Parsing through the news this morning reminded me of the old adage that the three sides of any story are often my side, your side and the truth. Figuring out what facts fall into is often difficult because people lie. Sometimes unintentionally, but often time because being accurate is less expedient than digging for the truth.
Next week Julie Amero is facing a sentence of up to 40 years, because no one in the Windsor School district, the Police Department, the Prosecutor’s Office or the judge and jury could be bothered to spend enough time digging for the truth. And as a reminder, a convicted rapist faces only 10 years of prison according to the Connecticut statute. A substitute teacher who was unable to stop sex related pop up ads from taking over her classroom computer is facing up to 40 years. The most recent article on the story comes form WIRED:
Julie is taking the fall, but many other people failed before a porn storm burst into that classroom.
The IT department failed to keep content filters and anti-malware software up-to-date. The school failed to enforce a security policy, allowing substitute teachers to use regular teachers’ network credentials to access the internet. The administration failed to ensure that all teachers, including substitutes, had the necessary skills and training to handle internet surprises — and the savvy to respond quickly in a crisis.
And the community fails to Protect The Children in the example it’s setting. What should have been a wake-up call for the district employment office — and for IT — has spiraled embarrassingly out of control.
Some students mentioned the incident to their parents, and some parents mentioned it to the administration, and the district told the parents that Julie wouldn’t be teaching there anymore.
It should have ended there. Instead, a subset of parents threw a tantrum and demanded, in one detective’s words, “aggressive police response.”
Such idiosyncracies are not limited to the criminal cases that occur in Connecticut. Today’s Hour reports that there might be those three sides to how much land the CT DOT actually has acquired to build out the Super 7 highway, sorely needed. Do I need to point out that my side would be the build it now side? Anyways, here’s what Patrick Linsey’s article said:
While the state owns the lion’s share of the land needed for Super 7 in Wilton, it would likely need to acquire more than 1,000 acres to complete the project under current plans. This could increase the highway’s cost significantly, opponents predict. Most of the unowned land lies in Ridgefield and Redding, towns in which officials oppose the highway project.
…
While the exact percentage of land owned for the project unknown, DOT spokesman Kevin Nursick said it lies somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Currently the state owns 890 acres of land in the highway’s proposed right of way, known to the department as the Super 7 “alignment.”
“From Wilton down to Norwalk we own pretty much that whole alignment,” Nursick said. “From the Ridgefield-Wilton line north over to Danbury, (we do not own) the majority.”
Apparently there was much dispute between Super 7 gadfly State Rep Toni Boucher-R and State Senator Bob Duff-D over the ownership percentages. Duff claims “conventional wisdom” for stating it was closer to 90%. The first he heard of the the lower, 40% number was during the Transportation Committee hearing held in Hartford.
Boucher, First Selectman Rudi Marconi-D of Ridgefield were apparently not surprised by the 40% number. Marconi going as far as saying he knew that most of the land in Ridgefield was owned by private property owners. So that’s their side, and the question for the truth diggers should be why the CT DOT doesn’t know, exactly, how much of the land it has acquired, since the plan to build out Super 7 has been one sitting around for the past 50 years? This really is simple to figure out, because by statute, the CT DOT can’t sell land it has acquired for any other purpose but for road building. Do did someone at the CT DOT lie to Senator Duff, or was he not bothered to check into the actual land ownership issue before stating so? Will anyone be bothered to dig for the truth in this project before saying things that are inaccurate?
Kabuki statements aren’t limited to Hartford. This week’s Norwalk Citzen News recaps the coverage of the Flood hearings, otherwise known as the Norwalk Planning Commission and Common Council Finance/Claims Committee meeting. The short version is that the budget will be bigger, 5.9% bigger according to recommendations by Finance Director Thomas Hamilton, or $264.6 million. The flood afflicted are wanting to know what the priority is for addressing the flood problems which have been increasing. From the Norwalk Citizen News (emphasis mine):
Following the hearing, committee members questioned Alvord and Hamilton about the funding proposed for the DPW. Alvord’s operating budget request totals approximately $18.2 million, a 15.2 percent increase from 2006-07, but Hamilton recommends $16.1 million, a 1.5 percent increase. Hamilton’s budget eliminates several new positions sought by Alvord but includes funding for a new fleet mechanic, which Alvord indicated was the highest priority position.
…
Hamilton agreed to gather this information for the committee, which was scheduled to meet again yesterday to discuss its final recommendation to the council as a whole. Hamilton noted, however, that the council’s role is to set an overall cap on the operating budget and that the council does not have any say on how the funds are distributed. Determining the distribution ultimately is the Board of Estimate and Taxation’s task, he said. The council is scheduled to adopt an expenditure cap on Tuesday.
On Jan. 16, BET Chairman Fred Wilms said he feels “very sympathetic” to the flood victims. “I most definitely believe that the city has an obligation to help them,” he said.
However, he continued, “It appears to me at this point that most of the solution lies in the capital budget.” Wilms explained that the BET’s role in the capital budget is just to set the overall cap, which he expects to be around $6 million. “It’s up to the Common Council to decide how that $6 million will be allocated,” he said, adding, “I hope the council allocates as much out of that $6 million as they possibly can [to flooding], but there are competing demands for that $6 million.”
So, here we have:
DWP Head, Alvord saying the Finance Director is cutting his budget.
The Finance Director saying yes, but that’s to recommend a spending cap, the BET gets to decide who gets what.
The Chair of the BET saying, no we just rubber stamp what Hamilton says and its the Common Council who gets to decide who gets what.
And the Common Council says, we don’t want to spend so much on the Board of Ed budget can’t we move money over to fix the flooding problem.
Are you following all this? Will anyone step up and claim authority or responsibility to the people of Norwalk for investing in the infrastructure of the city?
Stuart Opdhal has no problem raiding the Jefferson School funds for $1 million to build an athletic field in front of Norwalk High. Maybe someone on the Common Council will be cagey enough to reallocate that unspent money back to the general fund, since Opdahl was so intent on planting trailers on the Jefferson athletic field to free up that money instead of using it to improve the Jefferson school facility. And then, Opdhal can ask the BOE for permission to hold a bake sale to finance his Norwalk High athletic field.
Source: Wired.com, Protect the Children From Porn, By Regina Lynn,Â
Source: The Hour, State may need to buy 1,000 acres for Super 7, By Patrick Linsey,
Source: Norwalk Citzen News, Message Reiterated, By Lauren Garrison, Â
