New Haven Independent

Posted by: Wayne Cooke | May 8, 2009 9:23 AM

The reality is there are two sides to every budget--expenses and revenue. As long as we have an administration that caters to special interests, and puts obtaining more open space above creating a viable economic plan for the town, expect more programs and services to suffer.

Try asking the Board of Selectmen, RTM, Board of Finance, or Economic Development Commission even one of the following questions. All you'll get are blank stares...

With industry continuing to leave Branford--and 25% of all developed industrial space vacant--what is being proposed to attract business to town?

With only 31% of the town's industrial land being developed in the last 150 years, what use is seen for Branford's remaining raw industrial land (320+ acres)?

As businesses continue to be lost--and none replace them--what is Branford's economic plan?

Name one major business Branford has brought in over the last ten years?

As the industrial tax base shrinks--and the tax burden falls on homeowners and businesses--town services suffer and residents and businesses are forced to leave. Where will future revenue come from?

30% of Branford's land area is open space and 5% is business. Since open space does not lower taxes, fund school programs, or pay for town services, why is obtaining more open space a higher community priority than attracting business?

Why are 21 pages of the town plan devoted to open space and only 5 pages to business development?

Why do Branford's commercial zoning regulations remain among the most prohibitive in the state?

Why is Branford referred to as the "dead zone" among developers?

What is the reason neighboring towns--even Guilford--are more economically progressive than Branford? Why are viable projects being lost to them?

Branford lacks quality shopping and other amenities. For many goods and services residents must drive half an hour--including over the Q bridge--wasting time and gasoline. Why are efforts to remedy this discouraged?

What is the reason development continues to be directed to the already-congested town center and west end of town? Why does the east end remain stagnant and ignored?

Although best suited for it, why is Exit 56 discouraged as a retail/mixed use zone? Why does Exit 53--despite severe traffic congestion and inadequate infrastructure--remain a priority for retail development?

Why does a flawed $30,000 traffic study--using incorrect data to predict future traffic congestion at Exit 56--remain part of the town plan?

What is the status of the "Targeted Industry Study" called for in the town plan? For what reason is the free market being replaced by such a study? Why should consultants be hired to dictate what businesses will be allowed into Branford and where they should be located?

Are the economic plans and strategies of communities similar to Branford being studied?

Have the Connecticut Department of Economic & Community Development and other state agencies been consulted? What are their suggestions?

Are demographics being studied--aging population, decline in school enrollment, etc.--to plan for Branford's future needs? By whom?

Is single-family residential development--which would allow more school-aged children into town--being discriminated against because of additional costs to the educational system?

Is Branford's long tradition of fellowship and innovation--which offered hope and opportunity to all preceding generations--being threatened by exclusionary agendas of certain special interests?

Posted by: City Hall Watch | May 8, 2009 10:41 AM

The extraordinary teachers contract was, to be blunt, stupid and irresponsible. Instead of arrogance, Carrano should be humble. Taxpayers in all these towns and cities, including Branford, pay extraordinary taxes with the lion's share going to the schools and the education of our children. Those that work in the schools are among the highest paid in the nation. In the odd year and tough times like this, that teacher's contract was just wrong. In retaliation, of course, Carrano threatens the softer but important side of education: arts, sports. Put him in stocks on the town green and everybody can throw rotten tomatoes at him. Carrano ought to be ashamed.

Posted by: Walter Wickham | May 8, 2009 12:35 PM

A $250,.00 savings and the RTm plans to cut another $165,00? I hope the young men and woman take notice of this action as many are of or are approaching voting age. Take not kids of those who try to put the burden on you or to take things you love away from you for their own political agendas which include the right to sit on some stale old committee or to have their name in print! they should be ashamed of themselves!

Posted by: susan barnes | May 8, 2009 2:28 PM

Why not cut a few of the highly paid administrators, a couple of unnecessary principals, and forget the sacred cow - class size.
The little kids in K & 1 are still babies and need extra attention, the hug from the teacher, the aide's lap on which to sit. But the high school kids are supposed to be preparing for college - where they will in MANY instances sit in an arena with a couple of hundred fellow students. SO PREPARE THEM to deal with that which they will be faced. Yes, the drama, arts, hockey are so nice. But can the kids write a complete and coherent sentence? Can they do simple math without a calculator? Do they know who is buried in Grant's Tomb? Emphasis on the basics is what is important. Why not forget trying to prepare every kid for college? They don't all belong there. Statistics show that if a person graduated in the lower 40% of their class, eight years later 80% of them have still not graduated from college. We cannot cut the strings program because that "builds character" according to our First Selectman, who normally remains mute on anything so controversial as cutting the bloated school budget. Let their parents build character - that IS one of their jobs. Employees of town after town have stepped up to the plate - BUT NOT BRANFORD. Of, course, the BOE & teachers union is waiting to see where the bottom line falls. If they aren't forced to make a move, do you really think they will? See, the problem is with the math program, Mr. Carrano. ZERO INCREASE means 0, nothing, nada, rien. You all seem to have failed to grasp that concept.

Posted by: Pat Santoro | May 8, 2009 7:31 PM

I believe we should call Frank Carrano "The 80 Pink Slip Wonder". Now, they want to cut sports, the BOE does not pay for Hockey ice time, the booster club raises that money every year to support the team and gives it to the quasi-athletic director, Jake Palluzzi, basketball has been "berry, berry good to me", 200 win basketball coach.I think the BOE has outlived it's usefulness, are they educators, no way, they are controlling politicians. Arne Duncan, the US Government education czar turned the Chicago school system around by promoting independent thinking and eliminating the tenure rules.What can Branford taxpayers do, they can stop funding these people and ask for a legitimate and good education for their children.

Posted by: john prete | May 9, 2009 9:00 AM

The unions have to step forward with concessions. There is no other way.
Every day the newspapers are full of articles about union give-backs designed to help a town (other towns) meet their budget expectations.
Why not in Branford?
The teachers have circled the wagons for economic protection and to fight the big fight.
Sadly, they left the bright, young, energetic, passionate and non-tenured teacher out of the circle.

Posted by: Walter Wickham | May 9, 2009 11:11 AM

Bravo Mr. Cooke! I could not agree with you more! One answer is that those issues do not generate enough Andy Warhol time(15 minutes of fame) for the people who seek to stay in office and on the RTM!!!

Posted by: LocalLaw | May 9, 2009 3:31 PM

I am all for union concessions; one only needs to read the newspapers or listen to the news to understand the need for taxpayer relief, and help from any and all of Branford's taxpayer funded town employees will show Branford residents the solidarity these difficult times demand. However, it does disturb me that of all of Branford's unions, including police and fire, the only one being asked for concessions is the Teacher's. Why aren't all being asked to help with concessions and givebacks? Is it because our esteemed elected officials from the First Selectman, the Board of Education, and the RTM are looking for political cover for the debacle of the teachers new contract that was just approved in late winter? In their desire to punish the teachers union for its shrewd and sharp negotiations, aren't our leaders just punishing our school system and students instead?

Posted by: susan barnes | May 9, 2009 11:01 PM

Marcia - In ALL sincerity, I neglected to compliment you on your photography! You SO captured the - je ne sais quoi - the essence, the reality, the unreality, the totality of our dear Mr. Brooks! AHHH, the RTM! Don'tcha' just love it!

Posted by: Jay | May 11, 2009 5:29 PM

Regarding Mr. Carrano's statements:

"This is very hurtful," he said. "The impact would be huge in the schools and insignificant to the taxpayers."

"The cost of a carton of cigarettes is what we are talking about," he said. "What is more important," he asked: "to keep the hockey team and programs in art, and the drama club (a new item), or a carton of cigarettes?"

In response to the 1st quote: Perhaps we should have a "cut" that is MORE than insignificant to the taxpayers. Yet, I suspect that is not what he was suggesting...

In response to the 2nd comment: Many of us don't smoke. On the other hand, many hardworking Branford wage earners do EAT. I don't doubt that several try to feed their families for a week for the price of a carton of cigarettes. For someone who spent much of his life officially supporting "labor" to make such a flippant and insensitive comment is unconscionable.

Posted by: Susan barnes | May 12, 2009 8:40 AM

Well said, Jay. We can hope that the RTM steps up to the plate tonight and cuts at least a million out of this BOE budget. However, it is unlikely considering the Democratic leadership (??) has done NOTHING to promote austerity with BOE. Their resounding silence speaks volumes which we can hope resonates townwide come November. Of course, they did relieve Carrano of his duties as DTC chair which allowed him to champion the increases of the BOE full time.

Posted by: Walter Wickham | May 13, 2009 10:34 AM

"Later, she said the school board appeals to emotions to keep its budget from being cut. "Stop trying to get everyone in a fury and pull on heartstrings and threatening," she said. The above is a quote from Gail Chapman in regards to the board of education as well as the constituents gathered to try to influence the RTM not to cut the budget . Excuse me Ms Chapman if I care to keep the high level of education for my children strong and steady in the Branford Educational Community. I think your comments are an insult to all those wishing and praying for the best of our children. We as a community must remember this come next election! Take notice!

Posted by: Peter | May 13, 2009 3:03 PM

Mr Carrano is just desperately tugging at voter heart strings and not making any real financial sense.

Teachers' raises were approved by him on top of the already hefty contract step raises. The approved raise is a raise of the raises! We've been had.

BOE is adding expensive All Day K programs with no sense as to the cost benefit. I saw their study. A sham.

Make your cuts in the front offices of the Super, the BOE and the too many redundant Principals and Deans.

Heath care costs? Ironic. Health care is killing us. Public employees have better benefits than the people who are paying for them.

BOE's best solution is threaten to eliminate programs they know are popular. How transparent.

Drama for one, puts on the second most attended event in Branford all year. Novel idea- cut it? Cut the one thing that actually makes money.

If that's the example of sound financial thinking, no wonder we are looking at increases.

We need State legislation to allow townspeople to force BOE to make line item cuts that matter to us. Why not? Novel- After all it is our money.

Bottom line. We Branford voters have been taken. Face it, the former Head of the Teachers Union should not be running our Board of Ed. The fox is not just in, he's in charge of the hen house. It's just way too big of a conflict of interest.

The BOE needs to be more accountable. This recent lame idle threat makes it obvious that we are only being taken for fools.

Posted by: Jeff Clark | May 13, 2009 9:59 PM

Want more transparency?
1. Don't some communities have the finances of the BOE co-administrated by the Town's chief financial officer. One person cuts the checks, provides the reporting, for both the town and the Board of Education. Might save some administrative cost to boot.
2. Armond Fusco, former Branford Superintendent, spoke recently on CTN, and advised that if you want to know what is being spent, and where, that you should be getting the check register every month, available under FOIA....Might be good for the RTM Education Committee.

Posted by: Susan Barnes | May 14, 2009 3:42 PM

What outstanding suggestions, Jeff, particularly, Mr.Fusco's suggestion. I was recently doing some research on non profit boards and the statement was made that if no one wants to show you the books consider that a red flag. Should that concept be applied to BOE? The RTM Education Committee should be armed with that check register every month. Could go a LONG way to sort things out and to educate the taxpayer.