Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
FALLS VILLAGE — Students at Housatonic Valley Regional High School (HVRHS) watched a film about bullying as part of an effort to identify, discuss and eliminate such behavior.The film, “Finding Kind,” was shown on Wednesday afternoon, Sept. 26. The 2009 documentary by Pepperdine University students Lauren Parsekian and Molly Thompson, chronicles the pair’s cross-country trip and their conversations with a wide and eclectic group of people, including psychologists, Dr. Phil, bullied teens and Idaho bikers.The film makes a reference to the 2010 case of Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old girl who committed suicide after being bullied at South Hadley High School in Massachusetts. Six teenagers were charged with a variety of offenses; five were convicted and sentenced to probation and community service, and anti-bullying legislation was passed in the state legislature.Parsekian and Thompson’s interviews reveal a number of disconcerting truths: that girls as young as 10 refer to each other with words such as “bitch,” “slut,” “fat” or “ugly;” that women remember these insults and injuries for the rest of their lives; and that sometimes even the bullies grow up and are tormented by guilt for their actions.They also zero in on media — the barrage of images aimed at all women about how they should look and act, and the ubiquity of text messaging and Internet communication.One woman in the film notes that young girls “don’t go out to play, they sit and text,” and theorized that the lack of face-to-face contact makes it that much easier to fire off a demeaning message without considering the consequences.Matt Harnett, HVRHS principal, introduced the film. He said that even though the film is about women and girls, “the guys in the room are not off the hook.”He said that everyone in the room had experienced bullying, as a victim, a bully or a bystander.“We have to come together as a community and say ‘enough is enough.’ We start changing this today.”After the screening, Harnett returned to the front of the auditorium and repeated his earlier remark about the universality of bullying. He still remembers “word for word things said to me in the sixth- and seventh-grades. It sticks with you forever.”He asked the students to consider the following:“What can you do differently? The way things are doesn’t have to be the way it’s going to be. Your words are powerful, and when you hit ‘send’ you no longer have control.”“We’ve got to start taking better care of each other,” he said.Several students took the microphone. One girl said she wished more people could see the film. “Do we need to lose someone” before bullying is addressed, she asked. “We have amazing teachers and amazing kids. So do it!”A boy said that his peers are just as rough on each other as the girls. “Last year there were lots of times I didn’t want to go to school.”Another boy said he was initially picked on for being overweight. He reacted by becoming a bully himself.Then his grandparents died, he said, and he changed his attitude. “I realized you can’t take life for granted.”And a girl said the film brought back memories of a friend being bullied. “It disturbs me that people we’ve gone to school with for years can act that way.”About 50 parents attended another showing of “Finding Kind” the next evening.Harnett said that students approached him toward the end of the 2011-12 school year and expressed not only concern over bullying but the desire to do something about it. The film is the first of many activities on the subject of bullying planned for the 2012-13 school year.At the Oct. 1 meeting of the Region One Board of Education, Harnett said that the next activity in the anti-bullying effort would be “Operation Jungle Red,” which Harnett described as an anti-violence program that originated at Miami (Ohio) University.Students from Western Connecticut State University will come to HVRHS Oct. 25, and Harnett is taking a group to the university campus on Oct. 17.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.