Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
NORTH CANAAN — A recreation director has been hired to oversee town programs and employees who work on them, as well as the use of the Lawrence Field Pavilion and the pool.
And the decision to do so, by the Park and Recreation Commission, has sparked a bit of controversy.
Adam Bunce, a North Canaan native, has already started getting things organized in his new job. A Hotchkiss School and Wesleyan University graduate, he has also worked as a football coach at Housatonic Valley Regional High School and at other coaching jobs around the region.
He is setting up communications via his laptop, which will serve as his portable office.
The position is a new one in North Canaan, which has long been the only regional town without a rec director.
The part-time pay is $15,000. The commission was able to add the position while still reducing the budget for the coming year by $1,500, to $70,600. Selectman Charlie Perotti called the directorship 10 years overdue.
Controversy over plan
Five members of the rec commission came to the Board of Selectmen’s meeting June 7, not to talk about the particulars of the deal, but to take issue with an e-mail they received from Selectman Susan Clayton.
The lengthy e-mail expressed Clayton’s frustration over not being advised of any of the details of the new hire. She was concerned about the timing of creating a new employee position during a tough economy.
But commissioners took issue with her tone. The subject of the e-mail, which was apparently forwarded to many town residents, called the hire “Recreation’s ‘shady’ deal.�
“I found it offensive,� said Tom Olownia, referring in particular to the shady deal remark. “Without knowing the facts, you write this in a letter.�
“I asked questions. I didn’t get any information,� Clayton replied.
She then accused the commission of seeking applicants for a job that would be paid from a budget that was not yet approved, and without full public disclosure.
She inferred nepotism in the hiring of Bunce, who is related to First Selectman Douglas Humes, and criticized the commission for turning “what generations of parents did as volunteers into a paid position.�
She questioned their decision not to seek a contract proposal from the YMCA.
Humes said that according to a 1976 town ordinance, the commission may hire and set salaries at its discretion. He said the commission properly went to the Board of Finance with its decision.
“I feel as offended as they do,� Humes told Clayton. “The commission does not answer to the Board of Selectmen. They can hire who they want.�
He said that he did not forward information to the selectmen because he assumed Clayton had gone to the May 12 finance meeting, where details of the new position were presented.
Clayton apologized to the commission numerous times.
Park and Recreation Chairman Earl Dakers told the selectmen that two people applied for the job. Bunce’s application was the only one that was complete.
Dakers later told The Journal the commissioners have been working for several years on major changes. They also face yearly issues with the 35-year-old town pool. The town is saving up for a replacement pool.
They were reticent about contracting with the YMCA, which ran the pool for years — and never fully to the town’s satisfaction, Dakers said.
Seven years ago, the commission hired Darcy Victory to run it and things improved considerably. When Victory left at the end of last summer, the commissioners decided to institute further improvements.
The pool director’s job was expanded. Although it entails more hours, Bunce’s entry level salary will offset the difference.
There will be big changes to the summer recreation program, although, if all goes as planned, none will be apparent.
Linda Peppe will continue to run the three-week enrichment program. But instead of registration fees going to the town and the recreation commission struggling to pay for it out of its budget, the program will be run as a separate entity — in the same way as programs such as AHA! and youth soccer, Dakers said.
“We were looking at having to eliminate it,� Dakers said. “A few commission members actually wanted to cut it, but we are really proud of it. Linda does a phenomenal job and it’s important to offer that to the kids in town.
“It will have its own board of directors, and be self-sufficient. It will collect fees and programs can be planned based on what is available. We will have to raise the fees, and it will be a struggle for a few years, but in the end it will have the structure it needs to continue.�
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.