April 22, 2010, pages 2-4.....
by Spin Richardson, Hans Ohanian, Sue Thibault, Clyde Baldwin, CCS School Board, Pete Rosenfeld, Thomas Scatchard, Schuyler Jackson, and Brad and Polly Simpkins

Commentaries

Elected Board Members Should Have Freedom of Speech
by Spin Richardson

I read with interest the reported discussion of the adoption of a Code of Conduct by the CCS Board in the recent issue of The Charlotte News (April 8, 2010). I now understand one was adopted by CCS but as of the writing of this, it has not been posted on their website for all to see. I am assuming it contains some wording like the following from the Hinesburg document that would require of each board member: “After careful board deliberations of an issue, support board decisions regardless of individual positions.”

While I will agree there is a responsibility to support the majority position while serving on a corporate board of directors after adequate discussion has occurred and an official position has been voted upon by the body, I believe that it is misguided to apply that same principal to elected members of a governmental board. As stated in Rules of the Game by Thomas Whisler, a corporate board is obligated to represent the interests of the stockholders (who willingly pay for the stock they hold) and to present a unified front so as to not cause undue speculation about the stability and management of the company. Such instability could cause devaluation of the stock and therefore cause financial harm to the stockholders themselves.

A governmental board (paid for by taxes collected, involuntarily in some cases) is not appointed or recruited by the board itself, as it is in the corporate world, but is elected to represent the views of the voters who put them in office. We have in this country a representative form of government. A board member is my representative on the board. His/her responsibility is to provide transparency to the voters and loyalty to them, not to the board itself. If the voters are dissatisfied with the action of board members they are entitled to not return them to office at the next election.

This latest development is nothing but self serving by a majority of, but not all, the board’s members, putting them above the rule of law and stifling any criticism by those members who are best positioned to understand and articulate an opposing view. It amounts to trampling on the democratic process by those in the majority.
With the exception of when dealing with very specific, personally identifiable, individual information or information which might endanger financial negotiations, all actions of the board should be open and each member should be free to interpret and discuss those proceedings without restriction. If someone wants to say something in a closed room that he/she would not say in front of an audience then maybe he/she should consider not saying it in the first place.

I commend Mr. Baldwin for his willingness to stand up for the issues of those who have elected him to the school board and not to be intimidated into going along with the crowd. Maybe that is why he has been returned to office so many times.

Spin Richardson
------------------------

Please Don’t Be an IMBYWYM (In-My-BackYard-With-Your-Money)
by Hans Ohanian

On April 8, the U.S. national debt stood at $12,826,031,306,447.93. One might expect that the citizens of a country burdened with such a staggering debt would exercise due caution in the expenditure of public money, but what I see in most of the exuberantly enthusiastic tales that Charlotters tell about their renewable energy systems (Charlotte News, April 8) is a childish delight in extracting yet more public money for their extravagant renewable hobbies.

For instance, one owner of a windmill gleefully reports that he can extract from his public utility a feed-in tariff of $0.20/ kW-h, which is about five times what the utility normally pays to purchase energy from the New England grid. I fervently hope that his windmill gets struck by lightning, because the more feed-in tariffs he collects, the more I will have to pay on my electric bill, when the utility passes the extra cost on to consumers. According to information from the Renewable Energy Resource Center, he has also collected a $12,500 incentive payment, and he is due to collect an extra $9,700 or so in federal tax credits. With all this public largesse, it is no wonder that he expects a quickie payback on his investment. If he were to pay the $45,000 cost of his windmill on his own and earned only the market value of the electric energy, he would never achieve payback. In the exploitation of public subsidies, his windmill mimics the business model of the large wind farms in Vermont and New York, which likewise make their profits not from the market value of their electric energy, but from grants, renewable energy tax credits, production credits, accelerated depreciation credits, and feed-in tariffs – these wind farms are, in essence, tax shelters and subsidy mills.

Solar-electric panels and trackers are not much better. Their owners collect incentives, tax credits, solar credits, and inflated feed-in tariffs – and these subsidies produce the profits. Over the last six years, the State has disbursed $3.6 million in small windmill and solar-electric incentives to wannabe-green Vermonters who pledged their troth to the three laws of subsidies: 1) Give me a large subsidy, and I will move the world; 2) Give me a smaller subsidy, and I will think of something to do with it; 3) Just give me a subsidy. As Richard Muller said in his book, Physics for Future Presidents, the high-cost, low-efficiency solar-electric panels of today are a “nonsolution” of the energy problem. However, this might change in a few years’ time. New, cheaper and more efficient solar panels are expected to become available by 2015, making solar-electric installations competitive with conventional sources. If you crave solar-electric panels, be patient and wait a few years.

Our Vermont legislators approved the feed-in tariffs of Act 45 by imagining that, although windmills and solar-electric panels don’t pay for themselves, these tariffs provide a stimulus for the Vermont economy. But a recent study of the economic impact of feed-in tariffs by the Public Service Board (December 2009) shows that this argument is delusional. Feed-in tariffs trigger a momentary increase of construction-related temporary jobs in the renewable energy sector but lead to only a handful of long-term, permanent jobs. The study concluded that consumers will be paying a higher price for their renewable energy, with no discernible benefit. Besides, to keep the renewable-energy industry on life support, we have to expend millions in incentives and tax credits, and this public money could be better spent on stimulating the economy in other, more effective ways.
Only two of the renewable systems mentioned in the April 8 issue are cost-effective: solar hot-water and geothermal heating. These pay for themselves – you can reduce your carbon footprint and make a profit, even without subsidies. So resist the temptation to take incentive money and tax credits that shift the cost to other taxpayers, and please pay for your renewable system entirely with your own money...Thank you.

Hans Ohanian
-----------------------

It’s Time to Move Forward in our Commitment to our Children
by Sue Thibault

I am hesitant to write this, but I feel as though I need to follow up on the Burlington Free Press article in which Clyde Baldwin and I expressed our reasons for voting ‘no’ on the original school budget. I hesitate because, while each one of us has the right to voice our personal opinions, sometimes a board member’s published words have unintended consequences.  This is precisely why I feel I must clarify my position.  

 As previously published, I was against the original budget. I voiced my concerns as a school board member during deliberations, and voted “no” at our budget meeting. My vote on Town Meeting day was that of a parent with concerns. I went into the next budget session with the expectation that we would have another room full of teachers and parents with similar concerns. I expected to have the majority of the board, the parents and teachers support presenting a revised budget which restored the teaching position. That was my expectation, but I was naive. After the budget failed, the overwhelming consensus was to make more cuts. Our survey had only seven respondents who shared my concerns and only a couple spoke up about this at our subsequent budget work sessions.

While I still expressed my concerns about increasing class sizes, I am an elected official and did what I was elected to do. I listened to the community, weighed the priorities of the board and made a decision to support the lower budget. I compromised.  I realized it was the will of the board, the will of the teachers, and the will of the majority of the voters that we not increase the budget. As a parent, I voted “yes” for the revised budget. Our superintendent likes to say, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”  It’s time to move forward in our commitment to our children. 

The board recently voted on and signed a Code of Conduct. This reinforces the commitment to make sound decisions on behalf of the Charlotte community and in support of all students. A few of the items are pertinent to this situation, and they are:  “voice opinions respectfully and maintain good relations with other board members, administrators, school staff and community members;” encourage “collaboration between the school and community;” consider “the needs of the entire community;” and “after careful board deliberations of an issue, support board decisions regardless of individual positions.” 

 I support this commitment with the sincere hope that we, as a united community, can and will put aside politics and personal agendas and work together to support the difficult and vitally important work that our public school is doing.
 
Sue Thibault
---------------------

Next Steps in the Budget Process: Building Trust and Confidence
by Clyde Baldwin

Everyone should understand that we are in no danger of not being able to run the school – money is/will be available while we resolve the present dilemma.
The board should understand that the difference in the number of “no” votes between those solely dollar-motivated and the total number of “no” votes is mostly a matter of reduced trust and confidence stemming from actions that the board has or has not taken. Those who voted “no” primarily for dollar reasons should understand that thirty or forty thousand dollars are possibly still available, but that further large reductions are not possible this year without wreaking havoc (more in future years); and that a budget should not pass until the board either has corrected errors in judgment or made clear, unequivocal statements about future actions.

The board should not pursue a strategy of just getting more parents to vote. This strategy is based on faulty logic – that all parents vote “yes” and all non-parents vote “no” – and is divisive.

ADMINISTRATION. Co-principalship continues to head the list of bizarre, nonsensical actions unsupported by data or research, or even consistent logic… and is further complicated by endorsing a stereotype which I doubt that most Charlotters support: paying the man significantly more than the woman…. We should equalize the salaries, acknowledge that it WILL cost more, and get on with it. For the moment we own the contracts, like it or not. Mostly this situation makes the community wonder who’s on first. Why would people trust their children’s education and their money to such a confused group?

The board should commit publicly to reducing to a maximum of two administrators for 2011-2012 and take a hard look at 1.5. We are top-heavy with administration.
MATH. By now we should have had a distinct program in place to correct deficiencies in automaticity and mastery of fundamental algorithms. The board should state clearly that it will NEVER approve either Bridges or Investigations and require a program to be named – before a budget is passed – which meets the stated needs. The board should state further that it clearly understands that success will not come without in-class evaluation of best practices, behavior modification of teaching practices where necessary, and tracking of results by classroom. Why would people trust their children’s education and their money to a group so strongly influenced by poor planning at the central office and characterized by lack of resolve at the local level?

BUILDING. The community has approved money and the board has the prerogative to spend it. The board should present the original proposal and the new plan, both in excruciating detail, for a vote. Whichever the community approves will be legitimate. Why would people trust their children’s well-being and their money to a group which relies so heavily on fine print?

NEGOTIATIONS.  Changes in the contract are necessary to improve cost-effectiveness in how we manage our workforce, both to control quality and cost. The board should identify the needed changes and commit to achieving them.

CODE OF ETHICS. No one is gong to trust a group so clearly committed to achieving its agenda by stifling dissent and eroding the rights upon which our government is founded. The community should require the board to scrap this embarrassment before approving a budget.

Trust and confidence are abstracts but they derive from concrete phenomena. People make intuitive deductions and associated extrapolations re: whether results with which they (in this case the electorate) agree, whether cost control or quality control, are likely to follow from behaviors they’ve seen demonstrated. At the moment the electorate has cause for concern. Until the board has the courage to see to it that well-known needs are attended to, we can have fifteen principals, pilot twelve math programs, raze the entire building and start from scratch and make up rules about behavior ad infinitum and the effect on the control of quality and cost of education will be not just negligible but negative.

Clyde Baldwin

P.S. Regarding Mr. Pugliese (Letter April 8):  As a person acquainted with workable process would be aware, I’m not SUPPOSED to attend construction committee meetings because a third board member present requires warning and conducting meetings as board meetings.

------------------------

Letters

School Board striving for quality education at a reasonable cost to taxpayers

The mission of the Charlotte Central School is to provide an educational experience that promotes academic excellence and enables each student to develop confidence and the knowledge, skills and behaviors necessary to become a competent, caring, productive and responsible citizen.  The mission of our school is stalled if we are unable to pass a responsible school budget.  

As a schoolboard, we want to provide a quality education for our students at a cost that is not unduly burdensome to taxpayers. We are concerned that our community is becoming divided between those who believe we are spending too much on our school and those who believe the cuts we have made are too deep.  We encourage members of the community to attend our meetings as this will allow better understanding of the rationale behind our actions.

As we move forward, please join us in developing a solution to the rift in our community.  If you have questions, concerns or ideas about the CCS budget, please let us know at board meetings, by email or by telephone.  Please talk to your friends and neighbors, and come visit CCS if you do not at present have children in the school. Many of the great things that our faculty and staff are doing to ensure that the children of Charlotte develop into competent, caring, productive and responsible citizens will be lost if we cannot come together as a community to pass a school budget.

Charlotte School Board
Lynne Jaunich, 425-6223
Sue Thibault, 985-5096
Kristin Wright, 425-5105
Clyde Baldwin, 425-3366
Dan Luce, 425-7700
------------------------

What’s a watt?

I enjoyed your article on producing energy locally and expect you will be writing more about this in the future. So here is some info to help get it right:

1kW = 1,000 watts NOT 10,000.

A kW and a kWh are not the same thing. A kW is a measure of the rate that electricity is generated or used. The total amount is the rate times the duration, i.e. kilowatt-hour (kWh). When you buy electricity from Green Mountaain Power, you pay by the kWh. During the course of a year your turbine or photovoltaic (PV) panels produce a certain amount of kWh’s. At any given instant, you are using or generating at a rate of X kW. For example, a 100 watt bulb burning for 30 hours uses 3 kWh ([100 x 30]/1000). Another example; a 3 kW PV panel exposed to full sun 5 hours a day for 210 days in a year produces 3 x 5 x 210 = 3150 kWh.

Confusing? Yes, a bit at first, but you need to get it right, or you get egg on your face like the guys who write about boats going so many knots per hour.

Pete  Rosenfeld
------------------------

Points to consider on school budget

Having a pretty good understanding of the CCS budget from my attendance at this year’s Board meetings, I’d like to share a couple thoughts as we head into the third vote.

  First, because the co-administrator’s salaries are such a small increase ($3,000), and they already have signed contracts, it is unproductive to spend time and energy on this point.  Secondly, the building project involves no additional money being spent, there is no dispute that the current structure has critical repair needs, and construction experts, community volunteers and elected officials have used their best judgment to obtain the best possible result for the students. 

The leverage opportunities for the administrator and building decisions would have been during budget construction time and during the building committee work and vote.  At this late date, the way to respond is to change Board members next spring if you feel you have not been well served, not to take it out on the students through the budget.

Some final points to consider: Charlotte taxes (and property values!) are relatively high – a beautiful town and excellent school create this situation; budget reductions of tens of thousands of dollars have a huge impact on school programs, but only tens of dollars impact on individuals; reductions of hundreds of thousands of dollars will save taxpayers hundreds of dollars, but the cost to the school will be crippling (with a magnified impact on property values, as a declining school would quickly drag down the desirability of a home in Charlotte).  This school budget situation can easily take us down a defeatist slippery slope, but if people can talk civilly and listen to their neighbors, while recognizing the current realities of the situation, we can create a learning climate which will help us resolve this, and future challenges. 

Thomas Scatchard
----------------------

Candidate for VEC Board of Directors

While Vermont Electric Cooperative, as far as I know, provides no electrical service within the Town of Charlotte, The Charlotte News is read, for local and regional news, by many of the nearly 5,000 VEC customers in Chittenden County and Starksboro. For example, in my hometown of Hinesburg with 887 VEC customers the News is widely read. For that reason, I thought it appropriate to alert these VEC customers through the News and other local papers that there is an important VEC Board of Directors election coming up.

The VEC is non-profit under the control of a Board of Directors elected by its members. It serves about 34,000 members with almost 10% of Vermont’s power load.
VEC is integrally connected with the Vermont, New England and, ultimately, the national systems. It faces many challenges: alternative energy, energy management, nuclear power, transmission, security and, most importantly to its members, the provision of reliable and affordable energy.

VEC members in 2009 voted to reduce the Board from 13 to 12 Directors: seven Directors to be elected from designated districts and five to be ‘at-large’. This May all 12 Director positions are up for election.

Under the new design, District 5 includes 4,689 Chittenden County and 188 Starksboro members who will elect one Director to replace the three Directors elected in 2006/ 2009. Ballots will be mailed to members on April 20 and must be returned by May 14 to be tallied at the May 15 VEC annual meeting.

I am a candidate for this Directorship. Letters-to-the-Editor limits make it not feasible to present my resume other than to state that I have a professional background in government, law and real estate development and management. I am retired and have the time and interest which will enable me to be a challenging and constructive member of the Board. Questions: contact me via e-mail at schuylerjackson@hotmail.com.

Schuyler Jackson

--------------------
Disappointed with zoning ruling

We were all disappointed here at the farm when we recently received official word that our tea tasting room-café plans were denied by the Charlotte Zoning Board for the second time. We passionately believe that a small tea tasting room-café would only enhance the warmth and grace of our beautiful farm.

Our three-year-long quest for town board approval of our small tea tasting room-café has been full of ups, downs and disappointments as well as moments of clarity and learning about ourselves and our farm.

Although we are sad, we respect and honor the Zoning Board’s decision to deny us the ability to manifest our vision. We had the dream of a simple space designed to share special farm grown “berry delicious” teas, and the art of blending and drinking our teas with our community members, customers and especially the area children who love the teas so much.

As a family we will continue to champion the important relationship farmers have in terms of connecting the community to the fruits of their land. We feel grateful to live in an area so abundant with creative, thriving farms.
We look to a future when farmers in our situation are supported in efforts to expand their businesses and offerings so that they may afford to continue to keep such treasures as the Charlotte Berry Farm afloat in such trying times.

Thanks to all community members, friends, town board officials as well as the Vermont Land Trust who supported our dream over the past three years. Special thanks to Gloria Warden at the Charlotte Zoning Department, who took extra time and care to help us through some difficult and confusing times.

Brad and Polly Simpkins
The Charlotte Berry Farm