Date: Fri 03-May-1996

By KAAREN VALENTA

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: KAAREN

Quick Words:

Children's-Adventure-Center

Full Text:

Officials Try To Stem Rumors About Day Care Center

First Selectman Bob Cascella and Mae Schmidle of the Children's Adventure

Center's board of directors held a joint news conference this week to quell

rumors that the town was reducing its funding of the day care center.

"My administration and the Legislative Council are in no way looking to close

the Children's Adventure Center," Mr Cascella said. "We funded the center with

$20,000 in next year's budget, the same as we have always done."

Mrs Schmidle said that state funding was cut by $55,000 next year, but the

center was determined to "operate more efficiently" and to seek other sources

of funding.

"We're going to do much more vigorous fundraising and try to get funding

through sources like the United Way," she said. "If anyone has any

suggestions, we would like to hear them."

Mrs Schmidle said that much of the confusion about the fate of the Adventure

Center occurred because the state has changed its funding schedule for day

care centers from a fiscal year to a calendar year. Because of this, only six

months' worth of state funding was reflected in the town's budget for fiscal

1996-97.

"In September the state will come back to us with new contracts for next

year," Mrs Schmidle said. "So many towns are in such trouble that we are

confident that more money will come eventually from the state."

Mr Cascella said the town cannot offset every dollar in state aid that is cut

"but we are still committed to the Adventure Center."

The Children's Adventure Center is a public, nonprofit corporation which

provides day care for children ages 3-6 and before- and after-school programs

for children up to the age of 10. It is located in the town's multi-purpose

building at 14 Riverside Road, a building which also houses the Senior Center.

Besides the annual $20,000 contribution, the town pays for half of the

utilities (electric, fuel oil and garbage pickup). The town also pays the cost

of employee benefits such as health insurance, long-term disability and

pension for the center's staff at a cost of more than $50,000 a year.

The day care center pays the town $7,350 a year in rent under a 20-year lease

which expires this year.

Next HRRA Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off Event Scheduled In Newtown

Genealogy Club's Next Program To Dig Into 'Dissecting A Civil War Pension Record'

Choral Society Planning ‘Voices Of America’ Performance

Newtown Earth Day Festival Was A Success

Local Fourth Grader To Host ‘Gaming For Change’ On May 16

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 03-May-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply