Published 8:16 pm, Friday, April 18, 2014
OFFICIALS SHOULD VALUE PUBLIC INPUT:
The recent controversy in Brookfield over the timing and content of public participation at Board of Selectmen meetings has shone a bright spotlight on a very important area-wide issue.
Some boards and commissions in Greater Danbury do a great job of encouraging public comment, many of them by allowing a substantial amount of time at the outset of the meeting so they can hear what their constituents have to say.
All too many boards do not do such a great job at that.
In fact, some panels outright discourage public input by holding the public comment session at the end of the meeting, forcing residents to wait one, two, three hours to offer their views.
Some boards and commissions make residents feel that their opinions are sincerely valued, as they should be by every official body.
All too many boards do not make residents feel like their opinions are valued.
In fact, some panels institute severe time restrictions on speakers, thereby preventing residents from fully presenting their positions on the issues.
And that is a shame, since town and school officials everywhere should consider public participation an opportunity, not a necessary evil.
"SOS: VOTE NO" SIGNS ALL OVER BRIDGEWATER: Want a quick preview of the likely outcome of the April 29 Region 12 referendum vote in Bridgewater, one of the three towns in the district?
Just take a ride around town, and you will get a pretty good sense of how townspeople apparently feel about the proposal to close their grade K-5 Burnham School (and the elementary schools in sister towns Roxbury and Washington) and build a consolidated elementary school on the Shepaug Valley Middle High School campus in Washington.
There are lawn signs everywhere -- some 400 of them, at last count, all along Route 133 from the Brookfield town line to Route 67, and dotting front lawns on most other streets and roads in Bridgewater.
The signs, distributed by the local grassroots group Save Our Schools, are white with red lettering, and the message is simple: "SOS: Vote No."
You never know for sure how referendums will turn out, but based on sign polling in the tiny town, it probably wouldn't be wise to bet too much money on Bridgewater voting in favor of consolidation.
GOLF MEDIA STUCK IN THE PAST WITH TIGER: The storyline put forth by much of the golfing media heading into last weekend's Masters golf tournament at Augusta National was simple: With Tiger Woods sidelined with a bad back, it was a wide-open tournament.
I was surprised the first time I heard that prediction, because it implied that Tiger would have been a near shoo-in had he played, and only with him on the shelf did other players have a good chance to win.
Every time that pronouncement was repeated in the days leading up to the tournament, I lost more and more respect for the golf writers, sportscasters and so-called experts who spewed that absurd party line.
Do you know the last time Woods won the Masters?
It was in 2005 -- nine years ago.
Do you know the last time he won any of the four majors?
That was in 2008 -- six years ago.
If you didn't know that, don't feel bad. Because a bunch of the big names in the golf media obviously didn't know it either, or they chose to ignore it, so they could continue to perpetuate an image of an insuperable Tiger Woods that hasn't been true for a bunch of years.
Don't get me wrong. Woods is a great golfer -- one of the greatest of all time. But after winning four Masters between 1997 and 2005, he has been shut out at Augusta ever since. He no longer owns the tournament.
But you wouldn't know that from reading or listening to many of those in the golf media, who seemingly are stuck a decade in the past with Tiger.
Art Cummings is editor emeritus of The News-Times. He can be contacted at 203-731-3351 or at acummings@newstimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment