Meriden: the preparations to disapprove the contract the school board made with the administrators in the school system is an interesting one, follows the path the Wallingford council took not long ago. Regardless of how you might feel about the contract as a contract, it does illustrate the problems of a system in which the Board of Education, which is a party to the union negotiations, is not answerable to taxpayers for the tax rates and does not set them, while the council, which sets rates, doesn’t deal directly with the union. It’s a problem.
Wallingford: without getting technical about it, it is hard to understand why, as a matter of principle, anyone should be surprised that Mayor Dickinson strongly supported efforts to defeat the seven charter proposals which were on the November ballot, some of which were apparently aimed at his own exercise of the powers of his office. Should he have supported them?
Let’s not become too en-mired in pushing numerical proportionality for minority teachers in school systems, particularly in Meriden. The issue, first and foremost, is to provide a welcoming and congenial atmosphere for every student who comes to the door; the numbers remain a goal but cannot be attained until graduates become available, and there is competition for new minority teachers with which the city is not necessarily able to prevail.
Southington: the delay in replacing a bridge on Old Mountain Road causes expensive and time-consuming delay in a number of daily school bus routes. It won’t be only buses which are inconvenienced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
From Wallingford: The Mayor should have done what was right for Wallingford. By attacking all of charter revision, he did the wrong thing. Most of the charter changes were improvements. But the Mayor only cared about himself and his power. Do you defend him, see his point, and expect no better?
Most of charter revision had nothing to do with Mayor Dickinson and his power. Only the first ballot question affected him, but it was easier, strategically speaking, to attack all of it under the disingenuous rouse that the whole charter needed "protection" with a "no" vote on all of the questions. But do not get me wrong: I am not surprised. No one is.
Post a Comment