Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
FALLS VILLAGE — The Region One Board of Education voted Monday, Jan. 3, to direct regional Superintendent Patricia Chamberlain to provide the board with a plan of action to address the concerns raised in last month’s report from attorney Jeffrey C. Pingpank on the circumstances surrounding the August resignations of the principal and vice principal of Housatonic Valley Regional High School.
Comments from board members and from the public on the Pingpank report reinforced the attorney’s observation in the report’s introduction:
“For every person who advocated one position, there was another person who took the opposite view.�
The report, which mentioned Assistant Superintendent Diane Goncalves by name several times and recommended she be asked to “moderate her behavior,� inspired a letter from Claudia Parsons of Salisbury, who read her letter into the record during the first of two opportunities for public comment during the two-and-a-half hour meeting.
Parsons said she believes Pingpank’s “portrayal of Ms. Goncalves does not do her justice and presents her in a negative light.�
She went on to relate her experience with Goncalves in the context of her stepson, who has Down syndrome. Parsons credited Goncalves’ work at the Gengras Center in West Hartford with helping her stepson grow into “a confident adult.�
“If you believe only what you have heard of her in the press or through the rumor mill, you do not know her at all,� Parsons said.
But Lawrence Van Valkenburgh of West Cornwall also submitted a letter, decrying what he called Goncalves’ “ferocious lack of professionalism.�
“Ask yourselves if you would hire Pat Chamberlain and Diane Goncalves today. Ask yourselves if they are the best individuals to bring this school system to meeting its goals.�
The fissures were apparent among board members. Phil Hart, representing Cornwall, said he believed the board should identify “certain themes and the people they belong to, and get those people to respond.�
Gale Toensing, the board member from Falls Village, criticized critics of the report; accused Goncalves of attempting to “delegitimize the report by smearing the investigator’s ethics;� and said that the board has “abdicated some of our responsibility and shares some of the blame.�
She urged that the board implement the six recommendations from the Pingpank report and hold Chamberlain to a schedule for making the changes.
Jill Gibbons, the board member from Salisbury, said, “that there are some who try to dismiss it [the report] only speaks to its accuracy.
“Let us act accordingly, from our best selves.�
Toensing suggested forming a committee that would include members of the public, board members, administrators and teachers to review the report and come up with a plan.
Hart demurred, saying, “I’m not sure we need one more group of people to interpret the report.�
He advocated asking the relevant groups — faculty, high school administrators and the Central Office — to report back to the board on those sections of the report that concern them.
“Not to defend themselves, but to get suggestions for improvement,� Hart added. “Not to argue about the report.�
In the public comment section that followed, Amy Wynn of Falls Village wondered why anyone who was reluctant to speak to Pingpank for fear of retaliation would do so now. “I’m not sure the format you’re proposing is going to encourage dissenting opinions.�
Jacqueline Rice of Salisbury, who is a math teacher at the high school, blamed the previous administration (of former Principal Gretchen Foster) for the divisions at the school.
“Now a few faculty members, board members and community members want to keep it going.
“Leave us alone,� continued Rice, clearly stirred. “Stop the witch hunt and let us do our job.�
And Roberta Scott of Falls Village added, “You can’t ignore the problem. The taxpayers are angry and ashamed of the Board of Ed. You have to look at yourselves.�
Note: Toensing announced she was holding a meeting at the Falls Village Town Hall Thursday, Jan. 6, at 7 p.m. to meet with townspeople and receive their input.
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.