Senator Prague and her opponent, Matthew Daly of Hebron, met Wednesday night for a debate.
In the course of the debate, Senator again called for tollbooths on state highways to generate more revenue for the state's coffers. She claims the funds would go to education and ease the tax burden on local property owners.
State funding for education is inadequate at best and there is no reason to believe the situation would change regardless of the amount of taxes the state collects. If the state won’t increase education funding when is has a $1,000,000,000 (billion) surplus when might it happen.
While tolls might help some property owners, the fact is that tolls would simply be another tax as the towns would not lower property tax rates. The towns would merely continue to spend the money.
Senator Prague said, "If we had more revenues coming in, we could finds better ways of distributing it". What she meant by that comment was that there would be more money to funnel into projects that assure more votes for her and the rest of the “spendacrats”.
Mr. Daly was correct when he said that adding tollbooths is just another way of taxing people. Mr. Daly’s thinking with regard to tax structure and spending are much more in line with fiscal responsibility
Senator Prague, a six-term incumbent, was correct when she said the state is facing critical problems in the future in providing for health care, job growth and transportation. She also said that the state needs more revenue to do that. In that, she is incorrect. What the state needs is responsible and conservative fiscal planning and expenditure.
That is the opposite of what Senator Prague proposes. She has done a good job of representing the people of Montville in the past. She has earned the right to an honorable retirement. She should begin to enjoy that retirement before she spoils her record by embracing the leftist philosophy of the new mainstream Democrats.
Reference: Norwich Bulletin article of 10/05/06
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Another Incremental Attack on the 2nd Amendment
The Norwich Bulletin editorial titled “Gun Safety Merits Hearing at State Level” (09/15/2006) contained some errors but the gist was unmistakable. It is evident that the Bulletin is fervently opposed to the Second Amendment. When blatant frontal attacks on the rights of citizens to bear arms fail, all good socialists resort to incremental methods to attain their goals.
One line in the Bulletin editorial sums the stand of that publication. That sentence reads, “The wonder is the state has not stepped up already to regulate the discharge of firearms”. The next line in the editorial exposes the typical socialist paternal attitude that citizens are incapable of self-rule. That sentence reads, “This is an issue of safety and common sense.” The Bulletin, typical of most media believes the public, and gun owners in particular, do not have enough common sense to act safely in any matter.
The primary “fear” of those opposed to the original proposal is not the confiscation of guns. Confiscation is too blatant and the left wing “Cookie Cutter” Democrats know that. Their strategy is to incrementally restrict the possession and use of firearms to the point where ownership and use becomes impractical if not impossible.
As stated in the Bulletin editorial, State Representative Kevin Ryan intends to assemble "the stakeholders", police, public safety officials, sportsmen's groups and members of the NRA to discuss a law that would outlaw the discharge of firearms within 500 feet of a building housing people, pets or livestock.
Although the National Rifle Association (NRA) regards him favorably, Mr. Ryan is an unknown quantity. Once introduced into the legislative process, and out of Mr. Ryan’s purview, the “Cookie Cutter” Democrats controlling the Connecticut Legislature will turn even his most well intentioned proposal into the most restrictive and expensive law possible.
The Bulletin editorialized earlier that not all gun owners are as skilled with firearms as are members of the NRA and stated that the point is central to the argument. That statement is one of the few accurate proclamations in the Bulletin’s editorial history. However, there are numerous existing laws to cover intentional or negligent behavior involving firearms. No new laws regarding the use of firearms are necessary.
At the risk of being reasonable, the following suggestion is offered. Rather than restrict the use of firearms, why not have legislation that specifies requirements for safe target ranges regardless of the location. No such regulation currently exists in Connecticut. Constructing the directive would be easy using the resources of local and national target ranges, target shooting organizations, and the NRA.
Perhaps Mr. Ryan would consider that alternative rather than letting the cookie cutters impose more draconian restrictions on the possession and use of firearms in Connecticut.
Reference:
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060915/OPINION01/609150317/1014/OPINION
One line in the Bulletin editorial sums the stand of that publication. That sentence reads, “The wonder is the state has not stepped up already to regulate the discharge of firearms”. The next line in the editorial exposes the typical socialist paternal attitude that citizens are incapable of self-rule. That sentence reads, “This is an issue of safety and common sense.” The Bulletin, typical of most media believes the public, and gun owners in particular, do not have enough common sense to act safely in any matter.
The primary “fear” of those opposed to the original proposal is not the confiscation of guns. Confiscation is too blatant and the left wing “Cookie Cutter” Democrats know that. Their strategy is to incrementally restrict the possession and use of firearms to the point where ownership and use becomes impractical if not impossible.
As stated in the Bulletin editorial, State Representative Kevin Ryan intends to assemble "the stakeholders", police, public safety officials, sportsmen's groups and members of the NRA to discuss a law that would outlaw the discharge of firearms within 500 feet of a building housing people, pets or livestock.
Although the National Rifle Association (NRA) regards him favorably, Mr. Ryan is an unknown quantity. Once introduced into the legislative process, and out of Mr. Ryan’s purview, the “Cookie Cutter” Democrats controlling the Connecticut Legislature will turn even his most well intentioned proposal into the most restrictive and expensive law possible.
The Bulletin editorialized earlier that not all gun owners are as skilled with firearms as are members of the NRA and stated that the point is central to the argument. That statement is one of the few accurate proclamations in the Bulletin’s editorial history. However, there are numerous existing laws to cover intentional or negligent behavior involving firearms. No new laws regarding the use of firearms are necessary.
At the risk of being reasonable, the following suggestion is offered. Rather than restrict the use of firearms, why not have legislation that specifies requirements for safe target ranges regardless of the location. No such regulation currently exists in Connecticut. Constructing the directive would be easy using the resources of local and national target ranges, target shooting organizations, and the NRA.
Perhaps Mr. Ryan would consider that alternative rather than letting the cookie cutters impose more draconian restrictions on the possession and use of firearms in Connecticut.
Reference:
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060915/OPINION01/609150317/1014/OPINION
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Montville Litigation Summary
The total of recent and likely future rulings against Montville known as of August 2006 is at least $16.95 million not including legal fees.
1996 - Rand-Whitney sued the town over the quality of recycled water provided to the paper plant. The town has incurred about $1.6 million in legal costs as of August 2006. The court awarded Rand-Whitney $10 million. The company was also awarded $3.5 for reimbursement of legal fees.
12/2004 - The town will pay $2.65 million to Montville Power LLC from 2006 to 2011 to settle the power plant's appeal of its tax assessments.
07/2005 - The O'Connor's family is seeking reimbursement of medical expenses and other damages incurred during an accident involving a town ambulance April 22, 2005. The amount sought is not known.
10/2005 - Nancy Sullivan filed a complaint against the town through the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
06/2006 - Residents of 18 properties on Podurgiel Lane have notified the town they intend to sue because of property damage they endured from construction of the Montville Commons shopping complex.
05/2006 - For the fifth straight year, Rand-Whitney Containerboard is suing the town in an effort to reduce the company's tax assessments. Rand-Whitney, one of the town's biggest taxpayers, is challenging not only the $20 million personal property assessment the town set on its Route 163 paper mill, but also the $16 million real estate assessment the town established in 2005. Combined, those assessments would yield nearly $1,047,600 in municipal taxes this year.
The company alleges it overpaid the town $1.3 million in personal property taxes and an unknown amount in real estate taxes.
06/2006 - Residents and property owners of Podurgiel Lane are suing the town to reverse a June 6 decision by the planning commission to approve modifications to the Montville Commons shopping center site plan.
07/2006 - The Rev. Jerry Davis, mother of Patrick Davis, filed an intent notice Friday (07/07/06) in the town clerk's office. Davis claims her son sustained serious physical injuries, including a torn kidney, a punctured intestine, punctured colon, a collapsed left lung and a main artery clot. Davis claims the school "failed to have bus monitors, supervision or security to protect" her son.
08/2006 - Podurgiel Lane residents, along with a handful of other property owners, also have filed a lawsuit to reverse the Planning and Zoning Commission's July 25 decision to approve site plan modifications for a fueling station on the site that would be operated by Stop & Shop.
1996 - Rand-Whitney sued the town over the quality of recycled water provided to the paper plant. The town has incurred about $1.6 million in legal costs as of August 2006. The court awarded Rand-Whitney $10 million. The company was also awarded $3.5 for reimbursement of legal fees.
12/2004 - The town will pay $2.65 million to Montville Power LLC from 2006 to 2011 to settle the power plant's appeal of its tax assessments.
07/2005 - The O'Connor's family is seeking reimbursement of medical expenses and other damages incurred during an accident involving a town ambulance April 22, 2005. The amount sought is not known.
10/2005 - Nancy Sullivan filed a complaint against the town through the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
06/2006 - Residents of 18 properties on Podurgiel Lane have notified the town they intend to sue because of property damage they endured from construction of the Montville Commons shopping complex.
05/2006 - For the fifth straight year, Rand-Whitney Containerboard is suing the town in an effort to reduce the company's tax assessments. Rand-Whitney, one of the town's biggest taxpayers, is challenging not only the $20 million personal property assessment the town set on its Route 163 paper mill, but also the $16 million real estate assessment the town established in 2005. Combined, those assessments would yield nearly $1,047,600 in municipal taxes this year.
The company alleges it overpaid the town $1.3 million in personal property taxes and an unknown amount in real estate taxes.
06/2006 - Residents and property owners of Podurgiel Lane are suing the town to reverse a June 6 decision by the planning commission to approve modifications to the Montville Commons shopping center site plan.
07/2006 - The Rev. Jerry Davis, mother of Patrick Davis, filed an intent notice Friday (07/07/06) in the town clerk's office. Davis claims her son sustained serious physical injuries, including a torn kidney, a punctured intestine, punctured colon, a collapsed left lung and a main artery clot. Davis claims the school "failed to have bus monitors, supervision or security to protect" her son.
08/2006 - Podurgiel Lane residents, along with a handful of other property owners, also have filed a lawsuit to reverse the Planning and Zoning Commission's July 25 decision to approve site plan modifications for a fueling station on the site that would be operated by Stop & Shop.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Review of the Proposed Ordinance
Title
The word “dangerous” is redundant and inherently untrue in this application. The document seeks to criminalize legal behavior where illegal behavior is covered by existing state laws.
Preface Paragraph 1
1. There are no state laws regarding bows other than for hunting.
2. Contrary to the statement, any safety concerns related by this document are not for those using the devices but are supposedly for the public.
Preface Paragraph 2
1. The phrase “firing range” and the word “shooting” imply firearms but the document also addresses other devices.
2. The word “firing” is redundant and confusing.
3. There is no mention of property.
Preface Paragraph 3
No comment.
Section I
1. This section conflicts with Chapter 490, Section 26-38, Hunting by Minors, and in the case of parents supervising/instructing their children, is a violation of the second amendment and counter to reasonable use of property.
2. This provision prohibits the use of toy bows with suction cup arrows.
3. This provision bans “squirt guns” powered by air (Super Soaker type).
4. The word “rifle” is redundant to “firearm”, unless the state definitions were intended in which case the section is incomplete.
Section II
1. This section probably conflicts with Chapter 490, Section 26-48 - Private Shooting Preserves.
2. Subsections 1 and 2 require that all persons, livestock, pets and other domestic animals be kept within 500 feet of dwellings of building stands and pets.
3 Subsection 3 restricts use of private property.
4. Subsection 3 would require the posting of the lands identified to allow compliance.
5. In Subsection 3, the phrase “public highways” would ban virtually all shooting activities in the town and would probably disallow an existing range.
6. In Subsection 3, the phrase “any and all other public places” is probably unconstitutionally vague.
Section III
1. This section is contradictory as it pertains to instructors. How could a minor violate the ordinance if on a range under the supervision of an instructor?
Section IV
1. Although this section appears to guarantee constitutional rights provided by the second amendment, the language of the remainder of the document could be used to infringe on those rights as well as other rights assured the constitution and law.
2. This section fails to reference what federal, state and local laws and regulations pertain to a “qualified shooting range”
Section V
No Comment
General Comments
1. Under the terms of Section IV, a person operating under the provisions of Section I would be in violation of the ordinance (“qualified instructor” versus “certified firearms safety personnel”).
2. This ordinance is not needed, state law covers
"Reckless Endangerment", Chapter 952, Sec. 53a-63 and 53a-64
“Criminal Negligence”, Section 53-3(14)
“Unlawful Discharge of Firearms” Chapter 943, Section 53-203
“Assault with a Deadly Weapon - Third Degree” Section 53a-61 (a) (3)
“Disorderly Conduct” Chapter 952, Section 53a-182
3. The document is poorly written and is inconsistent in its terminology and word usage.
4. The ordinance does not define, nor reference definitions of, an “authorized range”, “firearm”, “qualified instructor”, or “firearms safety personnel”.
5. There is no definition of a shooting range on a state level.
Questions
Q1. What criteria does a shooting range have to meet to be “qualified”?
Q2. What are the qualifications of a “qualified instructor”?
Q3. What are the qualifications of a “certified firearms safety person”?
Q4. What is a “building stands” (Section II, Subsection 1)?
Q5. Will existing ranges be “grandfathered”?
Q6. How would the ordinance affect indoor shooting ranges or ranges on or inside private property/residences?
References
Chapter 943, Section 53-203. Unlawful discharge of firearms.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-203.htm
Chapter 950, Section 53a-3(14) - Criminal Negligence
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap950.htm - Sec53a-3.htm
Chapter 950, Section 53a-3(19) – Firearm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap950.htm - Sec53a-3.htm
Chapter 950, Section 53a-61(a)(3) - Assault with a Deadly Weapon - Third Degree
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm - Sec53a-61.htm
Chapter 952, Section 53a-63. Reckless endangerment in the first degree: Class A misdemeanor.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm#Sec53a-63.htm
Chapter 952, Section 53a-64. Reckless endangerment in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm#Sec53a-64.htm
The word “dangerous” is redundant and inherently untrue in this application. The document seeks to criminalize legal behavior where illegal behavior is covered by existing state laws.
Preface Paragraph 1
1. There are no state laws regarding bows other than for hunting.
2. Contrary to the statement, any safety concerns related by this document are not for those using the devices but are supposedly for the public.
Preface Paragraph 2
1. The phrase “firing range” and the word “shooting” imply firearms but the document also addresses other devices.
2. The word “firing” is redundant and confusing.
3. There is no mention of property.
Preface Paragraph 3
No comment.
Section I
1. This section conflicts with Chapter 490, Section 26-38, Hunting by Minors, and in the case of parents supervising/instructing their children, is a violation of the second amendment and counter to reasonable use of property.
2. This provision prohibits the use of toy bows with suction cup arrows.
3. This provision bans “squirt guns” powered by air (Super Soaker type).
4. The word “rifle” is redundant to “firearm”, unless the state definitions were intended in which case the section is incomplete.
Section II
1. This section probably conflicts with Chapter 490, Section 26-48 - Private Shooting Preserves.
2. Subsections 1 and 2 require that all persons, livestock, pets and other domestic animals be kept within 500 feet of dwellings of building stands and pets.
3 Subsection 3 restricts use of private property.
4. Subsection 3 would require the posting of the lands identified to allow compliance.
5. In Subsection 3, the phrase “public highways” would ban virtually all shooting activities in the town and would probably disallow an existing range.
6. In Subsection 3, the phrase “any and all other public places” is probably unconstitutionally vague.
Section III
1. This section is contradictory as it pertains to instructors. How could a minor violate the ordinance if on a range under the supervision of an instructor?
Section IV
1. Although this section appears to guarantee constitutional rights provided by the second amendment, the language of the remainder of the document could be used to infringe on those rights as well as other rights assured the constitution and law.
2. This section fails to reference what federal, state and local laws and regulations pertain to a “qualified shooting range”
Section V
No Comment
General Comments
1. Under the terms of Section IV, a person operating under the provisions of Section I would be in violation of the ordinance (“qualified instructor” versus “certified firearms safety personnel”).
2. This ordinance is not needed, state law covers
"Reckless Endangerment", Chapter 952, Sec. 53a-63 and 53a-64
“Criminal Negligence”, Section 53-3(14)
“Unlawful Discharge of Firearms” Chapter 943, Section 53-203
“Assault with a Deadly Weapon - Third Degree” Section 53a-61 (a) (3)
“Disorderly Conduct” Chapter 952, Section 53a-182
3. The document is poorly written and is inconsistent in its terminology and word usage.
4. The ordinance does not define, nor reference definitions of, an “authorized range”, “firearm”, “qualified instructor”, or “firearms safety personnel”.
5. There is no definition of a shooting range on a state level.
Questions
Q1. What criteria does a shooting range have to meet to be “qualified”?
Q2. What are the qualifications of a “qualified instructor”?
Q3. What are the qualifications of a “certified firearms safety person”?
Q4. What is a “building stands” (Section II, Subsection 1)?
Q5. Will existing ranges be “grandfathered”?
Q6. How would the ordinance affect indoor shooting ranges or ranges on or inside private property/residences?
References
Chapter 943, Section 53-203. Unlawful discharge of firearms.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-203.htm
Chapter 950, Section 53a-3(14) - Criminal Negligence
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap950.htm - Sec53a-3.htm
Chapter 950, Section 53a-3(19) – Firearm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap950.htm - Sec53a-3.htm
Chapter 950, Section 53a-61(a)(3) - Assault with a Deadly Weapon - Third Degree
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm - Sec53a-61.htm
Chapter 952, Section 53a-63. Reckless endangerment in the first degree: Class A misdemeanor.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm#Sec53a-63.htm
Chapter 952, Section 53a-64. Reckless endangerment in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm#Sec53a-64.htm
Friday, August 11, 2006
Proposed 2nd Amendment Ordinance
Ordinance Concerning the Discharge of Dangerous Weapons within the Town of Montville
Whereas, Connecticut state laws pertaining to the discharge of firearms and bows and arrows do not address safety concerns for those who wish to target practice; and,
Whereas, the Town of Montville seeks to provide for the safety of the general public and their pets and livestock within firing range of those who wish to practice target shooting; and,
Whereas, the Connecticut state laws do provide safety distances for hunters and the Town of Montville desires to employ those same safety precautions for those who wish to practice target shooting;
The Town of Montville Hereby Ordains that:
1. No minor under 16 years of age shall discharge any firearm, rifle, CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, sling shot, or bow and arrows, within the limits of the Town of Montville unless such discharge shall be in an authorized range for such purposes and in the presence of and under the supervision of the parent or legal guardian of such minor or a duly qualified instructor.
2. Except where permitted by state law, no person shall discharge any firearm, rifle, CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, sling shot, or bow and arrows outdoors within five hundred (500) feet of: 1) an occupied dwelling or a building stands that houses domestic animals or livestock or is used to store flammable or explosive materials; 2) where persons, livestock, pets and other domestic animals are present; and 3) lands designated as nature preserves or conservancies, public parks or hiking trails, school grounds, public highways, and any and all other public places.
3. Any person in violation of this ordinance, or any parent, legal guardian or instructor permitting violation by a minor less than sixteen years of age shall be fined Ninety ($90.00) Dollars. Each day such violation is committed shall be deemed a separate offense.
4. This Ordinance is not intended to, nor does it, prohibit persons from exercising their constitutional rights with respect to gun ownership and self defense, nor is this Ordinance applicable to qualified shooting ranges staffed by certified firearms safety personnel. A qualified shooting range is one that has been established and is in compliance with all state, federal and local laws and regulations governing same.
5. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Whereas, Connecticut state laws pertaining to the discharge of firearms and bows and arrows do not address safety concerns for those who wish to target practice; and,
Whereas, the Town of Montville seeks to provide for the safety of the general public and their pets and livestock within firing range of those who wish to practice target shooting; and,
Whereas, the Connecticut state laws do provide safety distances for hunters and the Town of Montville desires to employ those same safety precautions for those who wish to practice target shooting;
The Town of Montville Hereby Ordains that:
1. No minor under 16 years of age shall discharge any firearm, rifle, CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, sling shot, or bow and arrows, within the limits of the Town of Montville unless such discharge shall be in an authorized range for such purposes and in the presence of and under the supervision of the parent or legal guardian of such minor or a duly qualified instructor.
2. Except where permitted by state law, no person shall discharge any firearm, rifle, CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, sling shot, or bow and arrows outdoors within five hundred (500) feet of: 1) an occupied dwelling or a building stands that houses domestic animals or livestock or is used to store flammable or explosive materials; 2) where persons, livestock, pets and other domestic animals are present; and 3) lands designated as nature preserves or conservancies, public parks or hiking trails, school grounds, public highways, and any and all other public places.
3. Any person in violation of this ordinance, or any parent, legal guardian or instructor permitting violation by a minor less than sixteen years of age shall be fined Ninety ($90.00) Dollars. Each day such violation is committed shall be deemed a separate offense.
4. This Ordinance is not intended to, nor does it, prohibit persons from exercising their constitutional rights with respect to gun ownership and self defense, nor is this Ordinance applicable to qualified shooting ranges staffed by certified firearms safety personnel. A qualified shooting range is one that has been established and is in compliance with all state, federal and local laws and regulations governing same.
5. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Solving the Rand Whitney Problem
Montville is researching alternate means of providing water to Rand-Whitney Container Board.
The Town Council has approved $25,000 for a no-bid contract to study town property (behind Montville Hardware) to determine if it can provide water to meet Rand-Whitney needs.
The town is in multi-million dollar litigation with Rand-Whitney. The suit concerns a 1993 contract in which the town agreed to provide the company with treated wastewater from the WPCA treatment plant for use in its facility. Rand-Whitney sued because the town allegedly failed to provide water of sufficient quality. Rand-Whitney may have hoodwinked the town and the town did not adequately research the requirements and implications of the contract before signing, but those are issues of the litigation. What matters is resolving the basic problem.
The town must ensure that any new source of water not only meets quantity requirements but also meets or exceeds the quality requirements. The town, the state, and Rand-Whitney need to be involved in the solution. If the quantity and quality are satisfactory to all parties, then the town should competitively bid all contracts. The problem needs to be resolved, but not with a hurried answer and no-bid contract process
The Town Council has approved $25,000 for a no-bid contract to study town property (behind Montville Hardware) to determine if it can provide water to meet Rand-Whitney needs.
The town is in multi-million dollar litigation with Rand-Whitney. The suit concerns a 1993 contract in which the town agreed to provide the company with treated wastewater from the WPCA treatment plant for use in its facility. Rand-Whitney sued because the town allegedly failed to provide water of sufficient quality. Rand-Whitney may have hoodwinked the town and the town did not adequately research the requirements and implications of the contract before signing, but those are issues of the litigation. What matters is resolving the basic problem.
The town must ensure that any new source of water not only meets quantity requirements but also meets or exceeds the quality requirements. The town, the state, and Rand-Whitney need to be involved in the solution. If the quantity and quality are satisfactory to all parties, then the town should competitively bid all contracts. The problem needs to be resolved, but not with a hurried answer and no-bid contract process
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Montville Mayor to Abolish 2nd Amendment
In an effort garner political points under the guise of resolving a quarrel between two town citizens over a private shooting range, Montville Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz is working to prohibit all shooting in Montville.
The Mayor's ordinance would outlaw the discharge of any firearm (as yet undefined) "within 500 feet of an occupied building, near livestock, pets or people, or land designated as a nature preserve, conservancy or town park" (read anywhere). A request for a copy of the proposed ordinance has not yet been satisfied. Media accounts describing the proposal can only be interpreted as a total prohibition of recreational shooting and personal protection.
It is vital that Montville citizens and those interested in preserving the constitution contact Mayor Jaskiewicz at (860) 848-3030 Ext. 301, and advocate against the proposed ordinance.
The ordinance will probably be introduced during the Town Council meeting August 14 (7:00 P.M.). Contact the Town Council members to ask them to oppose Mayor Jaskiewicz's anti-constitution proposal. Attend the meeting and speak out. Council member contact information can be found at http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.653.15.333471 or by calling 848-1349.
The Mayor's ordinance would outlaw the discharge of any firearm (as yet undefined) "within 500 feet of an occupied building, near livestock, pets or people, or land designated as a nature preserve, conservancy or town park" (read anywhere). A request for a copy of the proposed ordinance has not yet been satisfied. Media accounts describing the proposal can only be interpreted as a total prohibition of recreational shooting and personal protection.
It is vital that Montville citizens and those interested in preserving the constitution contact Mayor Jaskiewicz at (860) 848-3030 Ext. 301, and advocate against the proposed ordinance.
The ordinance will probably be introduced during the Town Council meeting August 14 (7:00 P.M.). Contact the Town Council members to ask them to oppose Mayor Jaskiewicz's anti-constitution proposal. Attend the meeting and speak out. Council member contact information can be found at http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.653.15.333471 or by calling 848-1349.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Referendums Rigged
On June 3, 2002, voters approved the Montville School Building Project by referendum with 2,682 in favor and 321 opposed. A total 3003 of people voted.
On March 7, 2006, voters approved additional funding for cost overruns and additions to the project. The high school football field replacement was a separate item on that ballot. The additional funding was approved 1,386 to 668. The football field passed 1,035 to 924. 2,054 and 1,959 people voted respectively.
The town website indicates that 14,885 people (CERC Town Profiles 2005) of voting age reside in Montville. The number of non-resident property owners is not available.
The Board of Education employs about 337 people in teaching and administrative positions. There are nine members of the Board of Education, 11 members of the Building Committee, and about 118 people employed in support positions (transportation, cafeteria, etc.). The approximate total number of people engaged with the Board of Education is about 475.
If each of those has a significant other and they live in Montville, at least 950 Board of Education employees or their relatives probably voted. Other relatives, friends, and Connecticut Education Association (CEA) members undoubtedly added to that total.
For sake of conversation, say 1,050 employees, family, and friends of the Board of Education voted in the referendums. Respectively, that equates to 35 percent, 51 percent, and 54 percent of those voting in the referendums.
So where were the other citizens of Montville? Between the two referendums, the town obligated about 54 million dollars. There is also little doubt that cost overruns, beyond the $54 million, will occur and the project will demand even more money.
The referendums were rigged by the apathy of the citizens of Montville. The “ordinary people” of Montville need to wake up and participate in their government.
References:
Various articles appearing in The Day and Norwich Bulletin newspapers
http://www.montvilleschools.org/building/building_projects.htm
http://www.montville-ct.org/CMS/default.asp?CMS_PageID=337
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/der/ssp/dist0304/dist054.pdf
http://www.townofmontville.org/CMS/default.asp?CMS_PageID=379
Telephone inquiry to the office of the Montville School Superintendent on August 4, 2006
On March 7, 2006, voters approved additional funding for cost overruns and additions to the project. The high school football field replacement was a separate item on that ballot. The additional funding was approved 1,386 to 668. The football field passed 1,035 to 924. 2,054 and 1,959 people voted respectively.
The town website indicates that 14,885 people (CERC Town Profiles 2005) of voting age reside in Montville. The number of non-resident property owners is not available.
The Board of Education employs about 337 people in teaching and administrative positions. There are nine members of the Board of Education, 11 members of the Building Committee, and about 118 people employed in support positions (transportation, cafeteria, etc.). The approximate total number of people engaged with the Board of Education is about 475.
If each of those has a significant other and they live in Montville, at least 950 Board of Education employees or their relatives probably voted. Other relatives, friends, and Connecticut Education Association (CEA) members undoubtedly added to that total.
For sake of conversation, say 1,050 employees, family, and friends of the Board of Education voted in the referendums. Respectively, that equates to 35 percent, 51 percent, and 54 percent of those voting in the referendums.
So where were the other citizens of Montville? Between the two referendums, the town obligated about 54 million dollars. There is also little doubt that cost overruns, beyond the $54 million, will occur and the project will demand even more money.
The referendums were rigged by the apathy of the citizens of Montville. The “ordinary people” of Montville need to wake up and participate in their government.
References:
Various articles appearing in The Day and Norwich Bulletin newspapers
http://www.montvilleschools.org/building/building_projects.htm
http://www.montville-ct.org/CMS/default.asp?CMS_PageID=337
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/der/ssp/dist0304/dist054.pdf
http://www.townofmontville.org/CMS/default.asp?CMS_PageID=379
Telephone inquiry to the office of the Montville School Superintendent on August 4, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)