Setting the Record Straight

Preferring to avoid specific public discussion as it relates to individual candidates in the current selectmen’s race, I reluctantly find the need to address misstatements - "unintentional" or otherwise - offered by an incumbent candidate during the recent debate. My intent is not to direct or dissuade support in favor of, or against any candidate, as such would be inappropriate for a sitting selectman, but rather to simply ensure accuracy.

During the selectmen’s debate, an incumbent candidate - Scott Garieri - claimed to have “founded” a local non-profit organization that provides assistance to seniors and to have “authored a bill” that would allow residents to provide volunteer services to the community, which could then be credited to reduce the tax bill of an income-qualifying Sturbridge senior. Certainly, one recognizes that the time-compressed capsule of a 3-minute opening statement and the desire to provide as much information as possible can "unintentionally" lead to omissions or misstatements of fact. Equally, one realizes this generally to be a product of trying to formulate multiple thoughts in condensed time.  There is however, no less the requirement to have “unintentional” omissions or misstatements of relevant information corrected; thus the purpose of this letter.

Protecting our seniors... (Part 1)

There is little doubt that one of the most courted voting constituencies during election season is that of our senior population. On the national level and in most cases locally as well, seniors tend to be an extremely consistent group of voters in terms of casting ballots, owing in large part to their sense responsibility and duty. Sadly, they are as well, all too often “used” by national and local politicians who tend to offer nothing more than obligatory “lip service” to the challenges seniors face, while simultaneously laying “claim” to so-called accomplishments in support of seniors. This is nothing short of disturbing and extremely dishonest.

It is however a frequently successful strategy as most individuals have neither the time nor the desire to truly scrutinize promises or claims made by candidates. The daily competing demands and challenges faced by most render the level of scrutiny necessary to substantiate such claims near impossible. Sadly, as the level of attention soon fades after the election results are announced, so too does the commitment to promises or substantive effort on behalf of those whose support was so desperately sought during the campaign.

Business "Unfriendly" Sturbridge - Facts vs. Fiction (Part II)

This is a continuation of Business "Unfriendly" Sturbridge - Facts vs. Fiction (Part I)

Board of Health: Yet another target of the contemporary “anti-business” mantra is the Board of Health and its enforcement of state laws and regulations. Some in the business community have offered their dissatisfaction with the actions of the Board of Health, suggesting that they have been overzealous in their efforts to ensure the safety and welfare of residents and visitors. Some candidates and public officials will echo these criticisms calling for modifications of laws or regulations they believe hinder local business. These criticisms identify several fundamental misconceptions specific to the Board of Health.

First, the Board of Health enforces STATE laws and regulations and for the most part establishes very few local regulations. The complexity, enormity, and ever-increasing number of state laws and regulations, provide more than their fair share of enforcement challenges for any local Board of Health without burdening themselves with the development of additional local regulations. Secondly, the Board of Selectmen, nor any other entity at the local level, has any jurisdiction over the Board of Health or the authority to modify state laws and regulations. Equally and thirdly, members of the Board of Health have no authority to ignore their responsibilities as dictated by the vast number of Massachusetts General Laws which govern them. To do so could have catastrophic consequences for both the health and safety of residents and visitors, as well our local economy in terms of tourism.

Burdening our businesses and residents

Election season is an important period for residents, as it provides a venue with which to spotlight concerns and challenges faced within the community. Equally, it presents an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate their command of the issues, while highlighting their plans to address same. It is however, also a time when we as residents have a responsibility to carefully and thoroughly scrutinize what is said by those seeking our support so that we may ensure the veracity of their positions.

Similarly, candidates for public office, as do public officials, maintain an obligation to fully research the information they disseminate, while maintaining a painstaking commitment to factual and truthful information. The former can at times present challenges in terms of knowing what avenues are available for the gathering of information, the latter however, should never present a hurdle.

Business "Unfriendly" Sturbridge - Facts vs. Fiction (Part I)

"Sturbridge is anti-business and we need to change that!!!" How many times over the last few years have you heard that comment or even suggested it yourself? How often have we heard candidates or their supporters utter such words over the last few years? How many times have you heard it declared by one or two in public office? Clearly it is said often enough so that it must be true? I know I have certainly felt that way previously – as in years ago – and had even publicly proclaimed such one year prior to running for elective office.

Oddly however, despite two years of progressive policies and tangible actions taken by Boards and Committees, as well as affirmative actions taken by residents at Town Meeting – all of which have all been quite beneficial to local business - we still hear the familiar refrain. It has now become an element of our contemporary folklore and part of a rhythmic beating of the drums by more than a handful. Whether by design or stemming from an honest lack of understanding or education as it relates to the business approach taken by local government, the steady flow of misinformation has become so incessant that it is difficult for the average individual not to believe it.

A Letter from Tax Assessor Candidate Carol Childress

Dear Fellow Sturbridge Residents:

On April 11th, voters will have an opportunity once again to go to the polls and choose our public officials. This year, I’m throwing my hat into the ring and will be running unopposed for the 3-year seat on the Board of Assessors that is being vacated by Mr. John Lafleche.

When candidates are vying for one available seat, running for election presents many challenges for those who believe they are the best candidate for the job. Most candidates will mount an expensive and time consuming campaign and will set up websites, buy signs to be placed at strategic locations throughout town, and enter into public debates with their opponents. From the voter’s perspective, after learning the qualifications of new candidates and reviewing the accomplishments of incumbents, it’s splendid when there are choices at the polls. However, candidates who run unopposed are presented with a different set of challenges because there’s no competition and voters may feel uneasy because they are not familiar with the candidate. Therefore, I feel compelled to tell voters about me and my qualifications so that residents will know what they can expect.

All 5 Candidates available for debate!!!

The fifth candidate has been able to accomodate schedule adjustments and is pleased to be participating in the debate. Incumbent Scott Garieri provided notification today. Thus, all five candidates will participate in the live televised debate to be held at 7:00 PM, Town Hall (Veteran's Memorial Hall), Wednesday, March 30, 2011.

As previously identified the candidates and the term of office sought are as follows:

Incumbent Mary Blanchard: 3-year seat

Incumbent Scott Garieri: 3-year seat

Candidate Priscilla Gimas: 3-year seat

Candidate Alphonso Esposito: 1-year seat

Candidate Angeline Ellison: 1 year-seat

BURGESS BUILDING PROJECT TO COST MILLIONS LESS

The Following press release was issued recently by the Burgess School Building Committee and unfortunately, received less than complete coverage. As it has a significant and clearly, a very positive impact on Sturbridge taxpayers, it is important for this information to be disseminated. Thus, per request, I am posting the release below. I applaud the incredible efforts of the Burgess School Building Committee and their commitment to our community. 

STURBRIDGE: As the state supported construction of  Burgess Elementary School's extensive renovations and sizable expansion go up, the local cost has dramatically gone down, by 35 percent or $7,981,345. That literal reversal of  fortunes - to the direct benefit of  Sturbridge taxpayers - was reported today by the School Building Committee, which initiated, nearly a decade ago, the complex program of improvement to the 61-year-old school and campus. 

In a joint statement, Committee chairperson Angela Cheng-Cimini and the vice chair, Charles T. Blanchard,  listed three chief reasons for the major cost avoidance. One reason,  they noted, was the worsened economy, making general contractors' competitive bids significantly lower than forecast when voters authorized a bond issue approximately 18 months ago. Another reason was the lower than projected bond interest rate of  3.59 percent, rather than the 4.95 percent first expected, they said. And value engineering, which is  a system for squeezing cost out of  the project while safeguarding its quality, was the third leading factor, according to Ms. Cheng-Cimini and Mr.  Blanchard. The total project cost  now drops from $46,926,630, which the voters approved, to the current projected cost of  $33,149,457. 

Debate Update

Four candidates for the Board of Selectmen are thus far confirmed for the televised debate scheduled for 7:00 PM, Wednesday, March 30, 2011. They are as follows:

Incumbent Mary Blanchard: 3-year seat

Candidate Priscilla Gimas: 3-year seat

Candidate Alphonso Esposito: 1-year seat

Candidate Angeline Ellison: 1 year-seat

Still awaiting confirmation - pending scheduling review- from the fifth candidate. We commend these individuals for their commitment to the democratic process by allowing residents an opportunity to better understand and compare their positions on issue. 

Unfortunately, as previously hoped, there will be no televised debate for the Board of Health, as one of the two candidates is unavailable.  

Public Service Announcement - Deadline Nears for Licensing Dogs in Sturbridge

From the Town Clerk's Office:

A reminder that the 2011 Sturbridge Dog Licenses are available and we are nearing the end of the penalty free licensing period.  Male and female dogs are $15; altered dogs are $10.  Current rabies vaccination records are required to license your dog(s).  Applications are available on the Town Clerk’s webpage as well as on the Town Census.  Mail in licensing is encouraged (please follow directions) or you may stop in the office M-F, 8-12, 1-4.  Penalties will be levied after March 31, 2011.   Also, it would be extremely helpful with our record keeping if you would notify the Town Clerk’s office at 508-347-2510 if you no longer have your pet.

Selectman Candidates to debate Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Town Moderator Mike Caplette has agreed to moderate a televised debate between the candidates seeking your vote.

The debate will be held at 7:00 PM, Wednesday, March 30, 2011 in Veteran's Memorial Hall (Town Hall).

Three candidates are seeking your vote for two seats, each for a 3-year term. They are - incumbent Mary Blanchard, incumbent Scott Garieri, and candidate Priscilla Gimas. 

Two candidates are seeking your vote for the vacated seat of former Selectman Ted Goodwin - a 1-year term. They are Alphonso Esposito and Angeline Ellison.

As the issues facing our community remain the same regardless of the particular seat's tenure, the Town Moderator has determined that all candidates attending will sit equally and address questions. 

As of this evening, 4 candidates have confirmed their participation.  

Additionally, the Town Moderator has agreed to host a televised debate between the two candidates seeking your vote for a 3-year seat on the Board of Health. Those candidates are incumbent Linda Cocalis and candidate Kim Desy. 

Scheduling for the BOH debate is pending Mr. Caplette's availability.