West Hartford Taxpayers Association

Press Release

April 24, 2007

For Immediate Release

CONTACT: Judy Aron, Vice President of West Hartford Taxpayers Association

                     860-523-7257

WHTA REBUTS HARTFORD COURANT ARTICLE

The West Hartford Taxpayers Association was criticized and falsely accused of misleading residents, by the Hartford Courant and members of the West Hartford Town Council (Budget Stirring Much Debate,Town Officials Say Misinformation Is Being Spread - By Daniel P. Jones and Fulvio Cativo 4/18/07).  The WHTA would like to take this opportunity to respond, as there was much information misrepresented by the Courant.

The Courant reported that “at budget hearings, residents criticized an 18 percent salary increase proposed for the town manager, salary increases for the corporation counsel, increases in travel and food budgets, and a miniature golf course project at Buena Vista. The only hitch is that the proposed spending plan does not include money for any of these items”.  Perhaps if the Courant actually read what was in the budget plan they would see the line items residents referenced (pages 6-9 and page 187). The mini golf course is in the Capital Improvement budget (page 187).  That is money that is planned on being spent at this time; it is earmarked as a possible expenditure in this budget. The mini-golf course is in the Capital Improvement budget. Is CIP not part of the overall budget?

The Courant reported this: "The town manager is not getting an increase in salary and wages," said Joseph Verrengia, a Republican who heads the council's three-member minority. The Courant and Mr. Verrengia failed to tell you that  

The Town Manager already received an increase in wages when he signed on. (see Hartford Courant Apr 25, 2006. pg. B.3. "Francis' new salary, $145,000,  would represent a 9.8 percent increase over [Barry Feldman]'s current base salary of $132,000). Where was that budgeted in the 2006 budget? Where did that money come from?   But the line items on page 7 show a different story. There are only 2 people in the Town Managers budget (Page 16). If the Town Manager is not getting an 18.2% increase then someone else on his staff (the assistant) is.

WHTA is not making up these numbers. All of the information WHTA has given to our members came straight from the budget book. We have not made anything up. The Town Manager line items do show an increase in salary, so who’s getting that 18.2% increase? (hint: there are only 2 people allocated to his office, p.16).

With regard to expenditures on stadium lighting at the high schools, WHTA knows that it is not in this budget.  Residents speaking were reacting to article in the Courant showing that it was seriously being considered (Feb 28, 2007.  pg. B.3) and will be presented to the Town Council at some point. Town people are just sending a message that we should not be spending money on this now or next year.  As Theresa McGrath had stated to the Courant, but the Courant neglected to report on in their article, WHTA has no control over what the laity’s perception and reporting on specific items. Any misstatements provided by the public have not come from WHTA.

Additionally, comments were made about this budget battle being made into a personal issue. Nothing has been made "personal".  Where is the personal attack that the Courant claims? WHTA has not made any personal attacks, except that we see mismanagement and imprudent expenditures reflected in this budget. 

The Courant has characterized the WHTA as having being taken over by a group of “dissatisfied members” referring, we suspect to Mr. Guzzo’s ouster.  After Phil Meister moved out of town, WHTA had huge organizational issues which needed to be resolved. Ms. McGrath and Ms. Aron were involved with this organization long before Mr. Meister left. The Courant will not tell you that the current leaders of WHTA were chosen and elected by the organization body because Mr. Guzzo was not performing his duties as President after Mr. Meister left. Non-partisan members of WHTA collaboratively decided that Mr. Guzzo was simply not qualified to lead our association after publicly stating in both the Courant and on Talk of CT/Brad Davis’ radio show that he had no problem with the upcoming budget, prior to the budget proposal to the town.

Apparently the Courant would like to characterize the Taxpayers Association as either a bunch of rabble rousing kooks or an “arm of the Republican party”.  WHTA is just about as much an arm of the Republican Party as the Courant is an arm of the Democratic Party!  If WHTA is supposed to be an “arm of the Republican party” how come Republicans like Mr. Verrengia, as well as the two Republicans on the Board of Ed support this budget and haven’t come out with statements of support for WHTA or our position? We haven’t had a statement from Carl Donatelli supporting WHTA either. The notion that WHTA is an arm of the Republican party is ludicrous, and only stated because Ms. McGrath and Ms. Aron are registered Republicans. The truth is that WHTA has all kinds of different party affiliations reflected in their group, and in fact the person who initially brought up and championed Prop 2.5 is not a Republican! The Courant neglected to tell you that. 

The fact is that the Courant misreported again, and is trying to put the taxpayers in a bad light for their friends on the Town Council, and demonstrated their penchant for biased reporting again. They neglected to ask the really important questions, like why did the town go with a new trash hauler that costs lots more money and is proposing an inefficient way to collect trash given the population density of our town? Why haven’t they given anyone information about how that contract was “negotiated”. Where are the Courant’s FOI’s to the town on this issue?  Why aren’t they asking questions about how come the Leisure Services Fund is $1.9 million in the red? Why haven’t they printed what the true savings were (if any) to the town after consolidating the Board of Ed with Town Hall? Why haven’t they reported on the multi million dollar underfunded pension liability that West Hartford carries? There are a million questions with regard to the fiscal operation of this town that people ought to know, but the Courant continues to be divisive and make the people who are asking the questions to be the bad guys and “negative nattering nabobs”, instead of asking the real questions for their readers.

WHTA thinks that we must consider why our taxes are rising (not just because of revaluation) and how it is a hardship for MANY families in our town. The local Courant reporting has failed its readers in playing up personalities and not the fiscal issues; even while their lead editorial in Sunday’s newspaper (April 22, 2007) called for a similar tax reform as WHTA’s proposal to the Town of West Hartford.  Even Kevin Sullivan himself published an op-ed in the Courant with regard to Gov. Rell’s Property Tax cap being too high, and called attention to the need to control municipal spending.  This budget is high and will be compounded in the following years when the MDC bonding kicks into gear. We will have even less control of our fiscal destiny by then. Mayor Slifka and his Council know this as well. We have also yet to see nothing more than griping regarding binding arbitration that is pushing our salary and reimbursement costs to unbelievable levels. This Mayor and his Council have done nothing to join arms with those who are fighting for binding arbitration reform at the state level. They have opportunities to initiate reform with others who are doing that on both sides of the aisle… and we don’t see them seizing those opportunities, nor do we see the Courant reporting on that critical issue as it effects West Hartford.

The Courant has also failed to adequately report the inequities of the revaluation as pointed out by Mr. George Kennedy. There have been significant indications that the revaluation was done improperly, and a legal action is mounting as a result.

On April 23rd the WHTA met for their monthly meeting and over 75 citizens attended with many new faces in the group. The membership growth of the WHTA has exploded with people who have never gotten involved with these issues before and who are fed up with the constant increases of taxes year after year. Town Council members were invited to attend, and none showed up.  It was hoped that they would work with our group and explain anything they wanted to with regard to the budget. It is evident that they choose not to work with the taxpayers. Instead, Mayor Slifka has only offered negative words and condemnation to the press regarding the group, characterizing them as Republicans or people who were against Blue Back Square (Courant, 4/24/07). The claim that we would have had $2.8 million added to the budget as revenue from the project would still not offset much of $12.8 million more which is proposed in increased spending for 2007-08.

The West Hartford Town Council is slated to vote on a budget on April 24, 2007. The West Hartford Taxpayers Association has already made a statement that if the budget exceeds a 2.5% increase that they will initiate a referendum on that budget.

The West Hartford Taxpayers Association is non-partisan. WHTA is an association dedicated to the proposition that Town Government can be operated efficiently to provide needed services at a fair cost to the Citizens of West Hartford. It has been in existence since 1933.  For additional information visit the West Hartford Taxpayers Association  web site at http://whta.org/ or contact WHTA President Theresa McGrath at president@whta.org or 860-570-1203, or  WHTA Vice-President Judy Aron at vpresident@whta.org or call 860-523-7257.