Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
SHARON — December marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Sharon Woman’s Club (and yes, it is the Woman’s Club and not the Women’s Club).
The volunteer organization was started in 1910 — at a time when Connecticut women had not yet been granted the right to vote, and when women were expected to stay out of the social and political realms. The purpose of the club was to give women access to Sharon society and government, and allow them to effect positive changes on the town.
“The Sharon Woman’s Club was their network in a world where women had no access to information, government or a social life,†said club member Judy Albright, who is currently working on an exhibit highlighting the history of the club and its many projects. The exhibit will be at the Sharon Historical Society and will show how club members have engaged in many activities throughout the last century.
The Sharon club is part of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, a national organization involved in women’s issues including domestic violence, family needs, education and community development.
According to the federation’s website, it was credited in 1930 with establishing more than 75 percent of the nation’s libraries.
In 2010, the Sharon Woman’s Club is still active in the Sharon community, holding many fundraising and social events. A look at a timeline of the group’s activities over the years offers a mirror to life in the nation and in Sharon since 1910.
100 years of Woman’s Club
Dec. 12, 1910: A meeting to discuss the possibility of establishing a woman’s club in Sharon was held at the home of Mrs. William B. Coley; 15 women attended.
Dec. 19, 1910: The first official meeting of the Sharon Woman’s Club was held.
1911: The club became a member of the state and national General Federation of Women’s Clubs.
1917: A town meeting vote elected the Woman’s Club to assume responsibility for keeping Town Hall clean. This was a short-lived appointment. During this time, the club also supported World War I efforts, buying war bonds and sending Christmas packages to soldiers.
1911 through 1920: The woman’s club started a sewing class for children and the Sharon Garden Club, and petitioned for a teacher’s pension in Connecticut and against killing birds for plumage in women’s hats.
Club members initiated a Gypsy Moth Control Project to help rid the town of pests that were destroying trees. Children were paid 5 cents for every 100 moth egg masses they collected.
1929: A series of community meetings were held to encourage interest in the Kellogg Peace Pact.
1920 through 1930: The club petitioned congressmen to preserve water in national park reservations and supported a nine-hour day for female factory workers. The club also petitioned Sharon’s selectmen to lower speed limits through the town and worked to keep trees on the Sharon Green from being cut down.
1939: In honor of the 200th anniversary of the town of Sharon, the club organized a pageant in which 267 town residents took part in reenactments of historical events.
1930 through 1940: The club established a circulating library and supported the creation of the first regional high school in the state: Housatonic Valley Regional High School.
1945: The Sharon Woman’s Club Scholarship Fund, which continues today, was established. This same year, club members sponsored a community rally to raise money for a public beach.
1940 through 1950: The club raised money for war relief efforts, and members volunteered with organizations such as the Red Cross and the Nurses’ Aid Program. They supported the V-16 Club, which offered social activities for high school girls during World War II. Members sold war bonds, planted victory gardens and did salvage work.
1955: The Town Beach Project received an award of $300 from the State Federation Community Improvement Program. The project raised money to build a bath house and do landscaping work at the town beach.
1950 through 1960: The club sponsored a State Federation resolution supporting seat belts in cars. They also held a bicycle safety clinic for children and sponsored poster contests with the themes of bicycle safety and Keep Sharon Clean. The club also adopted a project to raise funds for street signs for the town.
1960: Street signs were donated to the town on the Sharon Woman’s Club’s 50th anniversary and a permanent Christmas tree was planted on the Sharon Green.
1967: The Keep Sharon Beautiful campaign was launched.
1970: The Keep Sharon Beautiful campaign culminated in the removal of 300 junk cars from the town.
1977: The club arranged for health screenings for the elderly and held a house tour to raise money for the ambulance fund.
1970 through 1980: The club initiated the installation of four-way stop signs at the intersection of routes 41, 4 and 343.
1983: The Town Beautification Project began with the planting of flowers on several traffic islands. Members planted 500 daffodil bulbs on the Green, and the clock tower was illuminated.
1990: Literacy volunteers helped students at the Sharon Center School, and two rose of Sharon trees were planted on the Green.
1991: The club supported legislation on the Women’s Health Equity Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, mammograms, youth suicide prevention and other issues.
1996: An Endangered Species exhibit was held at the Union Savings Bank, and later traveled to the Millbrook School and the Sharon Audubon Center.
1998: The Women on Wheels program began; anyone who was unable to drive themselves somewhere could call Town Hall and be matched with a volunteer driver to provide them with a ride.
2006: The club funded the creation of the town website, sharonct.org, and has since become a liaison to the town, working to keep improving the website.
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.