I don't think anything has changed but for several years pre-k has brought in more in federal funding than it has cost so there has been a net positive to the auburn taxpayer as a result of the federal funding structure.
I took the unpopular position of voting against expanding it two years ago because I felt that if and/or when that funding situation changes, that would be when we would see the cost and regret it. So far I have eaten crow on that position and, unless something has changed significantly that we haven't heard about, it remains a moneymaker, and I do believe in the value of the program - especially if it continues to be paid by the federal gov't.
Part of the problem again is that the discussion is always focused on the ideal situation, starting from the top down rather than talking about how we can work in the right direction so that we've built something solid over time.
When you ask parents, students, faculty, and teachers what they want to have of course the first response is - brand new high school and a mega facility to maximize the education dollar.
But we're aware there is a cost and whenever the topic comes up it seems like it never starts with that as a reality. So it goes nowhere and then we all wonder why...
Joking aside I do feel bad for her - i think the article was a little harsh. I actually agree to some extent with what I perceive to be the intention of her comment - at least the way I would word it - that there apparently isn't much focus on the big chunk of kids who will inevitably end up working with their hands in some way or another.
On one hand that (college emphasis) is probably the safe route to take given limited resources, and along with that is the fear that if college isn't the primary focus, there is always the danger that some of those who may have been in the best position to benefit from a college education might end up going into a trade, and being less productive than if they had gone to college.
On the other hand, knowing that there are so many who underachieve in college and in life, it is difficult to avoid the question of whether or not they might have been better off honing a particular skill or being exposed earlier on to a different path...
I take some offense to this accusation - "vague generalities".
Courage to speak up and being appointed committee chairperson are both great things that I don't disrespect in any way.
But you began your editorial saying that other letters in support of various candidate are vague generalities and I don't really see much difference from yours and all the rest.
The reason I bring it up is because I wrote one myself and I think the issues I raised (here http://www.sunjournal.com/letters/story/928355) were no more vague than the ones you present here.
Support your candidate but please spare us the attempt at a quick jab - it only takes away from your points and suggests a hint of arrogance.
Not sure if I disagree with the conclusion - well thought out - I appreciate the read.
I do have a few thoughts though - I don't quite see how a new exit in "the middle" would not serve to redirect the focus of inbound traffic towards the downtown area. I get the fact that there isn't much of a time savings but just the fact that it is there will be a reason for people to take it - it will take time but I don't see how it could possibly hurt the area in anyway.
202-4 in Auburn is already a four lane truck route - yes, with noise and pollution - if the bulk of those trucks could avoid that stretch from downtown auburn south to exit 75 I think that could improve the area significantly.
Irving Travel plaza and Crossroads/Mobil wouldn't benefit from it immediately - nor would the many other businesses on that stretch like it - but without the junk flying up and down that section of the road, it would open up the door to an improvement in the area - away from a loud, dangerous, and bland industrial stretch of no-man's land to something with more of a welcoming residential and mixed commercial feel.
Overall though I don't have a lot of faith in the system to believe that if done, it would be done right... There are so many things to consider and so many things that could go wrong...
I don't particularly disagree with any of the 5 points Mr. Gleason has raised but I do have a concern.
My concern is that if we neglect to make at least some of the reductions passed down from the state, and choose to pick up the tab solely from property taxes to maintain the status quo this year, we are assuming the risk of a double impact next year, should a similar reduction occur.
I don't know for certain that another state revenue sharing reduction of this size is likely in the next fiscal year, but I don't think it is safe to assume that it just won't happen -unless the contingency plan is to simply increase the property tax rate by 10% or so on an ongoing basis.
If there was some indication that this is intended as a one time ONLY measure and that no matter what any further reductions in state revenue sharing will need to be dealt with in some other fashion, then all of this would be more palatable. Unfortunately, it appears as though there is plenty of talk about how much of a disaster this is, and I think there needs to be more discussion of the long term view.
I don't particularly disagree with any of the 5 points Mr. Gleason has raised but I do have a concern.
My concern is that if we neglect to make at least some of the reductions passed down from the state, and choose to pick up the tab solely from property taxes to maintain the status quo this year, we are assuming the risk of a double impact next year, should a similar reduction occur.
I don't know for certain that another state revenue sharing reduction of this size is likely in the next fiscal year, but I don't think it is safe to assume that it just won't happen -unless the contingency plan is to simply increase the property tax rate by 10% or so on an ongoing basis.
If there was some indication that this is intended as a one time ONLY measure and that no matter what any further reductions in state revenue sharing will need to be dealt with in some other fashion, then all of this would be more palatable. Unfortunately, it appears as though there is plenty of talk about how much of a disaster this is, and I think there needs to be more discussion of the long term view.
I don't understand this - you plan on it a year ahead of time, fund it in the current budget, put out a schedule for it with less than a month away, then during NEXT year's budget discussion you cut cleanup out of THIS year. Something is not right with this.
Guys the facts of the case can't be released because of privacy laws - it isn't any kind of cover up or attempt to sweep something under the rug as has been suggested.
The question about the policy was simple - did the administration violate school policy? The answer was clear that action was taken within school policy.
Could a different approach have been taken? Sure. And on the surface it is unfortunate that more could not have been done to prevent the situation and help parents feel safer, but second guessing without knowing the facts doesn't help anything.
If someone wants to contribute something positive to the situation they should show up to the School Committee meetings and suggest ways to improve the policies rather than just sit back and make claims that something could have been done differently.
There are NO cuts being made under the plan being discussed. I'm not sure where that perception came from - I only wish people would come to these meetings and pay more attention.
The savings would go into teacher's salaries, not be cut from the budget.
family health insurance is offered. Children and parents are covered - only spouses need to pay to be on the plan, and the savings aren't going elsewhere - they are going back into salaries... Mr. Morrill has made a number of statements to this effect.
I wonder whether the motivation for investing such large sums in the areas infrastructure in the past might be a thing of the past for a few reasons.
The investment was not done with government dollars (not that I know of, if this is incorrect I'd like to know). The investments were private dollars motivated by the ability to turn a profit.
Two questions - What was the source of the profit? Does some such source exist today?
The source of the profit was turning crude goods into manufactured goods. The investments in manpower, land, buildings, materials, and operating costs were collectively far less expensive than the value of the return. Finished goods were turned out - whatever they were shoes, blankets, and so on, and the total sales were obviously known to have been far more than the operating costs in total.
The river was used for virtually free power; and labor, though increasing in cost was still cheap and plentiful. Power and labor pretty much sums it up and would seem to me to be the single reason that such investment now, either private or public, has not been shown to be feasible, and thus has not been made.
Am I wrong? What changes have occurred that now make these investments feasible, whatever the source?
In my opinion everyone is jumping on a bandwagon of a story that is kind of a non-issue and it is unfortunate that it distracts people from the real issues at hand.
The newspaper is playing into this. Great story - that is your job and I don't fault the reporting, but the problem is that people aren't paying attention to begin with so whipping out accusations gets more readers than actual reporting of the issues. If someone gets formally charged with something I may change my mind but it doesn't look like that will happen - and almost every example cited of behavior that "crossed the line" has two sides to it and none of them are conclusive.
Jim M - whoever that is, seems to be the only other person getting this. Jim you hit on some great points. I do believe the part-time nature of these positions makes it very hard for the public to hold their local government accountable and it minimizes the pool of good people available to even hold elected office.
Mark - wonderful and entertaining piece as always. Unfortunately in the haste to chastise both sides in this conflict you seem to have referenced one of the details incorrectly:
You attribute the "Dead, dead, dead wrong" quote to Mr. Potvin, when it in fact was what Mr. Herrick said. Here is the section of the SJ article from the 21st:
"When I did that, they had a hissy fit, and Herrick called me at home — and I recorded it," Potvin said. "He said the war was started, I was finished and that I was dead, dead, dead wrong."
Potvin promptly filed a harassment complaint against Herrick with Auburn police. That complaint was dismissed last week.
Herrick said he was angry, but not angry enough to merit a police report.
Good points editorialboard - I saw this simmering and it seems as though in the frenzy to cut everything, some councilors let themselves get carried away and let things get personal. No one comes out of this looking like a saint but it isn't difficult to read between the lines and see who's intentions are in the right place.
Tron, you may not realize it but the way some of your own statements that paint with a broad brush feed right into this concept of the degradation of public discourse. Politicians on all sides of the spectrum make comments that add to the problem and it is unfair to single out the side that you happen to disagree with.
Bob I heard your brief comment at the meeting and I listened to Herrick's statements but I did not fully understand the problem with Mr. Potvin attending surrounding towns' meetings and meeting personally with various parties in an attempt to spark discussions about various issues that may be a benefit to the City of Auburn. Is the accusation simply that in doing so he gave the impression that he was acting on behalf of the Council? Sounds to me like there is more going on beneath the surface and it sounds like personal issues that probably are irrelevant to the dealings of the Council. I disagree with Mr. Potvin on a number of issues BUT I like some of his consistency on the issues that he raises and I like that he is willing to fight for some things that he knows aren't popular because he believes they are in the best interest of the City. I don't know how an opinionated Mayor might change the landscape on the Council but I do believe that as great as Mr. Jenkins has been on facilitating and moderating discussion it may be a good time for Auburn to have a mayor that at least attempts to lead and direct debate rather than simply facilitate discussion. Don't get me wrong - I highly respect Mr. Jenkins and I think that the way he has brightened things up and encouraged public participation has been priceless for our community, but I have the feeling that he would prefer to keep his opinions quiet most of the time and I wonder whether or not a more aggressive stance on the things he believes in (whatever that may be) might have had an even greater benefit to the City.
Recent Comments
cool discussion
pretty cool that people are talking here. glad to see some passion for once
I don't think anything has
I don't think anything has changed but for several years pre-k has brought in more in federal funding than it has cost so there has been a net positive to the auburn taxpayer as a result of the federal funding structure.
I took the unpopular position of voting against expanding it two years ago because I felt that if and/or when that funding situation changes, that would be when we would see the cost and regret it. So far I have eaten crow on that position and, unless something has changed significantly that we haven't heard about, it remains a moneymaker, and I do believe in the value of the program - especially if it continues to be paid by the federal gov't.
part of the problem again
Part of the problem again is that the discussion is always focused on the ideal situation, starting from the top down rather than talking about how we can work in the right direction so that we've built something solid over time.
When you ask parents, students, faculty, and teachers what they want to have of course the first response is - brand new high school and a mega facility to maximize the education dollar.
But we're aware there is a cost and whenever the topic comes up it seems like it never starts with that as a reality. So it goes nowhere and then we all wonder why...
I agree!!
"Everybody doesn't go to college."
"Everybody's not ready for college."
“Sometimes I don't always explain myself well,”
Joking aside I do feel bad for her - i think the article was a little harsh. I actually agree to some extent with what I perceive to be the intention of her comment - at least the way I would word it - that there apparently isn't much focus on the big chunk of kids who will inevitably end up working with their hands in some way or another.
On one hand that (college emphasis) is probably the safe route to take given limited resources, and along with that is the fear that if college isn't the primary focus, there is always the danger that some of those who may have been in the best position to benefit from a college education might end up going into a trade, and being less productive than if they had gone to college.
On the other hand, knowing that there are so many who underachieve in college and in life, it is difficult to avoid the question of whether or not they might have been better off honing a particular skill or being exposed earlier on to a different path...
I should say were no less
I should say were no less vague - but you get the point I'm sure
Have a nice day!
vague generalities?
I take some offense to this accusation - "vague generalities".
Courage to speak up and being appointed committee chairperson are both great things that I don't disrespect in any way.
But you began your editorial saying that other letters in support of various candidate are vague generalities and I don't really see much difference from yours and all the rest.
The reason I bring it up is because I wrote one myself and I think the issues I raised (here http://www.sunjournal.com/letters/story/928355) were no more vague than the ones you present here.
Support your candidate but please spare us the attempt at a quick jab - it only takes away from your points and suggests a hint of arrogance.
GO BRUCE
Great guy !
thanks for publishing me!
link?
Is it just me or does the link to the study not work?
interesting
Not sure if I disagree with the conclusion - well thought out - I appreciate the read.
I do have a few thoughts though - I don't quite see how a new exit in "the middle" would not serve to redirect the focus of inbound traffic towards the downtown area. I get the fact that there isn't much of a time savings but just the fact that it is there will be a reason for people to take it - it will take time but I don't see how it could possibly hurt the area in anyway.
202-4 in Auburn is already a four lane truck route - yes, with noise and pollution - if the bulk of those trucks could avoid that stretch from downtown auburn south to exit 75 I think that could improve the area significantly.
Irving Travel plaza and Crossroads/Mobil wouldn't benefit from it immediately - nor would the many other businesses on that stretch like it - but without the junk flying up and down that section of the road, it would open up the door to an improvement in the area - away from a loud, dangerous, and bland industrial stretch of no-man's land to something with more of a welcoming residential and mixed commercial feel.
Overall though I don't have a lot of faith in the system to believe that if done, it would be done right... There are so many things to consider and so many things that could go wrong...
Anyways - nice editorial - thanks again
"to starts"?
?
Respectfully Disagree
I don't particularly disagree with any of the 5 points Mr. Gleason has raised but I do have a concern.
My concern is that if we neglect to make at least some of the reductions passed down from the state, and choose to pick up the tab solely from property taxes to maintain the status quo this year, we are assuming the risk of a double impact next year, should a similar reduction occur.
I don't know for certain that another state revenue sharing reduction of this size is likely in the next fiscal year, but I don't think it is safe to assume that it just won't happen -unless the contingency plan is to simply increase the property tax rate by 10% or so on an ongoing basis.
If there was some indication that this is intended as a one time ONLY measure and that no matter what any further reductions in state revenue sharing will need to be dealt with in some other fashion, then all of this would be more palatable. Unfortunately, it appears as though there is plenty of talk about how much of a disaster this is, and I think there needs to be more discussion of the long term view.
Respectfully Disagree
I don't particularly disagree with any of the 5 points Mr. Gleason has raised but I do have a concern.
My concern is that if we neglect to make at least some of the reductions passed down from the state, and choose to pick up the tab solely from property taxes to maintain the status quo this year, we are assuming the risk of a double impact next year, should a similar reduction occur.
I don't know for certain that another state revenue sharing reduction of this size is likely in the next fiscal year, but I don't think it is safe to assume that it just won't happen -unless the contingency plan is to simply increase the property tax rate by 10% or so on an ongoing basis.
If there was some indication that this is intended as a one time ONLY measure and that no matter what any further reductions in state revenue sharing will need to be dealt with in some other fashion, then all of this would be more palatable. Unfortunately, it appears as though there is plenty of talk about how much of a disaster this is, and I think there needs to be more discussion of the long term view.
Come on
I don't understand this - you plan on it a year ahead of time, fund it in the current budget, put out a schedule for it with less than a month away, then during NEXT year's budget discussion you cut cleanup out of THIS year. Something is not right with this.
Thank you Eric, Bob, and Belinda for trying.
Guys the facts of the case
Guys the facts of the case can't be released because of privacy laws - it isn't any kind of cover up or attempt to sweep something under the rug as has been suggested.
The question about the policy was simple - did the administration violate school policy? The answer was clear that action was taken within school policy.
Could a different approach have been taken? Sure. And on the surface it is unfortunate that more could not have been done to prevent the situation and help parents feel safer, but second guessing without knowing the facts doesn't help anything.
If someone wants to contribute something positive to the situation they should show up to the School Committee meetings and suggest ways to improve the policies rather than just sit back and make claims that something could have been done differently.
Resigning superintendent who
Resigning superintendent who is not resigning and a vote to halt the hiring of a principal position that will in fact be hired. Got it ;-)
facebook.com/pages/Ron-Potvin
facebook.com/pages/Ron-Potvin-For-Mayor-of-Auburn/134565376917
_
How many of you have even
How many of you have even been to a School Committee meeting or know who your School Committee person is ?
There are NO cuts being made
There are NO cuts being made under the plan being discussed. I'm not sure where that perception came from - I only wish people would come to these meetings and pay more attention.
The savings would go into teacher's salaries, not be cut from the budget.
family health insurance is
family health insurance is offered. Children and parents are covered - only spouses need to pay to be on the plan, and the savings aren't going elsewhere - they are going back into salaries... Mr. Morrill has made a number of statements to this effect.
I wonder whether the
I wonder whether the motivation for investing such large sums in the areas infrastructure in the past might be a thing of the past for a few reasons.
The investment was not done with government dollars (not that I know of, if this is incorrect I'd like to know). The investments were private dollars motivated by the ability to turn a profit.
Two questions - What was the source of the profit? Does some such source exist today?
The source of the profit was turning crude goods into manufactured goods. The investments in manpower, land, buildings, materials, and operating costs were collectively far less expensive than the value of the return. Finished goods were turned out - whatever they were shoes, blankets, and so on, and the total sales were obviously known to have been far more than the operating costs in total.
The river was used for virtually free power; and labor, though increasing in cost was still cheap and plentiful. Power and labor pretty much sums it up and would seem to me to be the single reason that such investment now, either private or public, has not been shown to be feasible, and thus has not been made.
Am I wrong? What changes have occurred that now make these investments feasible, whatever the source?
In my opinion everyone is
In my opinion everyone is jumping on a bandwagon of a story that is kind of a non-issue and it is unfortunate that it distracts people from the real issues at hand.
The newspaper is playing into this. Great story - that is your job and I don't fault the reporting, but the problem is that people aren't paying attention to begin with so whipping out accusations gets more readers than actual reporting of the issues. If someone gets formally charged with something I may change my mind but it doesn't look like that will happen - and almost every example cited of behavior that "crossed the line" has two sides to it and none of them are conclusive.
Jim M - whoever that is, seems to be the only other person getting this. Jim you hit on some great points. I do believe the part-time nature of these positions makes it very hard for the public to hold their local government accountable and it minimizes the pool of good people available to even hold elected office.
Yes - at least as far as the
Yes - at least as far as the title of the article indicates: NOONE in Ward 4!
Auburnite - did you read the
Auburnite - did you read the first five or six sentences of the article?
no prob treehuggar thanks
no prob treehuggar thanks for the response
!
I totally understand that
I totally understand that (and I hope you arent calling me a fat bastard...)
I love Mark's stuff - I was simply pointing out that it wasn't Potvin who said that - that's all.
Mark - wonderful and
Mark - wonderful and entertaining piece as always. Unfortunately in the haste to chastise both sides in this conflict you seem to have referenced one of the details incorrectly:
You attribute the "Dead, dead, dead wrong" quote to Mr. Potvin, when it in fact was what Mr. Herrick said. Here is the section of the SJ article from the 21st:
"When I did that, they had a hissy fit, and Herrick called me at home — and I recorded it," Potvin said. "He said the war was started, I was finished and that I was dead, dead, dead wrong."
Potvin promptly filed a harassment complaint against Herrick with Auburn police. That complaint was dismissed last week.
Herrick said he was angry, but not angry enough to merit a police report.
http://www.sunjournal.com/node/38437/
"over heavy catholic cohort
"over heavy catholic cohort falls like the bricks of the Cowan Mill"
You show that you have zero credibility to come here making statements like that.
Come back when you've grown up. Or just don't come back.
more of less, but at least
more of less, but at least we know where you stand
Good points editorialboard -
Good points editorialboard - I saw this simmering and it seems as though in the frenzy to cut everything, some councilors let themselves get carried away and let things get personal. No one comes out of this looking like a saint but it isn't difficult to read between the lines and see who's intentions are in the right place.
Tron, you may not realize it but the way some of your own statements that paint with a broad brush feed right into this concept of the degradation of public discourse. Politicians on all sides of the spectrum make comments that add to the problem and it is unfair to single out the side that you happen to disagree with.
Bob I heard your brief
Bob I heard your brief comment at the meeting and I listened to Herrick's statements but I did not fully understand the problem with Mr. Potvin attending surrounding towns' meetings and meeting personally with various parties in an attempt to spark discussions about various issues that may be a benefit to the City of Auburn. Is the accusation simply that in doing so he gave the impression that he was acting on behalf of the Council? Sounds to me like there is more going on beneath the surface and it sounds like personal issues that probably are irrelevant to the dealings of the Council. I disagree with Mr. Potvin on a number of issues BUT I like some of his consistency on the issues that he raises and I like that he is willing to fight for some things that he knows aren't popular because he believes they are in the best interest of the City. I don't know how an opinionated Mayor might change the landscape on the Council but I do believe that as great as Mr. Jenkins has been on facilitating and moderating discussion it may be a good time for Auburn to have a mayor that at least attempts to lead and direct debate rather than simply facilitate discussion. Don't get me wrong - I highly respect Mr. Jenkins and I think that the way he has brightened things up and encouraged public participation has been priceless for our community, but I have the feeling that he would prefer to keep his opinions quiet most of the time and I wonder whether or not a more aggressive stance on the things he believes in (whatever that may be) might have had an even greater benefit to the City.