Date: Fri 26-Jul-1996

By KIM HARMON

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: KIMH

Illustration: I

Quick Words:

Slo-Pitch-C-Division-History

Full Text:

Slo-Pitch C Division History

B Y K IM J. H ARMON

The Newtown Slo-Pitch Softball League had always been split into two divisions

- A and B - since the B Division was formed in 1974, but in a short-lived

effort to further dilineate the talent pool, the C Division was created in

1980. It lasted just two seasons.

With the league broken up into A, B and C Division, the format allowed A teams

to play B teams and B teams to place C teams. A teams, though, did not play C

teams. In 1980, the Pedagogues finished atop the C Division with an 11-6

record. Question Mark Cafe came in second at 9-7, the only other team in the

division boasting a winning record. Rounding out the division was Apex Glass

(7-10), Pitney Bowes (4-13), Connecticut Engineering (3-14), and Adams

Construction (2-14).

Question Mark took the C Division title, winning a best-of-three series, 2-1,

from xx. In the final, ? scored seven runs in the first inning enroute to the

win. Ken Thibault, Mike Lewis and Ray Schettino collected three hits apiece.

A bit of controversy over illegal players muddied up the playoff picture in

1981. Oldies But Goodies had illegal players on its team when it defeated the

Pedagogues in the first game of a best-of-three series, but a ruling from the

softball council forced Oldies to forfeit that game.

It didn't matter.

Oldies But Goodies beat Pedagogues, 11-10, in Game 2 behind Tee O'Grady's

game-winning hit in the bottom of the 10th and then won the title with a 6-5

win in with John Schwerdle drove in the game winniner and Mike Mack banged out

three hits.

Oldies But Goodies became the Spirit Shoppe in 1982, after the C Division

folded up. The Spirit Shoppe - with Tee O'Grady and the Kachur brothers, Bryan

and Chris - then won the B Division championship while rolling to a 20-2

record. The Spirit Shoppe would, in 1983, join the A Division as Warehouse

Liquors.

The Way We Were

Malcolm Andrew 'Andy' Bryant

Top Of The Mountain

Garden Club Spring Plant Sale Saturday

Full Slate Of May Programs Planned By Flagpole Photographers

The editorial took no position on the budget going up or down so you're reading things into the editorial that simply aren't there. The turnout is tied to the lack of passage, in that people who came out to vote last time did not this time, indicating a lack of support on their part. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough, but that's what the editorial was driving at, people showing lack of support by not casting a vote. The editorial did address likely concerns among voters that may have led to lack of support and lack of turnout. This lower turnout also follows increasing turnout over the past four referendums in three years (meaning it is an aberration from that), and increased turnout is something that I do push for regularly in editorials. Any disappointment you might be seeing is at the break in that trend, not at whether the budget passed or not. I'd rather see more people come out and vote "no" then not vote at all.

Lower Turnout Results In Two Budget Defeats

Clearly, property owners no longer want to bear the burden of expenses while the state does not meet it’s responsibilities. Rising costs must be addressed by actions that do not include yearly increases of property owners’ taxes. The state of CT must meet its share of the educational costs, and other costs.

Town And School Budgets Fail At Referendum

This feels like an oddly misleading headline and narrative, particularly coming from the Editorial Board. The headline "Lower Turnout Results in Two Budget Defeats" pushes a misleading narrative regarding voter turnout, and then seeks to tie the outcome of the referendum to that misleading narrative. Sure, voter turn out for this year's referendum, 18%, was lower than last year's. However, last year's turnout, 25.4%, represented the highest turnout in the most recent 10 budget referendums. If you take the time to examine turnout percentages between 2017 and 2026 (2017: 19.9, 2018: 15.7, 2019: 17, 2020: 0, 2021: 8.98, 2022: 7.7, 2023: 8.8, 2024: 15.1/17.49, 2025: 25.4, 2026: 18), this year's turnout was actually the third highest in the past 10 cycles. Perhaps the headline of this article should say "Lower Voter Turnout Than Last Year", which is more accurate, rather than creating an impression that this year's turnout is some type of aberration - a narrative that the turnout numbers, in all their binary glory, simply do not support. Further, the headline of this article appears to tie the "lower turnout" to the defeated budgets. Sure, that could be true. But, perhaps, its more likely that Newtown residents are feeling the squeeze of multiple economic influences. In Newtown, we've experienced property revaluations and increased municipal spending. Eversource continues to raise rates. The state legislature gives PURA the authority to impose Public Benefit charges that benefit a tiny percentage of the public (and subsequently burdening the rest of us). At the national level, inflation has run rampant for years and many of those costs remain high to this day. In short, the data tells a far less dramatic—and far more honest—story than the headline suggests. This wasn’t an electorate vanishing in apathy; it was a fairly typical turnout delivering an verdict that, perhaps, some at the Editorial Board didn't like. At some point, it’s worth considering that residents aren’t confused, disengaged, or misled by turnout; they’re simply doing math at their kitchen tables and concluding that “no” is the only responsible answer left.

Enjoyed the forum which only confirmed my support for Brandon Moore as the Democratic candidate to run for the state representative position. Brandon Moore did not waiver about his duty to all the people, if elected, when an issue presents itself that requires that he voice a difference of opinion for the wellbeing of Newtown residents. If Michelle Ku’s 16 years have led to her loyalty being to other elected officials, as she implied, then Newtown is going to continue to witness actions that do not protect its residents. She could not unseat republican, Mitch Bolinsky, during a Blue Wave, and once again, will not do it now. Winning that seat is critical for all. That explains why her previous campaign committee now campaigns for Brandon Moore. It explains all the endorsements he has received from local elected democratic officials. It’s why we need Brandon Moore to be the democratic candidate to run for state representative.

Second Newtown DTC, League Of Women Voters Candidates Event Planned

Appreciated the opportunity to hear from both candidates as we were present for the College Dems forum but only heard from Brandon Moore. It was an opportunity to see who can unseat the Republican incumbent and there is no doubt that Brandon Moore should be the Democratic candidate. One concerned parent posed a question about discrimination unaddressed by the school district and interestingly enough, Michelle Ku, who proudly speaks of her Board membership years, said little, while Brandon Moore passionately addressed the issue along with his experience as an Apache Helicopter Commander. This family is supporting Brandon Moore. We need change and someone who is not afraid to disagree, especially about the rising costs of living in Newtown.

Log In

Date: Fri 26-Jul-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply