davies discovered GRAB in 1999 after reading a Greenwich Time column by the now late Bernie Yudain. It was a column about composting. Describing herself as “an avid composter and recycler,” Davies felt GRAB was the right group with which to become involved after she read about it in Bernie’s column. “Perhaps influenced by my mother who was the ultimate reuser,” Davies writes in an email, “I have always been conscious of conservation of natural resources and am appalled at the amount of waste we create.”

In 2005 Davies became chair of GRAB, taking over from Mary Hull who had taken over from GRAB founder and recycling legend Mariette Badger.

A resident of Greenwich for 59 years, from 1949 until her death in May 2008 at the age of 90, Mariette Badger was a true community leader, active in many facets of the town. She served on the RTM and took a leadership role in many areas including establishing the Greenwich Chapter of Planned Parenthood and the Greenwich Land Trust’s “Go Wild” fundraising event that has taken place each year since 1999. But she is probably best remembered for her role in the establishment of GRAB and her tireless efforts in promoting recycling for more than 3 decades, for which she has been referred to as the “Garbage Queen of Greenwich.”

In September 2005, Badger and Davies prepared a ” Brief History of Recycling” in the Town of Greenwich. Davies recently sent me a copy of this history, which I reproduce here:

Recycling in Greenwich grew from humble beginnings in the fall of 1970 when Mariette Badger organized a can collection.  She approached the American Can Co. and persuaded them that Greenwich was ready for recycling.  They were skeptical as recycling was unheard of in the country at that time but agreed to fund the event.  Greenwich residents were asked to store cans from October to March for a collection at Island Beach parking lot.  Many civic organizations participated and unbelievably several tons of cans were collected.  The success of this venture and further efforts by volunteer groups led the First Selectman, John Taintor, to appoint the Greenwich Recycling Advisory Board (GRAB) with Briggs Baugh as Chairman.  He later became Recycling Coordinator for the town.

Operated solely by volunteers, the first drop off center for recyclables started in April 1971 at the Canada Dry parking lot on Old Track Road and, in 1973, moved to the old high school, now Town Hall.  Later, with a grant from the state and an appropriation from the town, the present recycling center at Holly Hill was built.

In 1974, GRAB initiated a voluntary backyard newspaper pickup (Pete’s Boys).  This program was well ahead of its time and lasted about two years until the RTM denied further funding.  The economics of recycling were not yet favorable.  The recycling program lagged, still manned by volunteers at the center and GRAB dissolved.  In 1989, Mariette Badger approached First Selectman John Margenot to reestablish GRAB and the town adopted an ordinance requiring recycling of newspapers to be picked up curbside.  Hermine Aborn worked closely with Ray Veillette, deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Works, and the refuse haulers to prepare for the implementation of Connecticut’s mandatory recycling law which would take effect in January 1991.

Blue bin collections had begun.  The community was kept well informed of all recycling issues through the quarterly “GRAB Bag” newssheet, produced by Briggs Baugh.  Mixed paper was already being accepted at Holly Hill and backyard pick-up began in the fall of 1991.  Greenwich was the first Connecticut community to mandate the collection of mixed paper which is currently purchased by Marcal Paper Mills in New Jersey.

The Greenwich Recycling Advisory Board works actively with the Department of Public Works and the Junior League to educate the community about the benefits of recycling, to provide information on how and what to recycle, to sponsor school tours to recycling facilities and to implement recycling initiatives such as the new side-by-side trash and recycling bins seen all over town.

Prepared by Mariette Badger & Sally Davies

September 2005

As Greenwich now takes a new step forward with single stream recycling, I thought it fitting to remind residents of our town’s rich recycling history and to remember the enormous role Mariette Badger played in this history. It is also fitting to thank Sally Davies and the members of GRAB for their role in carrying on this Greenwich tradition and taking it to the next step.  

My weekly column that appears in print in the Greenwich Time on Sundays and usually goes online Friday night did not appear on the GT website this weekend, so here it is as a blog posting for those of you who usually read it online.

************************************************************************************************************************

I recently opened an email from the American Civil Liberties Union requesting that recipients send Attorney General Eric Holder a message: “Urge Attorney General Holder to uphold the Voting Rights Act and take a strong stand against efforts at voter suppression.”

I’m ashamed to say until that moment, voter suppression was not on my radar screen. Maybe that’s because it wasn’t an issue in Connecticut’s 2011 legislature, in contrast to many other states.

Since I never blindly sign anything – even if I trust the sponsor – I did some research. What I discovered was disturbing.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act, a critical piece of civil rights legislation, sought to end discriminatory practices that once disenfranchised large numbers of African Americans. Now, more than 45 years after passage of that landmark legislation, efforts are underway to restrict voting accessibility, making it harder for minorities to cast a ballot.

The right to vote, among our most fundamental and precious rights, is the cornerstone of a viable democracy. Maximizing voter participation should be our goal. A League of Women Voters member for more than 40 years, I long ago internalized this belief.

As states now face voting restrictions, the League is speaking out, along with organizations like the ACLU, labor unions, the Congressional Black Caucus, ADL, AARP, People for the American Way, the NAACP and other civil rights groups.

Former President Bill Clinton, speaking in July to a group of young people at a Washington conference sponsored by the liberal Center for American Progress, framed the issue this way: “There has never been in my lifetime – since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting – the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.”

Clinton was referring to a flood of bills introduced with varying degrees of success this year in all but 3 state legislatures that would restrict the right to vote, with greatest impact on racial minorities, seniors, low-income voters and students. In Connecticut, there were 3 bill proposals, but none were raised in committee.

Most of this Republican-sponsored legislation requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls before casting a ballot. New legislation also limits early voting, ends same-day registration and, as in Florida, makes it onerous for groups to conduct organized voter registration drives.

Thirty states, including Connecticut, require some form of identification at the polls. But only 7 – Texas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Tennessee – have strict requirements for government-issued photo identification. All but Indiana and Georgia enacted these laws in 2011.

Seven other states require photo identification, but make provisions for a voter to cast a ballot without such identification. In addition, Rhode Island just passed a law with a photo identification provision that takes effect in 2014.

Legislation passed in South Carolina and Texas cannot take effect until the Department of Justice gives pre-clearance since these are “covered jurisdictions” under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, based on past history of discriminatory voting practices. The Justice Department also has the power to review, for discriminatory purpose or effect, election legislation passed in jurisdictions not covered by Section 5.

Studies show that as many as 11% of eligible voters in the United States have no government-issued photo identification and that this percentage is higher among minorities, seniors, the poor and students. For millions of citizens, obtaining government-issued photo identification is a barrier to voting.

Implementation of such laws is administratively costly. Legal considerations call for free photo identification for those without a driver’s license or other valid identification; expansion of government offices and hours of operation to ensure accessibility; and increased voter outreach and public education.

Why would states spend millions of dollars to make it harder to vote?

Defenders claim the legislation combats voter fraud. But studies indicate this is a non-existent problem. The Brennan Center for Justice finds voter fraud to be “extraordinarily rare.”

North Carolina State Representative Alma Adams answered the “why” question this way: “This bill is about control. Controlling the outcome of the next Presidential election.”

With voter suppression now on my radar screen, I took to heart the ACLU call and sent the Justice Department my message.

HERE IS MY GREENWICH TIME COLUMN THAT APPEARS IN PRINT SUNDAY MAY 15:

Sunday the Greenwich Jewish community gathers in joyous song and dance to celebrate Israel’s 63^rd birthday. The celebration features live music and the raising of the Israeli flag.

There is much to celebrate. After only 63 years, this tiny nation with few natural resources ranks among the world’s most advanced nations and enjoys the region’s highest living standard.

Israeli high-tech companies rank second, after the U.S., in number of listings on the NASDAQ stock exchange, as does the number of start-up companies. Israel is a leader in the fields of biotechnology, alternative energy and communications.

Home to nine Nobel Laureates, Israel has the world’s highest ratio of university degrees to population and produces more scientific papers per capita. The list goes on and on.

Israel has absorbed more immigrants relative to its population than any country in history, and has turned once barren terrain into the proverbial land flowing with milk and honey.

After 2000 years of exile an ancient people, eternally rooted in this land, returned home to build a modern state and restore an ancient language. Rising from the ashes of the Holocaust, this vibrant Israel is a miracle.

But the fledgling nation has faced destruction at the hands of neighboring Arab states ever since the first day of its existence. After 63 years, true and lasting peace remains elusive.

Israeli Independence Day commemorates the events of May 14, 1948.

At 4 p.m. on that hot and humid Friday afternoon, the 5^th of Iyar 5708 on the Jewish calendar, two hours before the start of the Jewish Sabbath, 350 people crowded into the main hall of the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, now Independence Hall. They came to witness the birth of the state of Israel.

David Ben Gurion read the Declaration of Independence, after which Rabbi Yehuda Leib Maimon recited the Shehecheyanu blessing. The Declaration was then signed. The ceremony concluded with the singing of Hatikvah, now Israel’s national anthem.

This declaration of statehood occurred 8 hours before the midnight expiration of the British Mandate for Palestine that had been in place since the end of World War I. The declaration invoked United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, adopted November 29, 1947, that partitioned Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

The Jewish leadership accepted this partition plan. Surrounding Arab states rejected it and mounted an attack. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Israel won a hard fought battle for its right to exist, while Palestinians fared worse than they would have under the U.N. partition.

For Israelis, the events of 1948 are occasion for celebration. The Palestinian narrative is quite different. For Palestinians, this is a time to mourn. It marks the Nakba, or catastrophe, when an estimated 700,000 refugees fled their homes and villages.

In May 1967, surrounding Arab nations, still intent on wiping Israel off the map, mobilized along its borders, provoking the six-day war that left Israel in control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights.

This outcome set the stage for the situation Israel grapples with 44 years later.

How can Israel survive as a democracy and a Jewish state committed to Jewish values while occupying the West Bank? The demographics say it can’t. Without a viable two-state solution, Israel will either be an apartheid state, or a democracy with a Palestinian majority.

As Israel turns 63, it stands at a crossroads. The status quo is unsustainable. And yet, as the winds of change sweep throughout the Middle East, and old assumptions crumble, the road ahead becomes obscure.

Unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in September and the expected U.N. General Assembly recognition of this state would deal Israel a deadly blow and potentially destabilize the region. Any viable two-state solution must be negotiated.

But the reconciliation between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority puts a damper on negotiations. Still, this reconciliation must not automatically preclude negotiations. Yes, Hamas must first recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and reject anti-Semitism.

The coming week is critical. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with President Obama May 20, before addressing a joint session of Congress. May this meeting lead to a new initiative that brings genuine peace and security. Only then will Israel’s birthday celebrations be complete.

ONCE AGAIN, FOR SOME REASON, MY WEEKLY COLUMN THAT APPEARS IN PRINT EVERY SUNDAY FAILED TO GO ONLINE FRIDAY NIGHT. SO, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO LOOK FOR IT ONLINE, HERE IT IS.

The 2011 Greenwich election season is off to an early start.

Greenwich Democrats, hoping to get a jump on the Republicans, will vote on a slate of candidates this Wednesday at the Greenwich Democratic Town Committee’s May meeting. The timing is unprecedented.

Such an early endorsement meeting is designed to accelerate the campaign momentum that is already gathering for First Selectman candidate, John Blankley, and Selectman Drew Marzullo. It will also bring the names of the rest of the Democratic candidates before the public well in advance of the Republican endorsements, which will not take place until July.

But how is it possible for the Democrats to endorse a slate of candidates as early as May? This is the question many people have been asking.

By law, all parties must follow the Secretary of State’s calendar. And, according to this calendar, official party endorsements for the November 8, 2011 election must be made between July 19 and July 26, 2011, and cannot be made at any other time.

There is probably no Democratic Town Committee member more knowledgeable than Mary McNamee when it comes to rules and procedures, and very few with her institutional memory. Mary, who served nearly thirty years as a Democratic State Central Committee member, was among the first to raise questions about the May candidate endorsements.

Beth Krumeich who, along with her husband Ed currently serves as a member of the Democratic State Central Committee, provided me with an email response to some of the questions. She indicates that the Democratic Town Committee sought approval from the Chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee to hold the May meeting and express the DTC’s “intent to endorse” candidates. The Town Committee will still hold a convention in July to legally endorse candidates.

The answer provided by Krumeich is consistent with what a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s Office told me. I was informed that, while town committees may hold unofficial meetings earlier than July in order “to hash out any issues so that the official meeting will go smoothly,” the official endorsement must be made during the prescribed time in July.

If Wednesday’s meeting is characterized as an “unofficial” meeting in the language used by the Secretary of State’s Office, then by that definition, the early vote on the candidate slate should also be characterized as “unofficial.” There would be no official and legally binding endorsements until July.

But according to the DTC April minutes, “the May 11^th votes will be binding for the formal convention.” This is curious. No one offers an explanation of how this is legally possible.

Of course, there is no problem as long as the town committee’s May votes are not controversial, and for the most part they are not. But enforcing unofficial votes as binding for an official legal endorsement meeting two months later could become a serious issue if there are primary challenges and petitions.

Such could happen with nominations for the Board of Education. These nominations will revolve around the perennial issue of how many candidates the party should field.

Each party may put up four candidates, but only two from each party are elected. When a party endorses more than two, it allows for voter choice. But the downside is that the race becomes a primary in the general election, and usually a Democratic primary. Historically, the Republicans have almost never put up more than two candidates.

This year the DTC executive committee has endorsed only two BOE candidates. However, a third candidate who lost out in an extremely close executive committee vote is seeking the full town committee’s endorsement.

If the full town committee limits the endorsement to two, a third and fourth candidate can petition into the remaining two ballot slots, although some seem to think, probably erroneously, that candidates who fail to win the party endorsement would have to petition onto another line.

To avoid potential legal challenges, the DTC would do well not to become mired in the matter of whether or not the May vote is binding for July. Let the May meeting be unofficial. Let the legal meeting be in July. Wednesday’s meeting should not detract from the desired campaign momentum.

There were 68 entries in the 2nd annual diversity writing contest sponsored by the Town of Greenwich Affirmative Action Advisory Committee and the Greenwich Time. The entries were of very high quality and the contest was very competitive. The judges – Susan Ellis, Sarah Littman, David McCumber, Margaret Walsh – made their final selections this week. The 6 finalists were notified today.

The winners are:

First Place          Will Hallisey, grade 11, Greenwich High School

Second Place     Jane Gerstner, grade 9, Convent of the Sacred Heart

Third Place        Maria Velutini, grade 9, Convent of the Sacred Heart

Honorable Mention   Sylvia Navarro, grade 10, Greenwich High School; Evelina Goransson, grade 11, Greenwich High School;       and Kristin Tracey, grade 11, Greenwich High School

Congratulations to the winners!!!

The awards ceremony will be Tuesday, May 17, 4 p.m. in the 2nd floor meeting room of the Greenwich Library. The students will read from their work. The public is invited.

FOR SOME REASON TODAY’S SUNDAY COLUMN DID NOT GO ONLINE. SO HERE IT IS FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO USUALLY READ IT ON LINE.

Next year in Jerusalem!

These words conclude the Passover Seder. Introduced into the Hagaddah in medieval times, the phrase is multi-layered.

At one level, it expresses the Diaspora longing for a return to the land from which Jews were exiled after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. At a deeper level, the words express longing for future messianic redemption.

The Hagaddah tells the story of Jewish redemption from slavery in Egypt, a story that is recalled and retold each year during the Seder. Each participant is expected to relive this story as if he, or she, was personally redeemed from Egypt, as if it were his, or her, own story.

This continual reliving of events that happened more than three thousand years ago keeps the past redemption ever present. The Seder’s concluding words offer the promise of a future redemption centered on Jerusalem.

Monday evening, my husband and I joined some 120 people at Temple Sholom’s first-night Seder. Attended by roughly equal numbers of Jews and non-Jews, the Seder was co-sponsored by the newly formed Sholom Center for Interfaith Learning and Fellowship. Most of the non-Jews had never been to a Seder.

The Sholom Center, intended to provide programming that brings together people of all faiths, reflects the interfaith work of Rabbi Mitchell, “Mitch,” Hurvitz of Temple Sholom and the Reverend James Lemler of Christ Church.

Rabbi Mitch, who led the Seder, noted that Passover touches on the universal themes of freedom, redemption, hope, peace and the renewal that comes with the spring.

Several of the Seder participants, my husband and myself included, had also participated in an interfaith trip to Israel led by Rabbi Mitch and Jim Lemler in February 2010. Walking home after the Seder, I recalled a walk along the streets of Jerusalem’s Old City on Shabbat afternoon during that interfaith trip, my tenth visit to Israel.

That Saturday afternoon, our group walked the Stations of the Cross in reverse order, beginning at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the cavernous edifice that enshrines both the place where Jesus was crucified and his tomb. This Church, perhaps the world’s holiest Christian site, has been a place of pilgrimage since the 4^th century.

In the Church, just as Jim Lemler was leading us in prayer that focused on sharing and learning, the Holy Sepulchre bells began a loud, incessant ringing that heralded the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, a procession that takes place every Saturday afternoon. The church bells caused Rabbi Mitch to remark on what he called Jerusalem’s “cacophony of sounds.”

Here church bells blend with the Arabic call of the muezzin from the minarets and the Hebrew chants of Jewish prayer at the Temple’s Western Wall.

I was transported back to Jerusalem at Passover 1991.

It is Good Friday afternoon, warm and sunny. I sit beside the Temple Mount. Looking east across the Kidron Valley, I see the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus spent his last night.

It is Ramadan. I hear the Muslim calls to afternoon prayer, sounding from the minarets

Passover begins at sundown. Throughout the city, Jews burn the last of their leavening.

Sunday is Easter.

Easter and Passover, springtime festivals, are connected by history and the cycles of the sun and the moon. Ramadan slides against the solar year and passes through all the seasons. Approximately thirty-three years will pass before Ramadan, Passover and Easter coincide again.

The El Aksa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are just above me, in the place where the Temple once stood. Enshrined in the Dome of the Rock is the Foundation Stone of the World, where Heaven and Earth intersect. Isaac was bound and spared there where Jacob dreamed of a ladder to Heaven. In Mohammed’s dream, the angel Gabriel accompanied him there, where he ascended Jacob’s ladder and met Moses, Jesus and all the prophets.

Intense is this city, seventeen times destroyed yet existing eternal, a tinderbox ever ready to ignite in holy fire, still offering hope for the repair of the world.

Today, at Passover and Easter, let this hope be that Jerusalem, place of so much bloodshed, may yet become a true City of Peace.

Item #14 on the RTM Call for Monday’s March meeting appears, thankfully, to be dead in the water. This was a follow up to the October 25 Sense of the Meeting Resolution (SOMR) that called upon town leadership to “develop a fiscal policy based on savings and restraint that will control the rate of spending for 2011-12 to lessen the tax burden on Town residents and businesses.” The RTM passed this SOMR by a vote of 135-41-12.

Today is Decision Day for the BET Budget Committee. The budget the 4-member Budget Committee votes on this week (today, or tomorrow if an additional day is needed) will go to the full BET for public hearing on March 29, and on March 31 the full BET will approve the Proposed Budget that goes to the RTM for a vote in May. The RTM may only may only make cuts to this budget, not add.

Proponents of the October SOMR, seeing where the 2012 budget that the BET approves is likely to end up, with a nearly 5% increase in spending and a 2.87% increase in the tax levy, proposed a new SOMR for RTM action next Monday. This new “1% SOMR” essentially calls for a 1% spending cap. It asks that the “total amount to be financed” as shown in the First Selectman’s Proposed Budget for 2011-2012 be increased by no more than 1% over the 2010-2011 final town budget of $340,827,798.

Many people – elected officials, volunteers, staff – have been involved for many months in crafting the budget that the BET Budget Committee will approve this week and the full BET will vote on later this month, after a final public hearing. For the RTM to now call for an impossible and unprecedented 1% spending cap (contractual increases on the town side alone are nearly 3%) is less than helpful.

It is also “out of order” in terms of the budget process. While every effort has been made over the years to make this an ever more transparent process with input from RTM members early on in the process, the prescribed role of the RTM, according to the Town Charter, comes at the end of the process.This is when the RTM votes on the detailed appropriations that the BET proposes as necessary to conduct the affairs of the town. At that time they may vote to cut, or eliminate altogether, any of the appropriations that the BET proposes.

In a memo to the RTM Moderator concerning Item #14 on the RTM’s March Call, the Town Attorney has indicated that the town’s Law Department “has consistently ruled that when the RTM acts on the annual ‘budget’ it acts on specific and separate proposed appropriations each identified by account number.” Citing Article 2, Sec. 23 of the Charter, he writes that “if the RTM is going to act at all on the annual appropriations it cannot do so in a wholesale fashion but must consider each appropriation individually and must make a judgment as to what amount it deems advisable for each particular account.”

In his memo to the Moderator, the Town Attorney writes: “It would be inappropriate and illegal to attempt to amend the Town Charter by virtue of this resolution.” He suggests that the resolution could be rephrased in language that would be in legal order.

Because it was deemed not in legal order, the 1% SOMR was withdrawn, and the Legislative and Rules Committee drafted a Substitute Resolution that it considered to be in legal order, but no Committee of the RTM, including Legislative and Rules, voted this week to put this Resolution forward. So, it appears dead in the water.

Those RTM members who want to reduce spending in the 2011-12 fiscal year to a 1% increase will have their chance at their budget meeting in May. They may propose specific spending cuts to reach this objective. But this is precisely what they have refused to do. One must conclude that they don’t want to take responsibility for drastic cuts in service that the public does not want.

It would be a mistake for the First Selectman to engage in a trivial back and forth over minutia with the 4 individuals who defended the District 7 report at yesterday’s press conference. Likewise, he should not acquiesce to the request that his “historical analysis be re-released” to reflect their analysis. The First Selectman’s analysis should stand on its own merits.

The factual error regarding the RTM vote totals for last October’s Sense of the Meeting Resolution (SOMR) is not germane to the historical analysis. Neither is the technical question as to who actually authored and introduced the SOMR. It is a fact that Lucia Jansen was the author of the historical analysis that became the District 7 report that was the very foundation of the SOMR. Clearly this is what the author of the First Selectman’s analysis intended to convey to the reader. That the words used were technically incorrect is irrelevant to the analysis. And the quibbling over the use and meaning of the word “austere” is downright silly.

To “quibble,” according to the dictionary, is “to raise trivial distinctions and objections, esp. so as to evade an issue.” And this seems the best way to describe yesterday’s defense of the District 7 report. We need to move beyond this and look at a larger picture. The First Selectman’s report has moved the budget conversation forward by supplying the context that the District 7 report lacks. It has provided data that supports many of the contextual arguments made by critics of the District 7 report at the time the SOMR was under discussion, particularly with regard to the impact of legislative mandates.

It has also provided a detailed analysis of the town’s growth in headcount over the past 40 years. This is really the meat of the new report. And interestingly enough, Jansen finds no fault with these numbers:  ”Net-net, given the facts and complete true analysis, there is no material headcount difference between District 7′s report and the First Selectman’s. Period.”

While intended as a defense of her research, this statement regarding headcount at the same time can be construed as supporting an argument critical of her report. There is an implicit recognition here that headcount increase on the town side has not been excessive and that, as claimed in the First Selectman’s report, can be attributed in significant part to legislative mandates.

Jansen’s defense of her research turns the spotlight instead on headcount increase and budget growth on the Board of Education side. While the First Selectman’s analysis does not deal with the BOE side of the equation, the Schools have done their own historical analysis at the First Selectman’s request. The Superintendent of Schools provided some of this data as part of his 2012 budget presentation to the BET Budget Committee last week. The BOE analysis found that, adjusting for inflation, the BOE operating budget increased by $8,938 per pupil over the 40 year period between 1970 and 2010. Almost all (93.9%) of the increase is attributable to factors in 4 broad categories: new programs, mostly mandated (37.8%); increases in existing programs due to mandates or costs above inflation (22%); reductions in class size (4.8%); and contractual salary increases (29.4%). Various mandates such as special education, which didn’t exist in 1970, and contractual salary increases account for the bulk of the increase.

A definitive and comprehensive historical analysis of the town and BOE budgets over the past 40 years that includes all relevant comparative and contextual information needed to arrive at meaningful conclusions would require the services of a paid consultant. It is unlikely such a study will ever be done. But the First Selectman’s report and the BOE analysis have built upon the District 7 report in a meaningful way.

Rather than quibble over the word “austere” or the fact that as of the current 2011 fiscal year, The Nathaniel Witherell budget is in an enterprise fund and no longer part of the general fund, we should be engaging in a conversation that recognizes the fact that there are other variables beside population size and student enrollment that have had an impact on the town and school budgets over the past 40 years.

As for the SOMR, I have no doubt that the BET will present the RTM with a budget that demonstrates fiscal restraint, as it always does. But judging from comments at the BET Budget Committee hearing last week, this may not be enough for some members of District 7. The severe spending cuts they want do indeed seem to meet the definition of “austere.”