Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
The Webutuck Central School District’s Board of Education (BOE) made a highly controversial decision last week when it voted, 6-1, to rehire former high school principal Ken Sauer to once again take rein and title as the new Webutuck High School principal. The move came as quite a surprise to parents, students and staff in the district.
But considering the fact that Webutuck has been struggling to keep a loyal administrative team that can get its student population in tip-top shape, perhaps those taken aback by the decision shouldn’t have been as shocked as they were. For the past number of years there has been a revolving door at Webutuck, with superintendents, principals, vice principals and other staff members leaving almost as quickly as they arrived — a pattern that has done nothing to instill a feeling of trust and comfort among those attending or working in the district.
It has also left little time to attend to the more difficult issues that administrators would ideally have addressed if there was more stability, issues touching on both social and academic problems that take time to root out and work through. Bringing in Sauer, who knows exactly what he is in store for, could be a calculated move on the school board’s side to establish some permanence and leadership without the worry of a newcomer having “culture shock,� which could send him or her reeling back to where he or she came from, tasks unfinished.
Also, Sauer has a reputation for being strict. He is known to set down rules that he expects to have obeyed. In a school like Webutuck High School, where students need to improve their academic focus as well as their social skills, this may not be a bad thing.
Should he rule with an iron fist? Well, it’s hard to say, especially without the first-hand knowledge of experiencing exactly how he runs things. And certainly, if the complaints made at last week’s BOE meeting that he has anger issues, humiliates students and shows favoritism are true, that’s unacceptable. The school board and the superintendent would then have to address and solve those issues immediately. Period.
But if parents are just upset because their children have been disciplined, well, there’s not much to say except maintaining proper behavior on the school campus is appropriate. It’s the principal’s job to suitably discipline students, and they should abide by the school’s rules of behavior. Those rules have long been ignored at Webutuck, and it’s high time they be followed. If Sauer is the one to make that so, then by all means the community should encourage that.
Concerns were raised last week because Sauer was asked to resign from his position as principal from the Brockport Central School District outside of Rochester, for reasons unknown. It’s the district he served in after he resigned from Webutuck. It would be better, certainly, to have more information about that, to comfort and reassure us, but the circumstances regarding his departure are confidential. That is unfortunate and disconcerting.
However, there must be trust placed in the BOE regarding its decision that Sauer is qualified for the position at Webutuck, and that the recommendation from his most recent post in North Carolina was sincere. More importantly yet — and the school board seems to get this — as high school principal, Sauer doesn’t have to be the most popular man on campus, he just has to do his job and earn people’s respect. And there seems to be little dispute that during the three years he served at Webutuck High School, from 2004 to 2007, even those students who weren’t fond of him had to admit that the school was in better shape after he joined the administration. That’s saying something.
We hope those sentiments will again hold true once Ken Sauer returns to the halls of Webutuck High School. We’re not exactly sure what to expect, but we are looking forward to his arrival as an opportunity for the school to improve. We’re optimistic and hoping to award high marks.
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.