Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

As President of FCTO, I wish to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Susan Alberty, Chair of Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT) who invited me to their September 29, 2005 Anniversary Dinner.� Susan and her colleagues are certainly doing something right as the room was filled to capacity with concerned taxpayers.� I had an opportunity to bring a message from the Federation and enjoy some good conversation with those attending.� Thank you Susan for inviting me.�� The taxpayers in Danielson and surrounding communities are to be commended for the positions they have taken against growing property taxes and eminent domain.� �Susan Kniep

�

*****

On Friday, October 6, 2005, I accompanied New London homeowners into the New London Development Corporation to review documentation under a Freedom of Information request.�� The following link will take you to Channel 8 who was there to greet us when we arrived.� We will soon be reporting on our findings and expect to request further information to help us to understand this organization, the public and private money which supports it, and the impact the NLDC and the New London City Council has had on the lives of nearly 100 families uprooted through the power of eminent domain abuse.�

Residents investigating New London Development Corporation
(New London-WTNH, Oct. 7, 2005 6:10 PM) _ The fight over eminent domain has sent some residents on a fact finding mission. The residents say they are using the Freedom of Information Act to get inside the New London Development Corporation. by News Channel 8's Tina Detelj Armed with digital...

In addition to the information we have sought, the following website http://www.freeforttrumbull.com/ was forwarded to me.� I suggest each and every Connecticut resident visit this website, and Follow the $$$$$ leaking from the NLDC pipeline http://www.freeforttrumbull.com/$.htm .

Please also support the New London slate of candidates running for office in their attempt to unseat those in power who have forced New London homeowners from their homes.�� It is only through the voting booth that our power can be felt.� In 2005, you have an opportunity to support the candidates running for office in New London http://www.freeforttrumbull.com/contribute.htm who are attempting to protect the property rights of New London homeowners.�

As 28 States have effectively reformed their laws to protect their constituents, Connecticut Democrats have done little to protect the property rights of Connecticut homeowners.� In 2006, if the State legislature has refused to effectively protect our interests, you can exercise your vote to remove your State elected officials from office and elect someone who understands your concerns for losing your home to eminent domain.��

Please read the following I received from Tom Pcinich of New London.� �Susan Kniep

*****

Tom Picinich & Ellen Kleckner� tomellen8@yahoo.com

New London

My name is Tom Picinich. My wife and I are homeowners in New London, CT and I lost my home to eminent domain in the infamous New London Municipal Development Plan. As you know, this is also the same MDP and city of which the Kelo US Supreme Court Case originated.� I'm writing to ask if you could kindly publicize a new PAC website that was formed to help us sweep out all our eminent domain abusers in this November�s election! �I've never run for political office � but I am running now along with Michael Cristofaro- one of the Fort Trumbull seven. �The website of Free New London is: �http://www.freeforttrumbull.com/

*****

ctjodi@sbcglobal.net

Updated Mill Rates, Budget Adoption Experiences, and CT Tax Increase Comparisons

Sept 14, 2005

Hi, all.� Attached are the updated Mill Rate Lists, Budget Adoption Experiences, and CT Tax Increase Comparisons spreadsheet.

On the Mill Rate spreadsheet, 3 towns have reported corrections (Orange, Pomfret, and Hampton), and, with the passage of Watertown IV, the mill rate has now been set at 21.35, for a total of four changes from the Mill Rate list I last sent out. On the Budget Adoption Experiences spreadsheet, we are now down to four towns with unapproved budgets: Coventry V, New London III, Middlebury III, and Westbrook IV.� Yesterday�s defeat of Westbrook III and passage of Watertown IV have been reflected.� Two of the unapproved towns, Coventry and Middlebury, are considering zero mill increases, although Coventry is looking for additional input at Town Meeting.� We expect the New London referendum next week to fail, although their form of town government and budget voting is not easy to reflect in a spreadsheet.� Canterbury�s and Watertown�s budget passage is offset by the defeats in Coventry and Westbrook, which drive the number of referendums required to pass a budget upward.� �Yet another third party has emerged, and that is in East Hampton:� the Chatham party, which is generally based on last year�s usage of the �Chatham Roundtable Discussions� concept in that town.�� In addition, I think it is fair to call �Windsor United� a third party, even though they are staunchly Democratic.� The time is quickly coming in which we will have to start coming up with a better definition of �third party.�� Third Party� may ultimately be defined as a �Challenge Party� to the two established parties of Republicans and Democrats.� The results of yesterday�s primaries should raise eyebrows.� Certainly challenge slates and challenge candidates to party-endorsed slates and candidates were more successful than has been seen in the past.� Many party-endorsed candidates (and in many cases, incumbents) were defeated in primary, which was very surprising in at least four towns.� One of the most watched primaries was in Middlebury; the showing made by Bollard-Carpinella was respectable, even though they lost.� Their appeal to Unaffiliateds and Democrats should make the November elections in Middlebury worthy of analysis.� I think there is no doubt that these challenge parties will have an impact in the November elections. What would be interesting is to analyze other states, and see if challenge parties are also emerging in those states, and what their level of success is.� The statewide average of all approved budgets � with multiple referendum votes and multiple defeated budget proposals factored out � now stands at 4.34%.� The CT Tax Increase Comparisons spreadsheet has not statistically budged for months, even though we are now down to just four towns with unapproved budgets.� The average of all defeated budgets stands at 6.7%.� If you remember the analysis I sent you on May 4, following the first round of voting in �Sweeps Week�, the data showed: Of the 28 passed budgets, the average tax increase is 4.35%, but the vast majority of those passed budgets is correlated directly to the �method of voting�, which at this point is being strongly influenced by towns in which the funding authority is a Town Council, a BET, a BAT, or an RTM.� Of the 15 failed budgets, the average failed budget is 6.37% increase.� The failed budgets are likewise primarily in those towns which have referendums as the charter-designated method of voting.� For the past three years, the data has been consistent in predicting the ultimate results of statewide tax increase averages following the initial votes in the first week of May.� I expect this consistency to continue next year.� Any corrections, please let me know.� Thanks, Donna�� Please see attached excel spreadsheet!

**********

Flo Stahl, Avon Taxpayers Assocation

Subject:� Susan Kniep's Presentation on Eminent Domain

Sept 19, 2005

Dear Susan:� I was very pleased to have attended the Federalist Society "hearing" in the Judiciary Room at the State Capitol and thought your presentation was, from a common sense citizens' view, absolutely on point. Lawyers can and do parse meanings, often in a tortured way. But your statement was clear and unequivocal. Atty. Horton was rather flip, in my opinion, more interested in his ego as having pleaded before the Supreme Court; Atty. Berliner was probably the most realistic in predicting that nothing much is going to change, and Atty. Rose was the pragmatist arguing that eminent domain is often the only alternative. Berliner's plea that other alternatives be seriously considered was brushed aside, but I hope will gain traction. Rose and Horton missed the point about the misuse of eminent domain and private development. They did not address that important issue at all, instead chose to characterize those in opposition as not wanting eminent domain used at all...ever. A common tactic when trying to mock your adversaries.� Flo

*****

WYMAN PROJECTS $29.1 MILLION SURPLUS FOR 2006, SAYS RISING FUEL COSTS COULD WEAKEN ECONOMY

State Comptroller Nancy Wyman today projected the state will end the 2006 fiscal year with a $29.1 million surplus.� The estimated surplus is almost entirely attributed to the recent spike in fuel prices, which create higher collection of tax revenue from oil companies. But those rising prices also are dampening the outlook for the state�s overall economy.� �Those prices may be bad news for Connecticut�s economy if they continue to strain the resources of the consumer, businesses and state government,� Wyman said. �The cost of energy combined with rising interest rates could jeopardize the pace of economic growth in the coming months.�� The tax on oil company receipts is expected to generate about $172 million in state revenue by the time the fiscal year ends on June 30, 2006. That is about $40 million higher than original estimates.� Despite the rise in fuel costs, Wyman said Connecticut�s overall economy currently remains sound. The state added 1,600 jobs in August, and corporate profits grew by a solid 6 percent over the last fiscal quarter.� Retail sales in August grew by nearly 8 percent from the same time last year, and the major equity indexes showed modest growth for the fiscal quarter that ended Sept. 30.

*****

Marvin Edelman, marvined@earthlink.net

Willimantic Taxpayers Assocation

Subject:� Binding Arbitration

October 7, 2005

Dear Sue:

Ken Mosher has written a very clear exposition of the regressive nature of
binding arbitration.� Marvin

For those that are interested, I submitted the following testimony to a Connecticut legislative committee that was holding a hearing on Binding Arbitration (for teachers). Since teachers are prohibited from striking, Binding Arbitration is a way to ensure that contract negotiations between the union and the board of education are resolved definitively and on a fixed schedule. I believe that binding arbitration is bad for taxpayers, and I presented my case to the committee via the letter below. I hope my libertarian thinking is sound.� Ken Mosher

�Dear Committee Members,� My name is Ken Mosher and I am an elected member of the Board of� Education for Region 8 (RHAM). Region 8 is comprised of Hebron, Andover and Marlborough.� As you know, between 70% to 80% of every town's budget goes to the� public schools. Furthermore, at least 70% of every school budget is for employee salaries and benefits. This is why I sought election to the� Board of Education. If I am able to have any influence at all to lower taxes, it is to be done by addressing that budget area that consumes the� most money.�� RHAM has had many extremely contentious budget referendums in recent years. To the best of my recall, in fiscal year 2002 we required 10� referendums to pass the budget, and in fiscal year 2003 we required 12� referendums. You may notice that because of the 12 referendum votes in� 2003, the people were voting on, and the board was working on TWO� budgets at the same time! I must emphasize the budget difficulties� because it brings the harsh light of truth to the extreme� dissatisfaction with overspending and overtaxation that the taxpayers of
�the three towns are expressing.�� In conjunction with the budget dissatisfaction, municipal elections and� resignations have produced a high turnover on the RHAM board of� education. We have recently replaced our Superintendent, and that, along with our current incarnation represents the best hope in many years for �containing spending (and therefore taxation).� The RHAM board of education has just begun the process of negotiating� the next contact with our teachers' union. With the recent taxpayer� unrest with regard to spending and taxation, it is my intent and the� intent of the negotiating team to keep any increase in salaries and benefits as close to zero as possible. However, this is largely an �exercise in futility, and Binding Arbitration is fully to blame! �In the world of honest negotiations (the free market), management is �free to make an offer and labor is free to accept or refuse. If an �agreement cannot be reached workers can find employment elsewhere, or in �the case of a union they can choose to strike. While a strike would �certainly be disruptive to the school schedule, I believe the right to �strike is now a REQUIREMENT if any school board is to make serious �progress toward reducing spending.� �I will explain my belief. In the world of Binding Arbitration, if the school board and the teachers' union cannot reach an agreement, the �arbitrator will take the proposals from each party and choose elements �from each. These chosen elements then become the new contract, beyond the control of the board or the union. The arbitrator will always tend to maintain the status quo, both the locally and regionally. He will �never vary from "the norm." Therefore, no board is able to lead the way in the restraint of spending because a government approved bureaucrat �assumes control if a voluntary agreement cannot be reached. This arrangement may sound fair, but in reality it takes 100% of the� power out of the hands of the taxpayers who elected the board of education members. If the electorate chooses a board that takes a hard �line on spending, they did so out of a conscious desire to control �spending and taxation. However, it is not only within the purview of the �arbitrator, but it is a *given* that the arbitrator will make an award
> that is contrary to the will of the taxpayers because the arbitrator �will not choose any proposal which deviates from what he considers the norm. �The right to strike, however, returns the power back to the taxpayer, �where it belongs in a Constitutional Republic such as the one we enjoy �in the United States of America. In that world, if an agreement cannot �be reached the teachers' union may choose to strike. If they strike, �public sentiment will soon show one side or the other that they are misguided. Disruption of the school schedule is an important enough �event in the lives of most taxpayers that they will become educated on �the issue and express an opinion. They will say loud and clear, hold the �line on spending or give the teachers what they ask for. They can weigh in on specific items that may be stalling negotiations and decide which �side is right. �Our republic REQUIRES voter involvement. It is critical to the survival �of our society. By removing control over spending, and therefore �taxation, from the voters, we enter the world of socialism and tyranny. �So, in closing, I am saying that Binding Arbitration is wrong, �moral,
socialist and tyrannical. It is antithetical to the existence of our �republic and it is abusive of the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut. �I would say that I urge you, but in truth I insist, that you abolish �Binding Arbitration with regard to all government employees and return �the right to strike, and therefore the right of the voting taxpayers to regain their rightful control over their government. For without control of their government they have no true control over their lives. And any man who does not control his own life is nothing but a slave. Sincerely, Ken Mosher, 8 Bailey Rd �Andover, CT 06232� C: Rep. Pamela Sawyer

*****

From:� Theresa McGrath, Executive Director, FACE,

Family Alliance for Children in Education

(860) 570-1203

FACE0203@comcast.net

School choice is really not as complicated as our CT State Legislature makes it out to be. It is naturally happening under NCLB. This school choice effect of NCLB is really the most cost effective solution to allow children an equal opportunity to an appropriate education. Those who oppose NCLB are realistically looking at more funding into failing schools w/out allowing children out of the failing cycle. Please read the article forwarded to me by D.Dowd Muska, Tax & Budget Policy Expert, Yankee Institute.�

62 Exercise School Choice In NL
Only 12 participated in program last year

By DAN PEARSON
Day Staff Writer, Education Reporter
Published on 9/9/2005

New London � Sixty-two families, far more than last year, have exercised the right to transfer their child from a school that is failing to meet federal standards to another in the district that is not.� In order to accommodate the transfers, 10 other students will have to change schools in the district and a first-grade teacher will be moved from Jennings School to Nathan Hale School.�� Last year, in the first year that New London was required by the No Child Left Behind Act to offer �school choice,� a dozen families chose to move their child out of either C.B. Jennings or Edgerton schools to one of the city's three other elementary schools.� Under the act, Jennings and Edgerton are required to offer this choice because they are deemed �in need of improvement� for failing to meet performance levels on standardized tests for at least two consecutive years and because they receive Title I funds, federal money provided to schools based on poverty and income levels.� Assistant Schools Superintendent Doreen Fuller said Thursday that about 70 percent of the students exercising their right this year are from Jennings School, which is now housed in a temporary structure at Veterans' Field until the original school on Mercer Street is renovated and expanded in 2007.�� Fuller said the district has acted swiftly since receiving choice requests from parents in order to minimize disruption to classes.�� Parents exercising school choice are asked to list their first, second or third choice for the transfer, but are not guaranteed their first choice. The school district must provide transportation for transfers by drawing on Title I funds, which Fuller said would reduce or eliminate other Title I programs, which can range from after-school programs to tutoring.�� In order to maintain maximum class sizes, which are established in teacher contracts and range from 24 to 28 students, the transfers will require five Harbor third-graders and five Harbor first-graders to volunteer or be moved to Nathan Hale. In addition, Jane Vernosky, a first grade teacher at Jennings, will be relocated to Nathan Hale.� In other news, the board became one of dozens in the state to endorse Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's lawsuit against the federal government over the act.� Blumenthal, who has been supported by both Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the State Department of Education, believes the law is an illegal unfunded mandate that violates state law and provisions within the 2002 law itself. Board member Shannon Heap opposed the endorsement, saying that Blumenthal's suit was the �epitome of hypocrisy� because the state imposes many unfunded mandates on municipalities.� The board on Wednesday approved the creation of a Bilingual/English as a Second Language Department Chairperson at Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School. A $2,700 stipend would be paid from a state grant to an existing bilingual teacher who would assume the job and title.� Lisa Miko, one of the district's four social workers, asked the board to restore a part-time social worker cut last year. She said the hiring would improve student attendance and performance.� The board on Wednesday directed Schools Superintendent Christopher Clouet to provide cost estimates for installing lights at the Cannamella Field at New London High School, a proposal put forward last month by City Councilor Margaret Curtin. As part of the effort, board member Kevin Cavanagh asked Clouet to ensure the field would be used equally by girls' and boys' teams. � � The Day Publishing Co., 2005

**********