 |
AVON TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
October 7, 2010
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Avon Town Hall, in the Selectmen's Chamber. Members present: Mrs. Samul, Messrs. Zacchio, Shea, Pena, and Evans.
II. PUBLIC HEARING – None
III. MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETINGS: September 2, 2010
Mrs. Samul pointed out a clerical error that amended the September 2, 2010 minutes.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mr. Evans, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council accept the September 2, 2010 minutes as amended.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Zacchio, Evans, Shea, and Pena voted in favor.
IV. COMMUNICATION FROM AUDIENCE
Adam Corrado, 55 Brookmoor Drive, reported the EMS Sub-committee met on September 15th and will obtain more information about that from Mr. Robertson later in the meeting and there is a pending meeting scheduled on Monday, October 18th and the goal at that meeting is try and answer the question of what is the level of EMS service that is appropriate for the Town of Avon. He will be calling on the expertise of the UCONN EMS Medical Director Dr. Richard Kamin, UCONN Fire Chief MacGovern, UCONN EMS Coordinator, and other members of the sub-committee. He will also be in attendance at that meeting and as they move forward he will be available to bring forward any news and assistance. Council members thanked Dr. Corrado for what he is doing.
John Czepiel, 82 Uplands Drive, West Hartford, spoke on behalf as President of the Avon Education Association and on behalf of our two hundred eighty members many of whom are town residents and also speaking on the issue of the superintendent and ongoing situation. He spoke on behalf of all of the members who are dedicated teachers and educators concerned with the well-being and future of Avon schools and school children and in all agreement that Jody Goeler’s proven dedication to the students of this town has more than earned him the opportunity to continue with the work that he has begun. He reported that at last spring’s budget hearing teachers were asked, after announcing our concession plan, whether the deal was contingent on the budget passing and the answer was a firm no. He added that
to them it sounded and came off as a threat and they are not in the threatening business. He reported that in that same vein they are here tonight ever mindful of the authority impairing an elected board over personnel matters and managerial prerogatives however for them to remain silent would be to abrogate their responsibilities as citizens and educators when every ounce of their professional sensibilities compels them to speak. He added that in their professional opinion not only is Jody Goeler eminently qualified to be superintendent of Avon schools but his departure from that position will be a loss to the students of Avon and the future of our educational system. He also spoke as an educator with twenty-four years of experience in the classroom, twenty of those years spent as either President or Vice-President on the Avon Education Association (AEA) which allowed him to work very closely with five superintendents, all had their strengths no doubt but with
all due respect Jody Goeler is the most student centered, instructionally focused administrator with whom he has worked and this is why quite honestly teachers are not only disheartened but confused by the transpiring of events especially when hearing that according to two separate attorneys working for the town the conflict of interest policy is not an insurmountable obstacle to Jody being a candidate or when considering that Jody’s situation would be a perfectly valid use of grandfathering given his long standing commitment to the town. He added that for no doubt we have all went head long into an insurance company or school or government policy which when trapped in a vacuum may seem valid or even quite lullable but when applied to the real world dynamic situation within a context produces a result that is both counterproductive and unintended maybe this is why we have zoning boards of appeals and variances. He reported that Jody’s candidacy also provides
much needed stability as there are several new administrators in town and if Jody is replaced we will have our fourth superintendent in two years. He added that Jody’s leadership and inspirational vision will be sorely needed in the years ahead as the winds of reform are now blowing through the world of education and pretty much everything including some very sensitive topics that are well beyond the table. He reported that to have any chance of meaningful reform we will need a climate of respect and trust, exactly the type of climate that Jody helped to create last spring during our concession talks and a climate that they now fear is starting to dissipate with recent developments. He added that as far as concerns about Jody’s involvement in negotiations he has personally been involved with every teacher conference since 1988, nine in all, an iron-clad rule of practice speech is that they negotiate with the elected Board of Education or perhaps their
attorney while the superintendent serves merely as a conduit and at times a resource for the Board of Education and they just don’t simply see that as a problem. He concluded that it is their professional opinion and they maintain that in terms of ethical purpose, work ethic, devotion to authentic student achievement, and to the profession of student teaching Jody Goeler has indeed set a high standard which serves as a source of inspiration to the Avon school community for what they believe to be all the right reasons they fervently hope and it is their heart and desire that Jody Goeler remain in this position, all they respectively ask is for the elected town bodies to reflect upon his eminent qualifications, what his loss to the town and district would mean, and to reconsider collaborative, creative solutions which will allow Jody Goeler to remain a Superintendent of Avon schools.
Chairman Zacchio responded to Mr. Czepiel that he also likes Jody Goeler very much and contrary to the bloggers belief believes that he is a good person and someone who has a lot of character. He added that the code of conduct policy as they stand today, the town’s policy does not have authority over picking the next superintendent of schools and that policy lies solely with the Board of Education’s interest and understands that there are mechanisms for them in order to make provisions for that. He reported that having said that there is certainly concern from the Council about not a non-unified code of conduct policy and that is what we are here to talk about.
Abha Bernard, 2 Churchill Place, reported that we have heard a lot of conflicting information about how the Town Council would respond if the Board of Education chose to waive their conflict of interest policy. To set the records straight, she asked that each Council member answer the following question: If the Board of Education chose to waive their conflict of interest policy in order to hire our next new school superintendent would you personally initiate or otherwise act to open the Town Charter to insert the Town Council’s conflict of interest policy into the charter, yes or no. Chairman Zacchio responded that it is not a yes or no and answered with a few more words. He responded that it is awfully hard to ask the Council to weigh in on a hypothetical situation. If the Board of Education
does choose to go down that route he can’t anticipate the issues that come out of that from the citizens of the Town of Avon. He stated that if Council is petitioned to open the Charter the Council doesn’t really have a choice and are compelled to do it; it takes 10% of the voters to do that. He added that in the next six months we took to put the code of conduct policy in place there was a lot of interest around having that unified, that is a concern we have. He stated that knowing what he knows today personally of that situation and recognizing that he can’t anticipate the comments or discussion that comes with that he personally today can’t see any reason why he would initiate that and don’t think necessarily that’s as powerful as you’d like to hear because what he is concerned about is that we are petitioned to do so, about thirteen hundred signatures, and that we’ll be compelled to do it; that would be divisive,
a split in our community and a difficult thing for us to handle, that’s what we struggle with. Mr. Shea responded that he cannot give a yes or no answer either but he would urge the Board of Education to not waive their policy. He believes that the policy should stay intact, that it strengthens the Town of Avon, and it prevents us from being exposed to risk so he would not personally waive the policy. He added that it is difficult to answer a hypothetical question about the Town Charter, it’s a very, very important document and he is honor bound by the oath he took to stand up for the Charter and stand up for the policies of the Town of Avon and he would reserve the right to listen to everyone after any action is taken by any special interest group or by any union or any citizens in town to evaluate that issue at the time that it happened. Mr. Evans agreed with Chairman Zacchio that it is hard to develop an answer without hearing the full facts
but he would not be inclined to initiate any specific action to open the Charter. Mr. Pena responded that he would not by any means initiate the opening of the Charter but at the same time it is important to understand that there could be a petition from the residents in the town that could initiate that action, even if that were the case he still would not be in favor of that as it is not the right direction to go. He has spoken to other towns that have opened the Charter and sometimes that is not the direction that the town should have taken as it tends to divide the town. He repeated that he would not initiate any action nor would he actually favor if other groups did to open the Charter as it is not the direction that we need to take as a unified town. Mrs. Samul responded that she is perplexed by the entire question in that this is the Board of Education’s policy which they worked several months to coordinate with the town policy; six of those
nine members that approved it are still on the Board, one of the members sat in the first seat in the second row with Mr. Colman and said “well, that’s a start” implying that maybe it should be even more strict, more restrictive. She is perplexed as to why they would not now feel it is the appropriate guideline; to open the Charter would be extremely divisive. She thinks it is unwise to comment on a hypothetical as you are going to get into the unintended consequences when you start doing things like commenting on hypotheticals. Mrs. Bernard added that three Council members would not open the Charter. Chairman Zacchio clarified that those Council members would not initiate the opening of the Charter as they would have to listen to the people in front of us as anyone would have to listen but cannot anticipate those discussions or arguments on a hypothetical. A member of the public asked Council to explain the word divisive.
Chairman Zacchio responded it is two groups pitted against one another that cause a lot of disruption in our community. The member of the public asked which group would be divisive. Chairman Zacchio responded that it could be a group that is for or against. Mr. Shea added that when the Charter is opened the entire Charter is allowed to be reviewed; it is a long process which usually takes twelve to eighteenth months so it is not just one issue that could be addressed besides the code of conduct. He added that we could have opened up the Charter when the code of conduct was put in force but all the Boards agreed and the citizens at that time agreed and it appeared we had put something in force that was in the best interest of Avon. The member of the public added that if there was really issues that needed to be discussed that might be a good thing. Chairman Zacchio clarified by reading a passage from when Council was asked to open the
Charter in 2008 after the Council passed the third failed referendum budget in support of the budget that was there, “The Town Council shall direct to the Commission to consider any recommendations included in a petition of the electors and make any other recommendations as well. In addition the Commission itself may consider any other items as it deems desirable or necessary.” He added that this means the Charter may be petitioned to be opened for a single purpose but once it is open the Charter is open from page one to page whatever and any item in there can be brought forward and petitioned to go to referendum. The member of the public added that we shouldn’t be afraid of change, this is America, and people have to stand up to say what they want. Chairman Zacchio responded that is why we are all here. He added one item as a for instance that he would not be in favor of splitting the budgets as that is a change he is afraid to see
and thinks it would split the community to have separate capital, Town of Avon, and Board of Education budgets to vote on in each referendum.
Mohan Chunduri, 18 Alcott Way, asked Council’s view if the Charter is opened for any reason and the proposal was made to split the school and town budgets would Council vote to split or not to split but he got their answer during the previous discussion. Chairman Zacchio responded that there is a caveat as Council would not have control if they were petitioned to do that so if the Charter is opened and the Commission says they would like to split the budgets, Council can say that they do not think that is a good idea, the Commission then reports back to say too bad and you are forced to referendum so Council does not have control, once the Charter is open the Commission may petition to put anything to referendum that they want whether Council agrees or not. Mr. Chunduri questioned who the Commission is
appointed by. Chairman Zacchio responded that the Commission is appointed by the Town Council and there are a number of rules around representation. Mr. Chunduri sought Council’s individual opinions. Chairman Zacchio responded that he just got his. Mr. Pena responded that he is not in favor of separating the budget. Mr. Evans agreed with Chairman Zacchio. Mr. Shea responded that he has corresponded with a number of people on this issue, there are a number of e-mails floating around out there and he would not support splitting the budgets. Mrs. Samul responded that she does not think it is in the town’s best interest to split the budget but that it is not in Council’s control if it goes to Charter revision.
Mitchell Piper, 129 Stagecoach Road, reported that he has had an opportunity to work in higher education through family foundations and work that he has done at universities for the past twenty-five years and he has dealt with conflict of interest policies his entire professional life and he would like to bring a perspective opinion to this. He stated that the current conflict of interest policy not withstanding, it is common in small towns to work with a small workforce that have to deal with conflicts of interest and to make accommodation for dealing with these natural conflicts. He added that it is a reality of living in a small town that we all understand and respect even our town’s conflict of interest policy allows town officials to have spouses in school systems, school officials with spouses on
the town payroll, anyone to have a spouse in the fire department and so on. He stated that it is a well-known and accepted fact that some members of the Town Council enjoy similar accommodations and that’s ok. He stated that the longer a family lives in Avon and the more generations that family will live in Avon the more potential conflicts that family will have; similarly the more members of the family who elect to serve our town as employees the greater the likelihood of conflict, in short the very citizens who live here the longest and serve our community the most will face the greatest likelihood of encountering conflicts of interest. He added that surely we do not want to penalize Avon’s long standing families for their commitment to our town by preventing them from enjoying gainful employment in Avon; there are so many situations like this where there are appropriate reasons to waive policies for the good of a town, our citizens and our children
so long as appropriate firewalls are drawn around conflicts of interest. He added that Mr. Goeler is one such situation; he is honest beyond reproach, intelligent, and a morally outstanding individual; Mr. Goeler and his wife have dedicated most of their professional lives and service to our community and to the education of our children. He added that many in this room would agree that the stellar reputation of the Avon school district is due greatly in part to Mr. Goeler’s academic vision and shaping the educational policies of our schools and his ability to deal with faculty, parents, and community leaders. He stated that we talk a lot about transparency among our boards and it is his understanding that Mr. Goeler immediately reached out to the new Town Manager, that they meet regularly and that they enjoy a productive working relationship; the Town Attorney has confirmed that the Board of Education can waive their conflict of interest policy and hire Mr.
Goeler as long as appropriate firewalls are drawn around potential conflicts and it is clear that Mr. Goeler is the strong favorite for this position by the community and by the Board of Education. He added that by not allowing the Board of Education to hire Mr. Goeler, waive their conflict of interest policy with appropriate firewalls, and show the Goeler’s the same courtesy and respect that we show other longstanding residents who want to serve our small town without challenge. Chairman Zacchio responded that Council has never taken any kind of action or vote to not allow Mr. Goeler to either apply for or be in the position of superintendent, nor can Council as that is not our role. He added that Council has stood up for the policy as it stands but our policy does not have authority in this situation so he wanted to make it clear that Council does not have authority to make that decision nor has it made that decision for anybody. He reported that
from a policy perspective he cannot answer because Mr. Piper has talked about issues that he could have conflict with and he actually had to remove himself from that process while that policy was being put in place so he asked Mr. Shea to respond. Mr. Shea responded thanked Mr. Piper for his comments as he brought up a lot of different issues which Chairman Zacchio has addressed that particular point and won’t repeat it, but agrees with him. Mr. Shea reported that the process involved with the code of conduct and the code of ethics involved all the boards, the senior management for the Town of Avon, and our Town Attorney and tried to draw a line as to what we thought was reasonable. He stated that the process took four to six months and it was very involved and we discussed all the different potential conflicts that could come up; Chairman Zacchio removed himself from the discussion about dependents or dependent family members that you live with working in
the Town of Avon so he wasn’t part of that conversation. He added that everyone should get a chance to read the policy if you haven’t already. He stated that what the policy basically says is if a Board of Education member has a spouse or a child who is working for the Town of Avon they cannot work for the Board of Education but they can work on the town side and vice versa; the thought behind that was there was no direct oversight therefore there was going to be no direct conflict. He added that we did think about that, we did discuss that and as an example no one’s child/spouse on the Town Council could work for the Town of Avon but they could work for the Board of Education. Mr. Piper responded that he did not want to be misunderstood as he would have no problem whatsoever with Mark Zacchio sitting in on any of those meetings because he thinks he is a trustworthy person but his point is that there are a lot of people in town that feel
that this isn’t a well written policy and having worked at the corporate level and also at the educational level, while some of you do not like the comparison to corporation versus education or even town, he thinks we would be hard pressed to find one person sitting in this Chamber tonight that cannot point out specific instances where they have had to deal with conflict of interest policies either in the workplace or in your situations so it seems to a lot of us in the town that are not on these boards that are sort of on the outside looking in it seems that this is in some ways turning into a political battle as opposed to what is really the best for our kids and our school systems. Mr. Shea responded that he has no problem with someone wanting to improve or change the policy but there is a process that has to take place so that we can do that. He reported that when we went through the process it did take some time, it was deliberate, everyone tried to think of
every possible scenario and everyone walked away thinking we had a policy that could be enforced and that would be in the best interest of Avon; there was no dissenting comments. He respectfully disagreed, noting that he and Chairman Zacchio has been a long time, 40+ years, friend of his, families have interacted together, our tie is strong, and thought that Chairman Zacchio did the right thing by stepping out of the conversation because he doesn’t think it was appropriate for Mark to participate and/or have a vote on that. He added that Chairman Zacchio took it upon himself but if he had not, Mr. Shea probably would have brought it to his attention and if he was to make that mistake he would ask that Council bring it to his attention. Mr. Shea stated that while we are bringing up Mark, and this is not directed at Mr. Piper, this is directed at some of the bloggers that do not sign their name and potentially even some people that are not here in the room,
some things have been said about Mark and Mark’s family that Mr. Shea is very uncomfortable with. Mr. Shea stated that all Council members think very highly of Jody Goeler; we think he is a wonderful person and a great educator so that part of the discussion really can be had but we are all fans too. Mr. Shea added that for him personally this is about the policy and it is in place to protect Avon and has no problem with this policy being opened up, looked at, and potentially changed if people can approve upon it but he would ask that a process be involved, that the Town Attorney be involved, and that all the boards and management sign off on it. He added that as we go forward and move on however this goes he hopes that some of the comments being made about the Zacchio’s stop. Mr. Piper responded that if he is hearing everything correctly you are not preventing the Board of Education from choosing Jody, you are not preventing them from waiving
their policy, and most of you will not initiate opening a Charter but that if you had a petition you may not have a choice in the matter. Mr. Shea responded that Chairman Zacchio has made it very clear, and he does not think that all of the Council members want to keep saying it but we will if you like, we do not tell the Board of Education who to interview or who to hire for the superintendent’s position as we do not have that authority but again he would not waive that policy. Mr. Pena agreed with some of the things that Chairman Zacchio and Mr. Shea have said but also added that Mr. Piper had to say about small towns is very real; many people that live in town, grow up in town, and many generations do go into working for the town or better than that volunteering for the town like ourselves that would preclude us or our family from being able to work for the town. He also agrees that the policy if it needs to be changed, we certainly have just adopted as
of November 2009 so it is still relatively new, and there is reasoning behind it then we would certainly take a look at it. Chairman Zacchio responded to Mr. Piper that the applicable portion of the Charter says, “Avon may initiate the amendment process either by a resolution adopted by two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the Town Council or by petitions signed by not less than ten percent of the towns’ electors.” Mr. Piper questioned that if it goes to referendum is it a simple popular vote to pass it or not. Chairman Zacchio responded yes. Mrs. Samul reflected on Mr. Piper’s conversation regarding small town and she understands that especially with the fire department and that was specifically addressed in the policy but is she wrong that neither Mr. Goeler nor his wife live in town so she does not quite get that leap in what Mr. Piper is saying and the pool from which we hire our administrators and teachers is certainly
wider than just the Town of Avon. She asked Mr. Piper his point about it being a small town. Mr. Piper responded that his point about it being a small town is that whether you live in the town or not is that generations of people tend to service this town so he is not concerned whether Mr. Goeler lives in the town or not, he certainly is a very well respected person in the community and he certainly does a great job of servicing the needs of this community. Mrs. Samul responded no question, she was trying to make the connection between the two and I don’t think there is but she does not have a qualm with either comment, sorry.
Annie O’Brien, 11 Stony Way, reported that she is a teacher at Pine Grove School and first wanted to sincerely thank the members of the Town Council for your extensive volunteer service to our town; Avon is a great place to live in large due to the endless hours that each one of you has invested as volunteers. She is here tonight as one of many who are concerned about the situation; Jody Goeler has worked his way up through our school system from teacher to principal to assistant superintendent to his current position as our school superintendent and eluded to what Mr. Piper was saying is that Mr. Goeler has worked in this town for many years as has his wife. She added that Mr. Goeler has earned the respect and confidence of the community as an extreme hard-working, creative, collaborative leader and we
seem to all agree on that. She reported that the knowledge and the insight that he has gained through his years of service to Avon combined with his exceptional interpersonal skills make him uniquely qualified to be a candidate for the position of superintendent and it would be a major loss to our schools if he is ultimately prevented from applying for this job. She has no doubt that running a town is much harder than it looks; elected officials often differ regarding priorities and possible solutions to problems; there is of course a need for separate entities to manage the diverse aspects of a municipality. She added that Council has explained that the Board of Education is solely responsible for selecting the best candidate to serve as our superintendent; many Board members have indicated that Mr. Goeler would be a top candidate however there is a concern that the Town Council might take steps to derail the candidacy and to damage the future of the town by
opening the Charter, splitting the budgets, and so forth. She added that hopefully this fear is unfounded and wonders though if there are groups in town that have decided that this is the best means for defeating the school budgets if they will pursue that path in any regard. She stated that the new policy absolutely makes sense for perspective new hires but it would be unfair to impose on someone who has been employed in Avon long before the policy was ever adopted and hope that our elected leaders, Board of Education or Town Council, will find a way to grandfather Mr. Goeler in this case because it really would be a travesty to eliminate a most ethical candidate to maintain a new ethics policy. She also pointed out that town governments often make exceptions to policy plus it is very common nationwide for administrators in education to have spouses who work in the same system; standard procedures are put in place to ensure appropriate conduct. She stated
that hopefully the Town Council will encourage the Board of Education to select the best qualified candidate for this important job, whoever that person may be. She commented that Mr. Erwin was the superintendent at the time that the conflict of interest policy was put in place and one could assume that like the superintendents before him that he would have been here for a long time to come and that this would not have been an issue for Mr. Goeler at all as he would not have been a candidate but he stepped up to the plate when Mr. Erwin chose to depart and he helped to move the town forward so the circumstances today are very different than the circumstances when that conflict of interest policy was adopted and important to keep in mind as well. Chairman Zacchio responded that she is right and the Board of Education has the ability to do that and does encourage them to hire their candidate that they feel is the best candidate for the job and for the Town of Avon; he
cannot weigh in on it, never interviewed a single candidate, never interviewed Jody, and he has no basis of comparison to know that if he is the best candidate or not but that is the Board’s decision to decide and not ours.
Karen Cianci, 21 Volovski Road, sought to clarify that if the petition went through and then Council would be bound to open the Charter who would discuss any and all items in the Charter. Chairman Zacchio responded that the Charter Commission as appointed by the Council. She responded that the Council is part impartial to the Charter Revision Commission. Chairman Zacchio responded that Council appoints them. Ms. Cianci asked if there are people from the Town Council who would be on that Charter Revision Commission. Chairman Zacchio responded that there are rules around how many elected officials can serve and minority party serving. Ms. Cianci added that we are dealing with a lot of ifs here, if the petition of thirteen hundred actually goes through which she thinks is very difficult to
achieve because we could barely get two thousand voters out to the referendum. Mrs. Samul responded that is how we got the Charter in the first place. Chairman Zacchio reported that in 1999 there was a requirement of nine hundred and twenty-eight signatures to open the Charter when we moved from the town meeting methodology to the methodology of voting by referendum and approximately twenty-eight hundred signatures were secured. Ms. Cianci questioned if that issue was as pressing as this issue. Chairman Zacchio responded that it was the issue of whether we passed a budget by people in a room like this who said all in favor say I or going to referendum. Ms. Cianci commented that this is an unfortunate situation that we are in where we want Jody to be superintendent but in reality what the issue being brought to the table is dividing up the budget. Chairman Zacchio responded no. Ms. Cianci added that it sounds like that is it; that we are
really not talking about putting Jody Goeler into the superintendent position, we are using this as a way to say that they want to divide the budget. Chairman Zacchio responded that he encourages her to look at the Charter as it is a lot more than just the budget; the Charter would be opened for change and interpretation. Ms. Cianci stated let the Charter be open because she sat on a Charter Revision Commission in Canton and it did not take eighteen months, it took three months and everybody was happy at the end, it was wonderful so change does not necessarily mean conflict, change can mean other things. She reported that Jody Goeler gets it, the it part is hard to define but when one sees it they know it; this is not to say that other town leaders and other candidates for the superintendent don’t get it, they may very well but Jody acts on his feelings and his intuition; he is a doer and a leader and we all know that organizational philosophy comes from the
top down and she knows that this is the way it works in Avon public schools. She is reminded of the Desiderata story, go placidly amid the noise and haste and this is Jody Goeler always calm, always smiling and she knows behind that smile is thinking of only the best and of the students. She reported that Jody knows what is important in life: music, family, friends, kindness, peace, and communication; if Jody is lacking in any area or qualifications, and she would be surprised if he were, his qualities are so unique that they would trump anything; he works well with people, his qualities allow him to accomplish just about anything he wants to because he establishes such trust with the people that he is with. She added that Jody Goeler is what Avon has been waiting for; she urges Council members to dig in their heels, to not assume the fetal position in this issue, and be a broken record if they have to, to permanently waive the conflict of interest policy that is
in place if technicalities are presenting such action from happening she urges Council to consider that number one, both Jody and his wife have grandfathered the policy long ago and both Jody and his wife have gained our utmost trust in their tenure here in Avon public schools. She also finds very important that she sat in on a focus group one and half years ago to communicate what qualities Avon residents are looking for in a superintendent, before David Erwin, and she believes there are results of this focus group and the number one quality that we were looking for in town was trust and let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water, the trust part is still number one and Avon trusts Jody Goeler above all. Chairman Zacchio responded that the Council does not have authority to dig in its heels or do anything else as it is not our decision to make.
Ben Colman, 37 Tamara Circle, reported that Council is indirectly having some influence by creating question around liability and is curious to know what exactly Council has been told and by who and what specific liability are we talking about. Chairman Zacchio responded that there is no way that Council can contemplate every specific liability in a code of conduct policy; you put a conduct policy in place to set an expectation, to set a culture; one of the most important things of that policy is that all of your top officials are part of it. He added that we can talk about the line of demarcation and where it should and should not lie but it protects you from what you don’t anticipate so talking about specific liabilities in any situation would be difficult to understand. He added that we spent a
lot of time putting this policy into place and nobody ever anticipated this issue three months later.
Judy Marks, who works for the Board of Education and resides in Barkhamsted, reported that it is her understanding that the Charter does not address the issue of grandfathering employees in regard to this issue and consequently it would seem that there is no basis for opening the Charter. Chairman Zacchio responded that this policy is not in the Charter. Ms. Marks asked then how the policy could open the Charter. Chairman Zacchio responded that the attorneys who have weighed in on this have said that if this is a charter revision then it would ultimately have authority over making this decision since it is not part of the Charter that responsibility by State Statute lies solely within the Board of Education. Ms. Marks followed by asking hence why it would open the Charter now. Chairman
Zacchio responded that if somebody wanted to open the Charter to strengthen this policy they would petition Council to do so; once the Charter is opened all items in the Charter are open and there is no control over what we could or couldn’t put to referendum for approval by the town residents. A member of the public asked how you can strengthen a Board of Education policy within a Town Charter. Chairman Zacchio responded that State Statute reflects that if this was in the Charter it has authority to make the decision since it is not in the Charter it does not have authority to make the decision, therefore the governing policy is that of the Board of Education’s not the Council’s; if someone thinks that should be stronger they could petition us to open it to make it stronger, while it is open all items in the Charter are open and that is the concern.
Susan Davey, 11 Edwards Road, reported that we have established that the Town Council has no authority over the Board of Education’s selection of a superintendent but it certainly has an influence given the unique situation with the conflict of interest policy. She added that the timing and the market for this particular search, it makes it uniquely challenging for the Board of Education so she wanted to ask Council what course of action you would recommend given your power of influence to your Board of Education colleagues. She reported that what the Board of Education will do with the six superintendent applicants they interviewed could prove to be unsatisfactory candidates for the job and would you recommend that 1) hire the least unsatisfactory of the bunch, 2) the search be terminated and
Jody’s interim position be extended provided he is still available and a new search begun in “x” number of days, or 3) hire the candidate that was and still is the number one choice of eight of the nine elected Board of Education officials and that is Jody Goeler. Chairman Zacchio responded that he would not weigh in on what the Board of Education decides to do as he does not live their lives, work in their shoes, and does not have the experience of the Board of Education to know who is the least or best qualified candidate for a position. He would expect, as his elected representatives on the Board of Education, that they would do what they think is the best for their specific situation as they did not weigh in when we went to hire our Town Manager. Mrs. Davey responded that the Board of Education was not involved in that, Council is involved in this. Chairman Zacchio responded that Council is really not involved with this; we were asked
our opinion and our opinion has been we should uphold the policy and it continues to be that. Mrs. Davey asked Council if they would be interested if they were invited to audit their interview process to see what they are up against. Mrs. Samul responded that you do not really think that the Board of Education ought to, should, or in any way would be a good idea to surrender their elected responsibilities to another Board to act on their behalf. Mrs. Davey stated that she was not saying surrender but audit and observe the process as it would help influence your feelings of upholding that conflict of interest policy. Mrs. Samul responded that the answer is no. Chairman Zacchio respectively said that the Board of Education is on a path and is considering involving community members in that discussion whether or not they will ask a Council member to be part of that and whether or not we think that is appropriate, we will have to cross that bridge if and
when it comes to that. He added that we are certainly elected officials as they are, if they would like our help we are certainly here, if they would like to invite other community members in to vet their process they certainly have that option available to them, it is really within their purview to make those decisions. Mrs. Davey agreed and did not want to be misunderstood as saying that she suggested that the Board of Education abdicate their responsibility but since there is a strong feeling on the Town Council that the conflict of interest policy trumps everything else that perhaps involvement of the process might mitigate that a little bit. Mrs. Samul added that she would be very disappointed in the Board of Education, they are knowledgeable, capable, elected by everybody not only in this room but in this town, and they have complete ability to evaluate all of the candidates. Mrs. Davey responded that there is a dearth of candidates statewide and the
timing is quite difficult which makes it challenging. Mrs. Samul added that she could not imagine that the Board of Education could not handle the situation. Chairman Zacchio reported that one thing that maybe we have learned in the experience in hiring our Town Manager is that being involved with the Council for a number of years prior to that he understood the kind of fit we needed, the kinds of skill sets we needed, the direction we thought the town was going in and the types of issues that Town Manager would become involved with and in the very, very impressive array of candidates we had, we used that lens if you will to determine who he thought would be the best candidate. He added that it would have been very difficult for someone who didn’t have that experience to use that same lens but perhaps somebody with a different lens could add a different perspective, and again up to the Board of Education on if they would like that help or not. Mr. Pena
responded that he does not have the expertise to select a superintendent, he might be a little more versed in hiring a Town Manager, somebody that he knows and works with on a regular basis but when it comes to a superintendent that is a separate expertise that certainly in this case the Board of Education would be hiring that individual. He added that he cannot really help the Board of Education select that individual and tell them who to hire but he certainly also would not tell them who not to hire. Mr. Evans reported that based on conversations he has had with members of the Board of Education he does not think that they want this Council telling them what to do. Mrs. Davey responded that this is her doing, she is not on the Board of Education, and her question is more if the option is upholding the conflict of interest policy and getting a substandard candidate for superintendent, talking about risk, weighing the risk of a conflict of interest policy being
broken but there is also a tremendous risk to entrusting our schools to someone who the Board of Education does not feel is qualified. She added that her thought was that if Council observed the process, not participate or expect any Council members to be qualified to select a superintendent but to audit the process, to watch it, to feel confident that if they ever did come back and say these people do not cut it, we do not want to take that risk, that is what she was saying. Mr. Evans responded that he has been through the process of hiring a superintendent and would be happy to volunteer his time to assist but he thinks that is a role reserved for the Board of Education by Statute on who they want to hire. He added that he read in the paper that there is a belief that this Council does not support the hiring of Jody Goeler and he wants to correct the record on that. He speaks for members of the Council and himself, he knows Jody Goeler very well and he sat
next to Jody Goeler for six years on the Board of Education and hold him in the highest regard and he is a tremendous educator but this is not for Council to say whether the Board should hire Jody Goeler; this Council has said that we do not support waiving of a conflict of interest and that is a big difference because under other circumstances he thinks this Council would be fully supportive of the hiring of Jody Goeler. Mrs. Davey added that her only point is that she felt like if Council was somehow involved in the process you might be able to get over that objection to overriding the conflict of interest policy, building a firewall or allowing exception if you believed that the risk was greater to entrusting our schools to someone who wasn’t as good as Jody. Mr. Evans responded with taking it to the next step and say that Council gets over it as you say, it does not mean that there is not going to be a petition filed with a requisite number of votes to open
the charter and once a Charter Revision Commission is appointed it becomes largely outside the control of this Council within parameters of certain representation which Chairman Zacchio has already eluded to so it is not like we can stack the deck. Chairman Zacchio added that if you could imagine if we had three thousand signatures they are going to have some representation on the Commission but that is the heart of the matter which Mr. Evans has hit on. Mr. Pena added that does not mean that at the end of the day when the Commission says this is the item that is going to be on the referendum those three thousand signatures are going to support it anyway. Mrs. Davey responded that Council has so much influence in the town as an objective body that if you were to come out publicly and say we do not like this but we have seen the process and we believe that the Board of Education is acting responsibly, that the risk to appointing someone other than Jody Goeler based
on what we have been able to receive for applicants is so great that we would rather take this risk; she thinks Council can influence the public opinion on this and perhaps preclude a petition being drawn up. Mr. Pena responded that is correct. Chairman Zacchio responded that Council has supported the last five budgets.
Don Bonner, 35 East Woodhaven Drive, reported that it seemed to him that it is almost silly that everyone wants Jody Goeler to be superintendent; superintendent is just a title, he is now interim superintendent so why don’t we just leave it alone, let him be what he is and just continue it on, is that a problem. Chairman Zacchio responded that Board of Education members are here and listening. Mr. Bonner added that if he is doing a great job, it is just a title. Mr. Evans responded that by State Statute you need to have a permanent superintendent. Mr. Bonner responded what does it matter, we have been doing it now and it works very well. Chairman Zacchio responded that Council does not have the authority to do that. Mr. Bonner stated that the answer is that he is doing a great job
in there right now.
Jay Spivak, 125 Northgate, reported in his opinion that it is his understanding that the Board of Education would not appoint Jody Goeler as our superintendent because we heard that the majority of the Town Council members were in favor of initiating opening the Town Charter in order to insert the policy into the Town Charter; he has not heard differently tonight and it is not the majority. He asked Council based on comments they made that if the Town Charter is opened from a petition and the referendum ends up having the question of inserting the policy into the Town Charter, which he believes the majority of Council would like that policy in the Town Charter if not you can explain that, and Jody Goeler was appointed our superintendent what do you expect to happen at that point. Chairman Zacchio responded
that he was not sure that he understood the question. Mr. Spivak clarified that if the Board of Education was to appoint Jody Goeler as superintendent next week, not saying it is going to happen, and then the Town Charter is revised so that the policy is in the Town Charter which he believes most of the Town Council members want would the policy be enforce and would Jody Goeler or his wife have to leave the district. Chairman Zacchio responded that he did not think there is an answer for that; it would depend entirely on what the charter revision applied and said. He added that the Charter Revision Commission could come up with a number of different items and ways of addressing that. Chairman Zacchio asked if Mr. Spivak was asking if it would be retroactive. He would suppose that if a Charter Revision Commission came up with that and put it to referendum and it passed it would be; the Charter is the Constitution of Avon. He added that it is well
beyond the control of the Council or anybody else, another hypothetical. Mr. Pena responded that it is a hypothetical and an attorney would be involved for the legal part of it. Mr. Shea added that the process involves the Town Attorney, the Commission, and the people voting on it; he would put the policy in the Charter if it is opened if that is Mr. Spivak’s question, the answer is yes. Mr. Shea stated that to go further than that, there is going to be a lot of people involved with a lot of different perspectives on how that policy works and what the Charter would be. Mrs. Samul responded that maybe that is what one of the members of the audience was asking earlier that she didn’t understand it quite the way Mr. Spivak is saying it right now; her position is that the Board of Education has unintentionally, accidentally pointed out a weakness in where we thought we were going last fall in setting up this conflict of interest and regardless of
what happens with the superintendent’s position it is in the town’s best interest to have the conflict of interest policy in the Charter not because of Mr. Goeler or the current Board of Education but because it is a weakness in the conflict of interest policy. She added that there might be somebody sitting here that finds a firewall or a way around or on another major board, something she does not have the faintest idea what but just as a matter of making things clean and tidy she thinks the conflict of interest should be in the Charter at this point and again having nothing to do with what you people are discussing tonight. Mr. Pena reported that there could be other things that come up on the Charter, we know that, and go to referendum, not only would it be the conflict of interest policy but there could be other things that the Commission would say these are things that we want to change on the Charter. He stated that the question is whether or not
those changes would be retroactive and we do not know as we are not an attorney. He added that in 1999 if there were some things that were included then that might have been retroactive but did not know. Chairman Zacchio reported that if an item was in the charter revision and it was voted on by the public and approved, he does not know if retroactive is the right word, would it preclude contracts from being done in the future or renewed, he cannot answer that. Mr. Pena commented on whether or not an item would be grandfathered and maybe it could be but we do not have an answer.
Judy Marks, who works for the Board of Education and resides in Barkhamsted, asked if the Council feels that they want this policy in the Charter then why is Council so afraid of opening it up. Chairman Zacchio responded that Council hasn’t really had it on our agenda and we haven’t had the charter revision on our agenda.
Randy Leaning, 559 Lovely Street, reported that she hears what Council is saying about the policy and that Council would want it in the Town Charter, her question would be, would your answer be the same if it was to be a municipal policy. Mrs. Samul responded yes. Mrs. Leaning sought clarification for herself, and this is not toward any Council member personally, but ethically speaking to her the way it is now is that there is a separate conflict of interest policy for the Town Council and one for the Board of Education. She added that the difference right now appears to be semantics but in terms of familial influence she does not see a difference. She asked if the Charter were opened, would there be a potential to change it to a municipal policy. Mr. Shea responded that Council’s goal
when the conflict of interest policy was being done was to make it a unified town policy and because of the differences between the Board of Education and the Town, the Board of Education pointed out minor language changes, which were made but Mr. Shea still refers to it as a unified code of conduct policy as we talked about before we did discuss opening up the Charter to put it in the Charter because we wanted it to be as strong as possible but because of some of the issues that we have previously discussed we felt it was best to go forward with a policy, everyone was in agreement, everyone was unanimous, there were no dissenting comments so he perceived it as a unified code of conduct policy with a couple of language issues that were discussed thoroughly and over a good period of time. Mrs. Leaning asked so if the language read the same for both and it was for the municipal entity, meaning everyone in the town, your position would be that you would support that policy as a
municipal policy, not separate by entity of Town Council versus Board of Education. Mr. Shea responded that he would like a unified code of conduct policy personally. Chairman Zacchio responded that is actually what we set out to do. Mrs. Samul responded that we couldn’t do it in that, for instance, the Town side also includes the police and the fire department, and the Board of Education didn’t want that language in their code of ethics so they modified and cut some things out but the essence of it, the not having a relative reporting to you is still in there and that is the code of ethics issue that you are bringing to us tonight. Mr. Pena responded that when the policy was voted on in November we were all in agreement that we did have a unified policy at that time; it wasn’t until June when all of this about the superintendent and the Board of Education started looking into who they could hire that all of a sudden something else came up. Mrs. Leaning closed by saying that
she supports Jody Goeler, has known him for over ten years working with him on a committee is how she first met him and he was talking about twenty-first century learning skills ten years ago; anybody who has listened to the news for the last months knows that that is the hot topic of conversation and where our future lies. She added that he is a man with a vision and a commitment and he has not waivered with awe, even despite all of the political distractions, and it seems to her that it is education as usual for him and she perceives this as an opportunity for the Boards to work together to try to come to an amenable solution because we are not a Fortune 500 company where fall out is part of the culture here. She stated that we see exceptions every day in the Town of Avon, she gets the e-mails and reads about all the businesses and people applying for exceptions to changes in the zoning regulations so that they can make improvements to their property and history has
proven that there are times when even our Constitution has had to be amended, for example, giving women the right to vote and she cannot imagine that we cannot arrive at a solution including a grandfather clause, use of an arbitrator and advisory board, etc., methods by which Council have used solutions to other policy issues in the past. She also wanted to address transparency in growth in the grand list; many of us have asked the Board for transparency and she is asking the same from the Town Council. She added that she has read the minutes from the last nine to twelve months and she does not see a lot of discussion on economic development or what we are doing to try to grow the grand list. She reported that she has done her homework in town and she is trying to understand what strategies we use for that but she would like to see more dialogue about reports from the Town Manager, the Town Planner, the Assessor’s office, and the Town Council because we are
forever in a situation where we have plenty of homes for sale, plenty of building lots for sale, still continual growth of the student population in our schools, the never-ending fight to keep taxes as low as possible by the Avon Taxpayer’s Association, we have so much to lose yet we have so much to gain by working together and by being solution-oriented and that is what she encourages Council to do. Chairman Zacchio thanked Mrs. Leaning.
Sue Henneberry, 488 Huckleberry Hill Road, asked in the four to six month process that Council had in developing the policy did you compare towns in the state, you mention this was a weakness in our existing governing policies, do all other towns have this similar kind of policy. Chairman Zacchio responded that the policy was born of an issue that was happening in town but the timing was interesting in terms of the state had been talking about a state mandated ethics and code of conduct policy; he does not know how deep it went because we never got into it but what alarmed us was it had to do with public officials being elected to positions and the disclosure of personal finances, incomes, bank accounts, investments, and it raised a lot of eyebrows in a lot of towns as it would be hard to get people to come in and
volunteer when they have to disclose all of their personal information; that actually came in on the heels of the issue that was going on and our Town Attorney had briefed us on that. He added that Council asked the Town Attorney, who completed the first draft of the policy, to draft something that is similar to other towns, municipalities that meet some of the state requirements; the Town Attorney’s advice at the time was if you have a policy in place it’s good because if the state policy ever happens it would be that much better that you do something or have it in place. He reported that he does not know how deep the Town Attorney went in terms of recognizing other towns and what they might have had in theirs but his office did a lot of work in that arena. Ms. Henneberry reported that her experience in the town, just on the Board of Education side, is that they have had two Board of Education members step down because of either personal business with
the town or family hires with the town because it was a direct hire of the Board of Education so we were operating in an ethical environment prior to policy; if the state wasn’t mandating us to write this policy and we wrote the policy in our town then don’t we have the authority to revisit the policy. Chairman Zacchio responded that the state did not mandate the town to write the policy and there is always reason to revisit the policy. Ms. Henneberry added that historically we have done a pretty good job of being ethical, after the discussion has stopped since you have passed the policy and the environment has shifted maybe there is really a genuine need to revisit the policy.
Karen Cianci, 21 Volovski Road, added, bouncing off what Jay Spivak and Sue Henneberry said, that if we revisit the policy why don’t we touch upon the issue of retroactive or grandfathering; can’t we simply revisit the policy and just grandfather the Jody Goeler and Nora Goeler situation.
Wendy Zacchera, 114 Huckleberry Hill Road, expressed she has a very different opinion of this whole thing; she reported that she has lived in Avon for sixty years, taught in Avon for thirty-eight years. She stated that the conflict of interest policy was initiated two years ago following an issue with a Board of Education member, her husband being a CIGNA employee and the town’s employee health coverage being switched from Anthem to CIGNA. She added that she attended most of the Town Council and Board of Education meetings during that time period and the conflict of interest policy was in place after six months; it is that policy which is already being challenged. She reported that approximately twenty years ago her father was asked by the Republican Town Committee to be on the Board of Education;
he had been on the Town Council and numerous other town committees, her brother was on the Board of Finance; he was loved and respected as my father was, he was never allowed to be on the Board of Education because there was and as far as she knows still is a policy in place which doesn’t allow a family member to serve on the Board of Education if a family member is employed by the Board of Education. She added that we probably in today’s society could have challenged that but at the time no meant no and we accepted it; her family made the decision that it was more important for me to remain a teacher in Avon and so he was never on the Board of Education. She stated that Jody is unquestionably a wonderful person and a dedicated educator but she does not see the present issue as any different from her family’s; Jody’s family was faced with a similar situation and it is her understanding that he made the decision to stay on as Assistant
Superintendent so his wife could continue teaching art. She stated that the Board of Education made a decision not to challenge the conflict of interest policy and to continue with the superintendent search; and now she just sees where the Avon Education Association (AEA) and CC4A are challenging these decisions that have already been made. She also commented that as an AEA member, the membership was never polled as to their opinion on this issue and her opinion is that the Board of Education and Town Council, elected by the majority of Avon voters, put this policy in place to protect all parties and we need to support your decision, their decision, everyone’s decision; we need to hire a superintendent and start tackling the many challenges Avon and all school systems are facing.
Suzy Norman, 277 Cider Brook Road, reported that she wasn’t sure where she stands on those issues but had a question; blink yourself ahead a year or two from now and the code of conduct/ethics issue is part of our Town Charter, if at that time we were faced with this quandary what is the procedure if we want to side-step, is it once it is in that Charter no one discusses it or do we have to open the Charter to discuss it. Chairman Zacchio responded that the Charter is like the Constitution, the ruling portion of our government so if it is in the Charter it is law; if you want to change that there are methodologies which is opening the Charter to make a revision and there would have to be an issue either of a Council’s two-third majority vote to support that or a petition of ten percent of the electors as
it is written today.
Scott Bernard, 2 Churchill Place, reported that he came here tonight suffering from a lot of conflicting information you hear in the media and so on about the Board of Education and the Town Councils’ positions in this thing and he is somewhat relieved tonight to hear that the majority of Council do not favor initiating at least the opening of the Charter and the majority of Council do not favor splitting the budgets. He added that we keep touching on again and again the spectra of this petition and he can hear the questions tomorrow if we do not deal with this directly tonight; could you please take a moment to walk everybody through exactly start to end what this means so he can understand and everyone else can understand what you do and don’t control in the charter revision. Chairman Zacchio
paraphrased the steps for charter revision as given in a memo from our Town Attorney in July 2008 (a copy of which is attached and made part of these minutes) that was helping to instruct us because we were asked by some folks to consider opening the Charter after we had passed the third budget referendum that had failed with the voters. Mr. Bernard commented that there are points in the steps where Council does not have control of the process; Council can make recommendations but can still be petitioned at the end and still have to take something that you might not even favor to referendum, is that correct. Chairman Zacchio responded that was correct and that is the worry. Mr. Bernard asked besides that end point are there any other places in there you can highlight where you lack control over what happens and in some ways is subjective to whomever is petitioning. Chairman Zacchio responded just the petitioner itself. He added that Mr. Bernard is
welcome to a copy of the memo.
Mary Marinello, 87 Meadow Ridge, asked if there is a financial impact to the town if the Charter is open. Chairman Zacchio responded yes and expects it is the expense related to a recording secretary, referendum, Town Attorney’s work; today each referendum costs approximately $12,000, public hearings would require a larger venue requiring overtime with Public Works. Mr. Shea responded that it would easily exceed $20,000 to $25,000 but it is hard to put a number on it.
Barbara Zuras, 428 Deercliff Road, reported that she is a bit confused and it has been very helpful to hear all of Council state their position and understanding about what has transpired since Mr. Erwin left us. She added that the Board of Education has, each step of the way, been in touch with the Town Attorney and made sure that what we were doing we had the legal authority to do and because Mr. Goeler is well respected by the community and by every member of the Board of Education we wanted to make the best decision for him and for the children and for the schools. She stated that she is very confused about what she has heard each of Council say outside this meeting either to her personally or in the Town Council minutes of August 5, 2010. She added that she really needs, as a Board of Education
member, to be crystal clear on where you stand; she heard some of Council say that they want the policy to be put into the Charter so she needs to understand, regardless of what the Board of Education decides to do with respect to Mr. Goeler’s candidacy, does the majority of Council intend to open up the Charter to put the policy in? Mrs. Samul responded that she is the one that you heard say that she would like it in the Charter but she does not want to open the Charter. Chairman Zacchio responded that he is sorry this confuses Mrs. Zuras but he thinks she heard us answer the first question around whether we intended on, under the hypothetical situation, going forward and introducing that as an issue. Mrs. Zuras responded that Mr. Shea and Mrs. Samul both expressed concern and think some of the others of you did as well that you assumed that it was a uniform policy and that you think it needs to be and the mechanism for doing that is putting it into the
Town Charter so she just wants to clarify that in fact if we proceed with our search and we choose someone other than Mr. Goeler what are your intentions with respect to the Town Charter. Mr. Shea questioned Mrs. Zuras, as a member of the Board of Education as we were going through this process did she perceive it to be a unified code of conduct policy. Mrs. Zuras responded that she never really understood how it was going to play out. Mr. Shea responded that he didn’t ask that. Mrs. Zuras responded that yes she voted for it and as Mrs. Samul stated she had a problem with it from the very beginning. Chairman Zacchio asked Mrs. Zuras why she voted for it. Mrs. Zuras responded that it was a start and then there were changed circumstances and as a lawyer she is well aware that statutes and policies and procedures get amended all the time; her mandate is to choose the best superintendent for the schools. Mr. Shea clarified that his
question is when we were doing this code of conduct and code of ethics policy, Mrs. Zuras attended many of the meetings, she and he have discussed this many times, did she perceive it to be a unified code of conduct policy. Mrs. Zuras responded no, she didn’t understand, that’s why we voted on it separately. Mr. Shea responded that we voted on it separately because we serve on different boards. Mrs. Zuras added that she did not have that understanding and that is not the understanding that the Town Attorney gave us when he told us that we had the legal authority to waive it. Mr. Shea responded that if the Charter is opened, he would like to see a unified code of conduct policy be in the Charter. Mrs. Zuras stated that Mr. Shea told her that he would open the Charter to put the policy in that she and he have had a conversation which he said that to her and she has always understood Mr. Shea to be a fair person so she is asking for fairness
tonight and clarity. Mr. Shea responded that he has been very clear and he would not oppose opening the Charter but what he was trying to say to Mrs. Zuras was putting this in the Charter would strengthen it therefore it would be in the best interest of the Town of Avon because he never anticipated this violation an attack on the policy, he didn’t anticipate that; he felt we were approving a unified code of conduct policy and clearly through his frustration in discussing this with Mrs. Zuras where it became a riddle he actually felt as though that the only thing that could solve this problem was opening the Charter; he does not want to split the budgets and he thinks Mrs. Zuras knows that as he said that to her personally on the phone that was his fear of opening the Charter is that people would then want to split the budgets. He added that there are many e-mails out to many people where he has said that he does not want to split the budgets and he is sorry if
Mrs. Zuras disagrees with that but it is a written word and it is documented. Mrs. Zuras stated that Mr. Shea and Chairman Zacchio met with Jody Goeler over the summer to dissuade him from being a candidate. Chairman Zacchio responded that she was incorrect. Mr. Shea responded that she is taking great liberties here and before Mrs. Zuras says another word and gets herself in more trouble, did Jody tell you that? Chairman Zacchio asked Mrs. Zuras to answer that question as she has made an accusation. Mrs. Zuras responded yes. Mr. Shea suggested that Mrs. Zuras and himself get together with Jody as that is not what happened, she was not in the room; he and Chairman Zacchio met with him for two hours and it was a very cordial meeting where quite candidly we told him how much we thought of him and how great we thought he was and how unfortunate this situation was and we wanted to share with him all the trouble that this was going to cause and we did
not try to dissuade him. Mrs. Zuras added that there is a difficulty tonight in listening to some of you say that you did not try to influence our decision. Mr. Shea responded that he disagreed; he does not think that the Board of Education should waive the policy but he does take great exception to describing what we discussed with Jody Goeler and he is shocked that Jody Goeler told her that. Mrs. Zuras responded that she is shocked that Mr. Shea would tell this audience that he did not attempt to influence our decision. Mr. Shea responded that he wished he could influence your decision, he wished he could make it for the Board of Education, he cannot; he does not believe that violating this policy is in the best interest of Avon and does not know how much clearer he can be. Mrs. Zuras responded that she thinks it is within our sound judgment to determine whether or not waiving our policy to consider the best possible candidates is in the best
interest of the town. Mr. Shea stated he looks forward to that meeting with Mrs. Zuras, Jody, and himself.
Mitchell Piper, 129 Stagecoach Road, responded in defense of Mrs. Zuras, that she is not the only Board of Education member that has brought up concerns of influence from the Town Council behind the scenes to Board of Education members and is a big reason that most of us are here this evening. Chairman Zacchio responded that is perfectly fair; the Board of Education asked our opinion when we thought we had a policy that was an authoritative position and we said we did not think it was a good idea to waive the policy and they continued to ask and we continued our position that has never changed since they came to us and asked. Mr. Piper responded that he is not taking a side, but what they wanted to hear this evening from you directly and I think we have heard that you are not holding influence over their heads
to hire who they want. Chairman Zacchio responded that Mr. Piper is correct.
Wendy Sahl, 65 Stony Corners Circle, questioned if the bottom line here is that the Council’s authority and your influence, despite the fact that you want to uphold the conflict of interest, is zero on the Board of Education’s decision to pick who they want. Chairman Zacchio responded that is correct. Mrs. Sahl questioned if the Board of Education could just go and select Jody Goeler and put in safe guards to deal with the situation which she assumed had to be in place for the last nine months because that is the situation that we have been in. Chairman Zacchio responded that he did not know as it is not Council’s policy and does not know what the Board of Education’s situation is with Jody Goeler. Mrs. Sahl responded that someone probably knows, you do not have the answer,
but if they want to go tomorrow and hire Jody Goeler there is nothing to stop them at least from your authority over them; they have their own consciences to deal with and that is a separate issue but that is their business, is that what you are saying? Chairman Zacchio responded that cannot be clearer; there is then the issue of the Charter that we get concerned about.
Joe Weist, 59 Woodhaven Drive, would like to add his voice to the support to the Council’s position in opposition to the Board of Education waiving their policy; he understands that they have a very difficult decision before them, it is unfortunate but leadership has to make difficult decisions, you can go up and down line throughout this country, how important and how pressing governments and conflict of interest is becoming. He added that organizations, governments, corporations are looking to strengthen this, not to move further away from it. He stated that having just implemented it, having just starting in this town, and having heard comments this evening of potentially the need to strengthen it, he does not think backing away from it this quickly is in the town’s best interest and he agrees
with this town in recommending to the Board of Education that they follow the policy that they signed off on not long ago.
Ardith Franklin, 15 Burnham Hollow, reported that she has lived in town for thirty years and has been a teacher in town for twenty-five years and she thinks that what we have just seen is part of the bigger problem in that we are losing confidence and cordiality of our boards to get along with each other at a time when it is so difficult for all of you to get a budget passed, we need to see a better relationship among our town boards somehow; it seems because of the issues you face there is going to be conflict but that we are not getting anywhere tonight, we are fighting and we not coming up with any kind of positive solution or positive reaction on where we are going to go from here. Chairman Zacchio responded respectively we are not getting anywhere because the Council has no authority to do anything and that
said he gets along just fine with the Board of Education members and think we talk more often in the last year than he has talked to his family and he is sorry that is Ms. Franklin’s impression but please do not take that we do not agree on something as that we do not get along. Mrs. Franklin responded that it is more of parents versus the taxpayers, all the issues that the Boards have to deal with all year long are coming to a head and we keep having this discussion year after year and she does not see us getting anywhere.
Mr. Pena commented to Mrs. Zuras that he knows she had concerns regarding the conflict of interest policy, not only did she state to him but, as he attends Board of Education meetings, at the September or October meeting when it was discussed she restated her concerns and there were a few of the members of the Board of Education that did also agree with her as well. He added that at their October meeting which they basically all agreed to change the language in the policy but Mrs. Zuras still continued to express her concerns but she felt, in his opinion, that it was a start, a working document and certainly change it if it needed to be changed.
Kathy Zirolli, 76 Tamara Circle, reported that in December the Board of Education stated they were concerned with regards to making sure that the policies were somewhat different because the Boards have different purposes as Mrs. Samul had stated and as was stated very clearly in the December meeting, that there is a reason for the Boards to be different so to have different policies. She added that the teacher and state process are done differently, that is why we have the different Boards with different responsibilities. She stated that one of the things that is important and became important to her to even consider waiving a policy, for anyone that is aware of her background she created policies nationally, the reason that she became comfortable was that we had talked to the lawyer about what do other
municipalities and districts do; do you have spouses that work in the district and in this situation the answer was yes; can we create safeguards which Mrs. Zuras mentioned and yes we can; is there a means by which a conflict can be raised so that we address it, yes; so all the things that were concerning were answered in a way that she felt legally could be managed, not being a lawyer. She added that one piece that is in her mind that is troubling her and was brought up tonight, whether there could or should be a vote to understand where they stood; she doesn’t know if that was appropriate, it was just one of those things in the back of her mind that would be helpful for me, that was the one piece of information that she did not have. She added that the reason she made the decision, that many of you here do not agree with but she said it the other night and she will say it again, to no longer waive the conflict of interest policy was because it became crystal
clear to her that we would be spending time looking at a Charter Revision, having a unified code of conduct put in place, we would be spending then time discerning Mr. Spivak’s question on whether or not it is retroactive, do we then have to fire someone if we have gone down this route, so based on looking at that and thinking that the cost, the effort, and all the things we would not be able to accomplish that we must accomplish, we must work together, this process can’t continue. She stated that based on all of that she made the decision to no longer continue to waive the policy and it was very painful; it is a leadership decision and she does not like having to say that to Jody but it’s a decision that she made but let’s not pretend that there weren’t conversations and there weren’t comments that said that there wouldn’t be an open Charter and it would be done so that there was a unified code, let’s be real, that is over our
heads, that is why the Board of Education came to the conclusion, the eight of us that were willing to waive, changed our mind. Chairman Zacchio responded that there has been conversation for six months, positions have changed, the conversation had changed, it started at one point and moved to another point; it went through a process and during that process people learned more, people understand more. He stated that Council never took a vote to open the Charter and that the newspaper accounts were incorrect in saying that we proceeded with that option. He also stated that the Board of Education never sat before Council and asked us that question before you made your decision; those were decisions you made, he supports the Board of Education in that decision because he thinks they made the right one but let’s not act that there is something held over anybody’s head; what is public information here tonight and what you knew in August was your decision to
make, you could have clarified in any number of ways so please don’t say that things were held over your head. Mrs. Zirolli responded that she is not saying that things were held over our head, what she is saying is that it is a fact that she was informed by several different people via phone calls, meetings, very clearly that it would be of interest to open the Charter and have a uniformed code of conduct which would eliminate the possibility for doing what we were doing and therefore might require letting somebody go, that became crystal clear to her, it’s not over her head, it’s a piece of logic that goes into her brain that makes the decision and why she made it. Chairman Zacchio responded that he gets it, thanked her and it makes more sense; the clarifying point that Council needs to be clear on is whether or not the Charter was opened by the Council in which you heard tonight we are not willing to initiate that discussion or petitioned still has
the same outcome and still has the same valued of properties in your decision because it is still the end outcome that you do not want to see happen. Mr. Colman added that it is just a risk, a chance and not a foregone conclusion. Chairman Zacchio responded that that is the Board of Education’s decision to make. He summed it up by saying that the Council policy does not have authority to make this decision, the Board has 100% authority to make it; the Council has gone on record here tonight to say knowing what we know today it sounds like most of us will not initiate that discussion of Charter Revision; we are concerned that we will be petitioned to do so and if we do there will be outcome from that and we will have to deal with that; that is as fair and clear as his opinion can be.
Susan Davey, 11 Edwards Road, stated that basically right now the Board of Education’s decision is to weigh two risks: 1) the risk of a Charter Revision being petitioned and following through on potentially opening us up to other alternatives, double budgets and what not or 2) the risk of bringing in a new superintendent with no history and probably twelve to eighteen months learning curve before he or she even knows the players and is able to really affect change and move our schools forward. She added that one risk is a little bit more hypothetical and the other one is very real. Chairman Zacchio responded that he can’t think of if there are other risks but those certainly are the two we talked about tonight.
Joanne Beers, 48 Brookbridge Drive, clarified that there is nothing that would stop somebody who wants to petition to open the Charter from doing it whether we had this conversation tonight or not. She also asked if one did petition to open the Charter it might not be on this specific issue. Chairman Zacchio responded that we could be petitioned to open the Charter on any issue but once the Charter is opened all issues are open. She added that if someone wants to open the Charter and gets the thirteen hundred signatures then it is fair game. Chairman Zacchio responded that she is correct.
Ken Notestine, 31 Indian Pipe Trail, asked Council, based on everything they know today, is there any reason why any of you would be opposed to adding a grandfather clause to the code of ethics policy at this point. Mr. Shea responded that he would be opposed and so would Mrs. Samul. Chairman Zacchio responded that he does not know if he would be opposed or not opposed but if you are going to take a policy of the Town of Avon that we worked for six months to put in place that you would properly put it on the agenda, you would invite discussion, debate, and listen to the community and to the opinions before making that decision. Mr. Evans responded that he would be opposed. Mr. Pena agreed more with Chairman Zacchio and thinks it is important to have the debate and see where that would play into,
but if you want an up and down answer he would add the grandfather clause. Mr. Notestine also asked Council if a policy was introduced by the Charter Commission to the Charter do they have any discretion to modify that policy or is it strictly that they take the Council policy as is and introduce it to the Charter or can they modify it. Chairman Zacchio responded that Mr. Notestine missed the reading of the Charter steps and it is his understanding that once the Charter is open the Charter Revision Commission can consider such other items as it deems desirable or necessary. Mr. Notestine asked if that includes the revision of an existing policy. Chairman Zacchio responded that it includes everything in the Charter. Mrs. Samul added that it includes what we were originally asked in 2008 which is why we reviewed that, if a budget goes to referendum three times and gets turned down then the Town Council can make the decision but it has to further reduce
the budget. Chairman Zacchio responded that was what the request was in 2008, two times and ten percent was the quote. Mr. Pena added that at that time that was the reason behind considering opening the Charter which did not go anywhere.
Kasey O’Brien, 3 Bluestone Lane, asked Council about the Commission that will have some pretty impressive power, how you select these five or fifteen individuals, she heard that there are some parameters, do we pull them out of a hat, do we step forward and volunteer. Mr. Shea responded that you do not pull them out of a hat, you step forward and volunteer; there is usually a pool of candidates to choose from but it is a very, very powerful group that is not done very often. Mrs. O’Brien asked Council if they have to have unanimous approval for a person to be on the Commission. Chairman Zacchio responded that he did not think that Council knew but would expect that it would follow protocol on any board and take the majority of a full board’s vote to place each member on there. Mrs. O’Brien stated that she is looking down the road of where she thinks we may be and who these people will be.
Karen Cianci, 21 Volovski Road, reported that she has a tag line on her e-mail that says “the love of law should yield to the law of love” and she thinks that what she is seeing tonight is everything is very legal and when it all comes to a head it is really all about what is legal. She asked who the code of conduct policy was written by. Mr. Shea responded that there were different drafts completed by the Town Attorney as the process took four to five months, these different drafts were reviewed by all the different boards, the Town Manager at the time and the Superintendent at the time both of which are not present. Ms. Cianci asked if that policy can be revisited. Mr. Shea responded sure. Ms. Cianci asked if it is strange to say that you can revisit it and vote on an issue or
potential conflict of interest being grandfathered as been in place for many years before with no problems and really no conflict because the two people, Jody Goeler and his wife Nora, are such upstanding, trustworthy people, could you know say let’s grandfather it that they are immune from this. She added that if it were about any other person other than Jody Goeler she would not think you would have this number of people here; you cannot evaluate the things that are vacuumed, you look at Jody and you ask what is the risk?, let’s put him in, look how trustworthy he is. She added that she knows that there is a case for “well you make the rules and rules are not made to broken, they are rules” but there is a reason to grandfather something, grandfathering has been done many, many times; let’s consider grandfathering this so we don’t have to run the risk of opening the Charter. Chairman Zacchio responded that it would not change
the risk of opening the Charter. Mrs. Samul added that if you make something grandfatherable it is not just Jody that you are grandfathering, you are grandfathering the situation so that when it comes up on the Board of Finance or on the Town Council that person, that situation is now grandfathered and may or may not be as stellar. She also stated that laws are subject to interpretation, laws are created and different attorneys look at them differently and you can argue them, but ethics are ethics, you are either ethical or you are not ethical, you either have a code of conduct or you don’t and if you take fresh water and mix it with salt water you can’t have fresh water again. Ms. Cianci responded that what Mrs. Samul is saying is that codes of ethic cannot be grandfathered. Mrs. Samul responded that it is her opinion that she does not believe that they can be as then you do not have a code of ethics.
Brian Ladouceur, 165 Simsbury Road, reported that he heard a comment about the discourse that this conversation was having and actually disagrees with that and he heard another comment about leadership. He stated that he thinks one of the benefits of this meeting and the folks here is that there has been a lot of misinformation and misdirection both in the press, the blogs that you have to take with a grain of salt, about what really happened, what really could happen and what the process is and he thanked the Council for the leadership, understanding and the experience to take people step by step through a very complex and involved situation. He has heard different comments from people, circumvent the rule, bypass the rule, and just because something can be done does not mean that it always should be done. He thinks that to Mrs. Zirolli’s comment about part of the reason for the decision not to waive the policy that was made by the Board of Education was that there is a cost
benefit analysis and on the one hand Jody Goeler is a terrific educator, well respected, on the other hand there are costs and risks and it is quantifying those costs and risks, one that we at least have an estimate on what the costs is to open the Charter; there are risks involved with potential conflicts with every decision that may be made from the Superintendent’s office. He stated that if our goal is to have a school system that educates our students that our town can be proud of and we don’t want to have that jeopardized by a conflict, by discourse, by the very real threat that someone outside of the five people sitting up there could petition the Council to open the Charter to do many things of among which you had mentioned two specific key items that could be done. He stated that in the discussion if that truly is what is going to happen then those need to be quantified risks that the Board of Education is going to decide whether or not they should
waive their policy. He made a side note about the six people that he believes someone said are being interviewed, he thinks we have to be careful about those six applicants that got their applications in on time for that superintendent spot; if you were the one of them and you were sitting here saying people don’t want me I’m going to be doomed for failure the day I start, what kind of message does that send to that person so we really need to be careful about the dialogue because we want to get the best person for the job but we want to do it the right way. He appreciated the Board of Education for considering those things when they determined not to waive the policy and for the Council for showing the leadership to explain this complex situation.
Margaret Bratton, 15 Old Mill Road, reported that the only thing that she thinks was not brought up tonight about this issue is how the children might interpret this. She feels that the Board of Education did the right thing, they took the leadership role and Council agrees with that. Her concern is that if we begin to waive rules, eventually we are all going to have teenagers and you may have a teenager who is just as upstanding as Mr. Goeler, good at school just like they are great at their jobs, but if they make a mistake and they are brought in front of the board for either being expelled, etc. they are going to say well wait a minute, you guys made an exception, even if it was something they did that didn’t harm anyone, they may be looking at that as saying our leader of the school system got an
exception why can’t I, I do not affect anyone else in the town. She is concerned about what the children, who have already or will hear about this, and is another good reason why the Board of Education did what they did, that Council is backing them, and she would agree with both Boards. Chairman Zacchio thanked Mrs. Bratton and a lot of this discussion is best suited for the Board of Education members of which some are here tonight.
V. COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCIL
Mr. Pena reported that he attended the Firemen’s 9/11 Memorial Service as well as the Town Manager and Congressman Chris Murphy. He extended hats off to Fire Chief DiPace et al.
Mrs. Samul reported that a couple of weeks ago the State conducted a collection of unused medications with various collection points because certain medications need to be disposed of properly and unused oxycontins need to be turned over to the police department so perhaps on Avon Day we could offer such a service.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
05/06-42 Avon Mountain Road Project: Presentation by David Ferraro,
DOT Project Manager
David Ferraro introduced his boss, Dan Foley, District #4 Engineer. Mr. Foley reported that he oversees construction in this region and lives in Farmington; this job and the one in Farmington are very near and dear to him as he drives through them every day and make sure everything is on task. He reported that they are here to assure Council that the Avon Mountain Road project will be finished this year with a completion date that always was and will be November 29, 2010; it will be substantially complete which means all the pavement will be done, all the lanes will be open, all the line striping done, the medians will be planted; there will be some odds and ends to be completed and they will be back in the spring doing some replanting and possibly re-striping some of the lines, general clean-up, and planting
grass. He reported that there are approximately three weeks of paving; it will not be continuous, unfortunately with the rain it delays them; paving has started today. He added that the contractor is finishing the details on the median. He turned it over to David Ferraro who is there every day, hands-on.
David Ferraro reported that he is a Project Engineer or Project Manager for the DOT and as such is responsible for the mess on Avon Mountain. He reiterated that the project will be substantially complete as defined by Mr. Foley and they have been committed to that date for the whole project. Mr. Ferraro reported that there were a lot of challenges with the project and a lot of changes that occurred but they had a really good aggressive contractor that kept us on schedule so they deserve some credit in that regard. He reported that publicly there has been a lot of concern lately that it doesn’t look like they are doing anything out there and in defense of the contractor and ourselves the previous couple of years have been extremely active with construction right on Route 44, lots of major
operations. He added that the past couple of months there has been a lot of preparation work going into these final stages; the final stages of the project is basically all aesthetics with the exception of the final paving to be done. He reported that this project has over $1 million in plantings alone which is a huge percentage for plants on a contract with the DOT; we do not normally do that. Mr. Shea questioned what the final contract number was, but we started at $13.25 million and today we are close to $17 million. Chairman Zacchio questioned if that includes the truck ramp. Mr. Ferraro responded it does not; the truck ramp was approximately $3.5 to $4 million alone. He added that they spent a lot of money to try and make Avon Mountain safer in the last few years.
He reported that as they move forward the next things you will see, they just installed the four cable guide rail system that you see in the median which is a brand new proprietary item to the State of Connecticut; it is the first application that they have ever used of a pre-stressed high tension cable that is going to do a huge improvement to Avon Mountain with eliminating the crossover accidents which are the most severe. He added that historically with the truck accidents which get the most press that is a big part of it, but the bigger thing is all the minor, small vehicle accidents where we have fatalities every year that do not get the press, most of those are concentrated on the curves because of what we call crossover accidents where someone crosses over the yellow line in inclement weather or for some
reason and hit someone head on; the new rail system is going to eliminate that. He reported that soil preparations have started in the islands because they are doing so much extensive plantings in the median itself and is fully decorated in that regard and camouflage the appearance of the rail system and not make it look so highway-like. He reported that there are a lot of innovative products that have been used on Avon Mountain, including the rail system. He added that the town asked for decorative stone mulch so they instituted the new geo cell grid system having had concerns in construction with stone mulch on a grade like that and heavy rainfall. He reported that the big piece of the project aesthetically that has to be completed are the inlaid pavement markings as done in crosswalks at the intersection of Route 10 and Drake Hill Road in Simsbury; in Avon on the lower hill, the median will be just the markings themselves and as you get further up the
hill and the road widens we have the ability to have the planted median and a markings border around it. He reported that the problems with the markings are that temperature sets in and those are the things that they might still be doing next April; the markings adhere to the pavement and are permanent which require certain temperature ranges.
Mr. Shea questioned when the latest is that paving can be done. Mr. Ferraro responded that plants usually do not close until around December 15th. Mr. Shea questioned if DOT will try to tar through November if they can. Mr. Ferraro responded yes and committed to Council that they will be final paved. He added that existing lanes on Avon Mountain were 10’6” in width with no shoulders or turning lanes so people coming down or up the hill making left turns had nowhere to go, waiting to get rear-ended. He explained that with the new road there will be 12’ lanes with full shoulders, full turning lanes at the intersections, and also eliminated some intersections, for example Montevideo Drive, you go through Parsons Way now, so there has been some safety improvements
made. Mr. Evans questioned if there will be four lanes total all the way through. Mr. Ferraro responded yes. Mr. Evans questioned in addition to each two lanes on each side there will be turning lanes at the intersections. Mr. Ferraro responded yes. Mr. Ferraro clarified that with Pine Tree Lane the upper spur is going to be limited to right turns only and a dedicated left turn lane into the lower spur, another way to improve the intersection and traffic movement. He stated that Wright Road and Pine Tree Lane were also aligned.
Mr. Ferraro reported good news with the truck ramp with regards the Town of Avon’s concern regarding color and aesthetics. He reported that with what they were given by the Governor’s office to get the ramp built, they did not have the ability to throw any aesthetics into the project; the project was designed and on the street within four weeks when a project of that scale would take four or five years to hit the street normally. He reported that the Town’s request had been going on for a few years and DOT finally received approval to stain the ramp similar to the colors of the retaining wall and will begin within the next few weeks. Mr. Ferraro reported that the truck ramp cannot be totally camouflaged as they want trucks to see the ramp and use it; it is a safety aspect that DOT spent
approximately $4 million building. He stated that the ramp cannot be camouflaged to the deep, dark tones that the Town originally requested but instead a compromise where a lighter shade of the Avon red color on the retaining walls now will be used on the interior of the ramp but the exterior of the ramp and cap will be a darker shade similar to the Avon red color.
Chairman Zacchio reported that DOT has done a great job and are on time with the project which is important. He referred to the Farmington project that DOT is working on and in early discussions his understanding was one of the aspects of widening Farmington to three lanes was to take some of the pressures off Route 44 from a morning commute perspective and at that time it would be like Asylum Street and have two eastbound lanes in the morning and two westbound lanes in the afternoon to get traffic through but now it is just two eastbound lanes in the morning. Mr. Foley responded that is right; there were discussions during the public phase if DOT could do something like that and DOT thought that was too big of an undertaking as it requires manpower at all hours and the problem is that it is still two lanes
when you get up towards I-84; he is asked by his neighbors why DOT didn’t widen further but then where do you stop. He added that it was good negotiations with the town as they did not want another Cedar Street with two lanes in each direction so they felt the morning rush is one big surge from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the evening rush is about five hours long and a lot of people know shortcuts to get back if traffic is backed up hence the compromise of three lanes.
Chairman Zacchio reported, for the Town Manager’s benefit, that one of the things talked a lot about when we were embarking on the entire project was there was discussion around a speed abatement. He added it was an issue in terms of the narrowness of the lanes and crossover accidents causing fatalities and one of the things committed to at that time was to consider when it opened that we would think about a plan of high visibility by the Police Department during peak times to keep it from becoming a race track. He suggested that we think about it in terms of high visibility times and a plan around patrol there that helps abate speed when it opens. He reported that he is a commuter that goes over the Mountain every day, today you are going very slow and stuck in traffic and when that opens the
propensity for people to travel faster should be something that we are concerned about. Mr. Foley added that the aesthetics are also approved to be traffic calling features. Mr. Ferraro responded that it is a very good recommendation as someone who stands out there every day, even during construction, it is insane the speeds that people travel over that area. Mr. Pena questioned the maintenance of the stain on the ramp. Mr. Ferraro responded that it is a self-penetrating stain which is similar to the retaining wall and the thought process behind that is that is not a coating or a paint which would afford different ranges in color but it will peel and flake and look horrible in years to come. He added that originally that was one of the things that was looked at and one of the things the town requested was for it to be painted but not a good idea because maintenance-wise DOT would not be back to maintain it; in this case you are putting on a stain which
is UV-protected but will break down over time in lighter colors and avoid chipping and peeling. He added that a nice benefit of the retaining walls are they stay in the shade approximately 80% of the time due to their placement so they will look great for many years to come; the ramp color is going to breakdown over time but still not going to be that bright concrete gray that is out there today.
The Town Manager reported that Steve Kushner’s office has been the primary liaison with DOT on this project and Steve has reported that DOT has been very easy to work with and very amenable throughout the project. Mr. Ferraro returned the favor back to Mr. Kushner as he has been exceptional on that regard also, really working as a true team effort with the town and strive to be good to our neighbors and the towns that we have to work in and it has been a good relationship in Avon.
Brett Eisenlohr, questioned DOT regarding the road surface years ago when they used an aggressive type asphalt, is that the same type being applied with this project. Mr. Foley responded that they had a high-friction surface called Nova Chip and is used on many roads that have sharp curves but DOT feels that the softening of the curves that they have done, it is not necessary. He added that new pavement after a few weeks and the oil is worn away has the same friction coefficient as Nova Chip for the first few years; Nova Chip is put on older pavement to give that friction coefficient back to it. He added that it may be necessary with this project in five or six years from now but the engineers feel that the softening of the curves and new pavement serves as the same friction coefficient at this time.
07/08-08 Library Project
Chairman Zacchio reported that the background memo was thorough and asked Council if they had any questions for the Town Manager. The Town Manager reported that it looks unlikely that we will have a GMP ready for the Library Building Committee to discuss at their October 20th meeting and will carry into November from which we will try to have that background ready for Council’s December 1st meeting.
09/10-29 Approve Resolution: Central Connecticut Solid Waste Authority Update
(CCSWA)
The Town Manager reported that the minutes from the last Authority meeting and worksheet that outlines cost associated the next steps in the process. He recalled that Avon joined the Central Connecticut Solid Waste Authority earlier this year and the idea is that these communities have decided to band together to look at the market for options, other and including CRRA, for the disposal of municipal solid waste; CRRA has indicated that they are interested in bidding on the contracts but with the due diligence that the Authority has done it is clear that there are other providers in the market. He added that the Authority has broken into a number of sub-committees, one called the Options Sub-Committee has recommended that we do a two-step acquisition process and the two steps would be first doing a request for
qualifications (RFQ) which would be a general solicitation to get a better sense of the field to get a better sense of the providers for this service and then it would be likely that based on the results of the RFQ we would go to a request for proposals (RFP) process where as the RFQ is very general, the RFP would be very specific and prior to that RFP we would be working on a very specific scope of services and then convert into actual contract language.
He reported that in terms of cost this is based on weight of the number of votes of the communities which was a function of the population; Avon’s total projected cost even building in a 10% contingency is $16,460. He added that the amount could be less than that as this is really a worst case scenario; certainly if we end up just doing an RFQ and possibly direct negotiations it is going to be a lot less but if we go the full route with the RFQ and RFP we have been told that is the cost we should be looking at as far as a worst case scenario in terms of cost. He reported that the Solid Waste Authority will be meeting again next week and have asked that all of the members of the Authority to go back to their legislative bodies and have some consensus regarding participation in the RFQ/RFP process.
He recommended that Avon continue to participate in the process; the initial feedback from CRCOG, who is coordinating all of this staff work for the Solid Waste Authority, is that they believe most of the communities perhaps with the exception of Guilford are going to continue on with this process. He added that certainly if Avon were to embark on this on our own the costs would be extraordinary; it makes a lot of sense to divide it amongst the twenty-one towns that are involved in the process. He added that in terms of the funding source, he is working with the Director of Finance and Director of Public Works to see if we have any room in our current year operating budget; we may be getting a recycling rebate from CRRA that could potentially be used to offset the costs; it is unlikely that it would require a supplemental but it is always a possibility.
Mr. Evans questioned, without being really informed about matters of this kind, if $314,000 for a procurement process seem a little high. The Town Manager responded that there has been extensive discussion regarding such amongst the Authority and legal counsel for the Authority and CRCOG’s staff which is doing the administrative work have reported out to the Sub-committees that are involved in this that that indeed is the going rate for this kind of work; you are looking at three cost centers that are involved in this: CRCOG’s administrative staff time, the legal work that is involved in this kind of review, and fees associated with a company that does this kind of consulting work on solid waste, so they have advised that when you put those three factors together in looking at a worst case scenario
in terms of a full-blown RFQ/RFP procurement process that is the price. Mr. Evans stated that if it is the Town Manager’s recommendation to participate, he supports it as he does believe that we should participate in that solid waste disposal.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mr. Evans, it was voted:
WHEREAS, the municipalities constituting the Central Connecticut Solid Waste Authority (CCSWA) have been researching solutions for long-term solid waste disposal when their contracts with the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority expire in 2012; and
WHEREAS, 21 municipalities have joined efforts to find long-term solid waste disposal solutions; and
WHEREAS, the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) and CCSWA have a service agreement for administrative, legal and technical assistance to CCSWA at hourly rates dated July 21, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Capitol Region Council of Governments has provided an estimate of costs to perform a solid waste disposal procurement and for operational expenses for the authority for FY2011; and
WHEREAS, the Town of AVON (“the Town”) has voted in favor of pursuing a solid waste disposal RFQ with possible RFP in FY2011; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s contribution towards this procurement and general operations is estimated at: $16,460.57.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town does hereby approve $16,460.57 as a “not-to-exceed” expense for solid waste disposal procurement and operational activities of the Central Connecticut Solid Waste Authority during the July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011 fiscal year, with expenses to be billed as they are incurred on a monthly basis by the Capitol Region Council of Governments.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Zacchio, Shea, Pena, and Evans voted in favor.
09/10-49 Probate Court Consolidation: Presentation by Judge Becker
Judge Cindy Becker reported that the Avon Probate Court will be moving out of the Avon Town Hall over to Simsbury as it was the most cost efficient solution to finding a new house for the consolidated Simsbury Regional Probate Court which will consist of Avon, Canton, Simsbury, and Granby. She added that there was not enough space to do at Avon Town Hall and would have had to lease space which is very expensive and the participating towns have all worked very nicely together to chip in a little money and renovate the space in the Simsbury Town Hall. She reported that one detail to be finalized has to do with paper. She added that the Simsbury Probate Judge/Probate Court Administrator does not want sharing towns to bring a lot of paper over to Simsbury with them; she has a small vault in the Court that
has consisted of all the files had over the duration of the Avon Probate Court; they have been micro-filmed and bound; a few years ago they start to laser fiche in lieu of micro-film. She reported that they were given information about how the Probate Court Administrator wants to handle the transfer of the volumes. She stated that the Avon Probate Court records dated from 1976 to the present can remain at Avon Town Hall if the town would like to have them as an additional resource for people that do not want to go over to the Simsbury Town Hall, doing genealogical research or they have a probate question, they would leave their index cards as well that helps you to access those volumes to determine where your matter is. She reported that someday there will be a computer wide system where people will be able to go into the Town Clerk’s office and access the probate records from throughout the State. She asked Council if she should leave those volumes or
destroy them; the material has already been laser fiche and will be taken with them in that form. She added that she is not sure if the Town of Avon has determined how they are going to use that space but the rolling racks will stay so there will be a place for those volumes if you wanted to keep them there and there is a very small metal file with the index cards. She reported that it has not been decided what to do with records dating from 1975 back to 1921; they have been micro filmed and laser fiche; the options might be to leave them with the town, destroy them, or take them to the State Library. The Probate Court Administrator would like to see a central repository for older probate records as he feels that generally they are used for genealogical research where people could to their research and not have to go from town to town. She reported that volumes dating from 1921 back to 1844 will definitely go to the State Library as per the Probate Court
Administrator to be in a central repository. She asked Council, based on feedback received from other towns, some towns feel that those records are part of their history and they want to keep them; some are opposed to sending them to the State Library and she understands that the town’s renovated library will have a very nice, appropriate space for old records that will be climate-controlled if the town has a position on those records. She felt it was an issue that was important for the Town Council to weigh in on, how you feel about the handling of our old records, a big part of our town’s history.
Judge Becker reported that the new Statute comes into effect on January 4, 2011, however the Probate Court Administrator would like the Courts to move in November to work all the bugs out of the new Court so it is up and running and be a model Court for the other consolidated districts. She added that the records will stay in the vault until Council determines the plan for the records and/or the vault. Mrs. Samul questioned when you are doing genealogical research are you restricted at all if the oldest records were put at the library with regards to access being monitored at all. Judge Becker responded no, they would all be public records; adoptions and guardianships of the mentally retarded are strictly confidential records and do not anticipate that they would go to the library and be available to the
public, they would continue to be restricted in a locked cabinet in Court’s vault. She added that state tax returns are not public record and would be sent on to the Department of Revenue Services and Court’s copies destroyed. Judge Becker reported that they have been asked to move mid-November or whenever the space is ready; the Court is considering leaving a staff person in Avon if the space is not immediately filled just to field questions. She reported that letters have been sent out to the administrators of all nursing homes, the attorneys who are active on their Court files, and whenever hearing notices are sent out we also send a letter indicating that the Court will be moving. Mr. Pena questioned if there is a card or something indicating the Court is moving so when people come in we can hand it to them. Judge Becker responded that her Clerk has prepared an insert to go out in envelopes when mailings are sent out and they can
prepare something that will be left at the Court for people who come to the counter. Mr. Pena questioned if there is somewhere on the town web site that indicates Avon Probate Court is moving. Judge Becker agreed that something should be added to the town web site. She added that something was put in the recent issue of the town newsletter but again we cannot say it enough.
Judge Becker reported that as far as budget when the Courts came together, the former Assistant Town Manager was Avon’s representative to discuss how the new Court would be paid for, how much each town would contribute going by population and as a result saved a little money for Avon. She reported that she was asked to confirm that the remaining budget for the Avon Probate Court would be portable and follow the Court, be deposited in Simsbury along with the other towns’ budgets, and use it to run the new Probate Court. Mr. Shea questioned how much money we were talking about. The Town Manager responded that Avon Probate Court’s budget is $10,700 but there is an increase in FY 11 of approximately $3,000 to cover these one-time expenses associated with the move and we can coordinate that
with Simsbury. Mr. Evans questioned if it is not portable how else would it be handled, wouldn’t it have to be portable? Judge Becker responded that she thinks so, there would be a general pool with funds from all participating towns and managed by the Simsbury Finance Director who would handle the payment of expenses. The Town Manager added that a check would be cut to Simsbury for the budgetary amount and they will probably treat it as a grant revenue or setup a special revenue fund for these related expenses. Mr. Evans questioned if this is in addition to whatever income you are earning from the estates. Judge Becker responded that the town does not receive that income. Mr. Evans stated that the Probate Court gets that income and the Town supplements that. Judge Becker responded that the Probate Court gets that income and handled as it always has been until January 4, 2011. Mr. Pena questioned if there might be an open house
down the road, perhaps in the spring, for more visibility. Judge Becker responded that was a good idea as a lot of effort has been put into renovating the new Court, to welcome the public so they know where to find us, and will ask the Probate Court Administrator. Judge Becker reported that some of the judges have asked permission to go to the towns and hold hearings in conference rooms in the separate towns if it would make it easier for the townspeople.
10/11-01 FY 11/12 Budget: Approve Capital Budget Review Schedule
Mr. Shea reported that he cannot make the November 4th meeting. Council members tentatively agreed on Tuesday, November 9th and the Town Manager’s office will send out confirmation.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Evans, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the FY 2011/2012 Capital Budget Review Schedule on as follows:
Tuesday, November 9th Regular Town Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.)
(tentative date to be confirmed 7:00 p.m. Board of Education
via e-mail on Friday, 10/8) 7:30 p.m. General Government
Wednesday, November 17th Special Town Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.)
7:00 p.m. Recreation and Parks
7:30 p.m. Secret Lake Association
8:00 p.m. Engineering
8:30 p.m. Public Works
Wednesday, December 1st Regular Town Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.)
7:30 p.m. Police Department
8:30 p.m. Fire Department
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Zacchio, Shea, Pena, and Evans voted in favor.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
On a motion made by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council adds item 10/11-14 Appointment: Planning and Zoning Commission Alternate to the agenda.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Zacchio, Shea, Pena, and Evans voted in favor.
10/11-12 Supplemental Appropriation: State of CT DEP Farmington River
Watershed Rain Barrel Program Grant, $3,000
Chairman Zacchio questioned when the town receives the rain barrels and how many as he thinks they will be pretty popular. The Town Manager responded that the town is receiving thirty-four rain barrels. Chairman Zacchio stated that they will be available to residents and questioned how they will be advertised. The Assistant to the Town Manager responded that there will be an announcement in the town newsletter that is coming out. Mrs. Samul stated that it would be nice if the garden clubs that do the town landscaping had some option on them and Council agreed.
On a motion made by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council hereby recommends that the Board of Finance amend the FY 10/11 Budget by increasing:
REVENUES
General Fund, Intergovernmental, Miscellaneous State Grant Receipts, Account # 01-0330-43410 in the amount of $3,000 and increasing:
APPROPRIATIONS
General Fund, Natural Resources, Equipment, Account # 01-7201-52194 in the amount of $3,000 for the purpose of recording the grant funding received through the Department of Environmental Protection to purchase rain barrels to be made available at no cost to town residents.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Zacchio, Shea, Pena, and Evans voted in favor.
10/11-13 Approval: Refund of Real Estate Tax, $4,534.97
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve a real estate tax refund to Mortgage Service Center in the amount of $4,534.97.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Zacchio, Shea, Pena, and Evans voted in favor.
10/11-14 Appointment: Planning and Zoning Commission Alternate
On a motion made by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council appoint Chris Gackstatter as a Planning and Zoning Commission alternate member with a term ending December 31, 2011.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Zacchio, Shea, Pena, and Evans voted in favor.
VIII. TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT/MISCELLANEOUS
Misc. A Proposed AT&T Cell Tower Update – This item was not discussed at the meeting.
Misc. B Outdoor Wood-Burning Furnaces Update – The Town Manager recalled a resident submitting a letter to the Town Manager’s office in August 2010 suggesting that the town consider taking the same action that West Hartford had done with respect to the outdoor wood-burning furnaces which was an ordinance to ban them. He reported that based on a recommendation from the Director of Planning and Community Development we made a referral to the Planning and Zoning Commission to take a look at this, they did that and have recommended that Council adopt an ordinance to ban these types of devices. He added that Lana Glovach from Murtha Cullina prepared a draft ordinance whereby the Town Council could take that action if
they were so inclined; the next step in the process would be to set a public hearing. He reported that we had staff do an extensive review, we have no outdoor wood-burning furnaces in town now and have not had any inquiries about them so now would certainly be a good time to take this under consideration. Mr. Pena reported that a few weeks ago another town made an ordinance as well. The Town Manager responded that in the Farmington Valley, Granby has adopted an ordinance to ban them outright and for the other communities if they have not done it yet are at least considering it. Mrs. Samul questioned if they include chimineas. The Town Manager responded no. Chairman Zacchio added that these are wood-burning furnaces with underground piping that run into a house. Mr. Evans made an observation that if it is something that many towns are banning completely how is it that DEP actually has a fact sheet on how to do it right. Chairman
Zacchio responded that there are probably towns that won’t ban them and DEP wants to make sure that they have proper code inference. Mr. Evans added that his issue is that Avon does not have a problem with these devices and do we have anything before us as far as a paper or a record that tells us that these are harmful from an environmental standpoint or from a safety standpoint; there is nothing in the DEP record that these are not a good idea; we are reacting to the fact that a town’s person brought this to our attention as she thought they were not a good idea to have them in town but do we have any independent collaborating proof before us that says these devices are bad. Chairman Zacchio responded that he personally researched them and took away that if your neighbor puts them in then you have to live with smoke in your house all winter long that is a nuisance and a lot of claims of whether it is a pollution issue or if it is a health issue, those
remain unsolved. Mrs. Samul questioned if our Fire Chief had any input on it. The Town Manager responded that at a staff level we all have concerns about it; to get these types of devices even when they are functioning properly in a densely populated area can cause a lot of negative externalities. Mr. Shea stated that Mr. Evans makes a valid point and that we do not usually do a lot of ordinances and there should be a lot of conversation and a lot of discussion around whenever we impose an ordinance to the Town of Avon because once you do that it is there forever and thinks it is healthy to ask the questions and everyone should look into it. The Assistant to the Town Manager responded to Mr. Evan’s earlier comment about the DEP issuing a fact sheet on how to put them in because they also have contradictory fact sheets on how unhealthy they are and he distributed such pamphlet to Council. Mr. Shea added that it is a good idea that we talk about it
for a while. Mr. Evans suggested that perhaps Steve Kushner could come at the time of the public hearing and voice the concerns that he has.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council set a public hearing date for the Proposed Ordinance concerning Outdoor Wood-Burning Furnaces to be held at the November 9, 2010 meeting.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Zacchio, Shea, Pena, and Evans voted in favor.
Misc. C Purchasing Update – This item was not discussed at the meeting.
Misc. D Score Board & Press Box Proposal – The Town Manager reported that there was a Board of Education meeting in August where there was discussion by a group that is looking to raise funds to replace the scoreboard and press box along with that discussion, which the Board of Education approved the idea in concept, there was some discussion about raising funds by selling advertising. He reported that Sara Roberson and Joan MacDonald have been meeting with staff, primarily Steve Kushner and Glenn Marston, to work out the details for that advertising issue. Chairman Zacchio added that Council would have to be the petitioning body to zoning because we are the landlord so to speak of the property so hopefully they will be able to
work out something with Steve Kushner that he is happy with and supports and then when the group comes before Council we petition to Planning and Zoning for their consideration. Mr. Shea urged Council to take a look at the scoreboard on Simsbury High School’s football field which is well done.
Misc. E Avon Old Farms Road Project
1. Status Update
2. Old Farms Road Bridge Status
Mrs. Samul reported receiving the report that two of the bridges were in poor condition. She stated that the one on Old Wheeler needed to have repair work done. She added that they are elevated to high level of concern to her and she is hoping that we have the Old Wheeler Lane in our budget for next year, or some discussion of it, and she would like to know what we need to do at this point to move forward with the Old Farms Road bridge and whether or not it would be advisable to put up some kind of signage that says no vehicles over a certain tonnage to help defray any further deterioration. Mr. Shea stated that when we do this that we group them, town bridges versus State of Connecticut bridges because we can discuss the Old Farms Road Bridge until we are blue in the face and having met with the State
on that project, he can say that they are going to do it when they want to do it. Mrs. Samul responded that she would like more support information on the Old Farms Road Bridge because she wants to sit down with our legislators, she has already talked to them about it, and she needs some specifics. Mr. Shea reported that the Town Manager and Director of Public Works need to come back to Council with the priorities in terms of capital budget projects. The Town Manager reported that the issue with the Old Farms Road bridge is money as it is a $13 million project and it previously was on the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) but as we learned this past spring it fell off the list so the next step is permitting and completion of design; we are about $150,000 short of bringing that process to completion. He added that Tom Daukas is the Special Projects Coordinator and Phil Schenck is still involved in that as well; they are working with CRCOG to free up some
additional money to get those steps done. Mrs. Samul questioned if it would be of any benefit to have our representatives sit down and talk with Tom Daukas so that they get a good understanding of what needs to be done and can do whatever lobbying they can do for us to get that moved forward. The Town Manager reported that we have been talking with Beth Bye, Tim LeGeyt, and Kevin Witkos and are copied on the correspondence so every time there is something new that comes up on this project we are in touch with them, as well as we have with Avon Old Farms School. He reported that he had a long discussion with Ken LaRocque about it today. He added that we have not been bashful about calling them when we have needed some legislative horsepower to get things happening; Council is getting copies of that correspondence as well but the legislative delegation has been very helpful. He reported that Chris Murphy’s office in particular, we had asked for an
earmark in the upcoming federal transportation bill of $2 million to offset the costs of the road project and his office has been very helpful in terms of pushing that appropriation at the federal level. He added that he thinks the legislative delegation is there; it is a permitting issue, an environmental issue, and based on the most recent meeting that Tom and Phil had with the regulatory agencies on September 29th it looks like there was some real movement in the right direction; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is on board and that is something that we haven’t seen before. Mrs. Samul questioned if there would be any benefit from signage; are these two bridges are still considered safe and we don’t have to put up jersey barriers? The Town Manager responded to his knowledge yes they are safe, but he would talk with the Town Engineer and Tom Daukas.
Misc. F Public Safety Updates – This item was not discussed at the meeting.
Misc. G Assignment of Town Vehicles – Chairman Zacchio reported that we had an inquiry again this year regarding taking home vehicles for Public Works Department, Police Department, and it included any stipends being paid. He was not sure if the Board of Education, while Peggy Roell was sitting in the audience, had any instances but we are probably going to have to prepare for that discussion as we go into the budget session with this inquiry from Mr. Livingston.
Misc. H FY 2011 STEAP Grant Award – The Town Manager reported that the Town did receive a $200,000 grant through the STEAP program to continue our town center improvements. Mr. Shea questioned if the meeting on the town center has been rescheduled. The Town Manager responded that it has and we will get a notice out to Council.
IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Litigation/Negotiation
A. Discussion regarding real estate negotiations
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council go into Executive Session at 10:45 p.m. for discussion regarding real estate negotiations.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Shea, Zacchio, Pena, and Evans voted in favor.
The Town Manager and the Clerk attended the session.
On a motion made by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council come out of Executive Session at 11:10 p.m.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Shea, Zacchio, Pena, and Evans voted in favor.
XI. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Attest:
Caroline B. LaMonica
Clerk
| |
